Category: Uncategorized

Is there support for denying the traditional view on hell in Anglican orthodoxy?

This post is outside of my usual purview, being about Anglicanism, though I have written about other traditions in the past. I am engaging this topic not because it is weighty to me personally but because prominent Anglican YouTuber Paul Facey denies the traditional view on hell (TVH)1 in favor of annihilationism (AKA conditional immortality). I replied to one of his tweets noting the lack of support for this doctrine within his tradition, to which he replied that there is support for denying TVH in the Anglican tradition and attached a link to an article by the North American Anglican by Fr. River Devereux, a universalist. This post is a brief reply to that article.

To give a brief summary, the article argues that in 16th century Anglicanism there is at least hopeful language with respect to salvation of all men and that in the 17th century and onward, there is support for non-TVH positions. My contention in my original tweet was that the “entire post-Reformation [Anglican] tradition believed [TVH].” While not explicitly stated, by this, I meant the more orthodox strain of Anglicanism. If someone claimed the “entire post-Reformation Lutheran tradition believed X,” and the opponent replied, “But what about Agricola, Spener, Calixt, Leibniz, and Bengel? They denied X,” this would be a weak reply because these figures were known for their heterodoxy, and while they are viewed with some amount of respect among Lutherans, they are always taken with a grain of salt and a healthy dose of suspicion. I believe this is effectively what Fr. Devereux has done in this article.

My response to Fr. Devereux

16th century Anglicanism

Fr. Devereux’s primary point in the 16th century is that several Anglican sources are favorable to language of salvation being for all people. I believe the point is overstated. He points to this language in Richard Hooker’s Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity:

By entreating for mercy towards all, we declare that affection wherewith Christian charity thirsteth after the good of the whole world, we discharge that duty which the Apostle himself doth impose on the Church of Christ as a commendable office, a sacrifice acceptable in God’s sight, a service according to his heart whose desire is “to have all men saved,” a work most suitable with his purpose who gave himself to be the price of redemption for all.

And he points to the Litany:

That it may please thee to bring into the way of truth all such as have erred, and are deceived,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

That it may please thee to give to all thy people increase of grace, to hear meekly thy Word, and to receive it with pure affection, and to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit,
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

And the third Collect appointed for Good Friday:

O merciful God, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, nor wouldest the death of a sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live: Have mercy upon all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Hereticks, and take from them all ignorance, hardness of heart, and contempt of thy word; and so fetch them home, blessed Lord, to thy flock, that they may be saved among the remnant of the true Israelites, and be made one fold under one shepherd, Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.

The language is squarely inline with orthodox Lutheran, orthodox Anglican Davenantist, and French Amyraldian soteriology, This is not a leaning toward universalism or even a “hopeful universalism” at all in my opinion. It’s merely a moderation of high Calvinism.

The article also contends that none of the formularies require a belief in TVH (bold mine):

When Thomas Cranmer drew up his Articles of Religion in 1553, there were Forty-Two of them, not the eventual Thirty-Nine, and its final two articles condemned those who sought to restore the doctrines of millennialism and universal restoration. However, when the Articles were revised, they were omitted for reasons not entirely clear. As a result, there is nothing in the Articles of Religion that requires a belief in eternal conscious torment without the hope of repentance, which is something that later universalists would come to point out.

I would like to contest the emphasized section from two parts of the Anglican formularies: the Athanasian Creed (contained in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer) and the Two Books of Homilies (prescribed in article 35 of the 39 articles).

The Athanasian Creed states:

And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting: and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
This is the Catholick Faith: which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

I am very aware that non-TVH proponents will say that those cast into everlasting fire will be removed from the fire, though the fire itself will be everlasting. I believe this is a very post-modern reading of the creed and is totally removed from the original meaning. The Athanasian Creed comes from the late patristic or early medieval period, a time in which the phrase undoubtedly would have not been intended to mean that the fire would be everlasting but people would be removed from it.

Onto the Second Book of Homilies, Article 35 of the 39 Articles says:

The Second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people.

In the Second Book of Homilies, Homily 20, we find this quote (bold mine):

Because they hardened their hearts, and would in no wise return from their evil ways, nor yet forsake the wickedness that was in their own hands, that the fierceness of the Lord’s fury might depart from them. But yet this is nothing in comparison of the intolerable and endless torments of hell fire, which they shall be fain to suffer who after their hardness of heart, that cannot repent do heap unto themselves wrath against the day of anger and of the declaration of the of the just judgment of God [Rom. 2:5].

This seems to clearly profess TVH; perhaps Fr. Devereux missed this when writing his article. At the very least, it seems worthy of address.

17th-18th century Anglicanism

The article continues with the 17th-18th century. First, I want to point out that the earliest support he finds for this view in Anglicanism is 1649. This means that for the first 120 years of Anglicanism (beginning in 1529), TVH was the universal view. Second, to get a lay of the land let’s list the dates of the authors given in support of non-TVH views:

Gerrard Winstanley (1609-1676)
Benjamin Whichcote (1609-1683)
Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667)
Perry Sterry (1613-1672)
Henry More (1614-1687)
Ralph Cudworth (1617-1688)
John Smith (1618-1652)
Richard Coppin (fl. 1646-1659)
George Rust (c. 1627-1670)
Jeremiah White (1629-1707)
John Tillotson (1630-1694)
Thomas Burnet (c. 1635-1715)
Joseph Glanvill (1636-1680)
William Law (1686-1761)
Thomas Newton (1704-1782)
James Relly (1721/2-1778)
William Newcome (1729-1800)

These dates are important because one can find support for a wide swath of doctrines in every Protestant tradition after the era of orthodoxy ends. With the sweeping victory of rationalism and other movements (Socinians, radical Remonstrants, liberals, etc.) every heresy under the sun was tolerated in many regions. Each tradition has a different story in this respect. Orthodox Lutheranism was waning in the early 18th century and effectively ends when Loescher is sainted in 1749. The Reformed tradition has a similar trajectory, though drags out on its last leg longer, effectively ending with the death of Bernardinus de Moor in 1780. As for Anglicanism, the Bangorian controversy (1717), Samuel Clarke (an Arian, 1675-1729) as the Queen’s chaplain, and the rise of latitudinarianism in the late 17th century probably put the end of Anglican orthodoxy at 1729, the year in which Samuel Clarke died a minister (the rector of St. James’s Westminster!) in good standing with the Church of England as an Arian.

The end of an era of orthodoxy does not mean that there were no orthodox figures past a certain year, but rather that orthodoxy was no longer the plurality position and other positions dominated the schools and clerical class. I believe taking note of this date (1729) is important, however, as my original contention was that non-TVH views did not have support in the Anglican tradition in the Reformation and post-Reformation era, which is shorthand for the “orthodox” period, which I am claiming ends roughly in 1729. That being said, I will discuss all the authors cited from the 17th-18th century because all of them were at least alive at the time of Clarke’s death (Newcome being just over a month old when Clarke died).

Now let’s examine the authors. Were they orthodox Anglicans or were they on the fringes? Are these authors orthodox Anglicans with only the single aside of being universalists or annihilationists?

Gerrard Winstanley (1609-1676) denied the bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ, denied the historicity of Genesis, interpreted the Bible very allegorically, and even stated that scripture was an unsound foundation. His EBSCO article states that scholars debate whether he should be considered a Christian at all (according to secular standards).

Benjamin Whichcote (1609-1683) denied total depravity and was accused of semi-pelagianism. He was suspected of being influenced by paganism, Socinianism, being a Remonstrant (for why that is concerning, see this blog post), and latitudinarianism. Tuckney accuses him of rationalism.

Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667) effectively denied the doctrine of original sin in Unum Necessarium (1655); Gilbert Sheldon (bishop of London 1660–63 and archbishop of Canterbury 1663–77) had doubts about his personality and temperament (Dictionary of Irish Biography).

Perry Sterry (1613-1672) was influenced by heretical Theosophist Böhme. He was considered a very obscure preacher with opaque, mystical sermons. He was considered difficult to distinguish from the Ranter association. He had a failed prophecy of the second coming in the 1650s and was a millenarian. He was sympathetic to Quakers. He held conventicles in London after the 1662 Act of Uniformity (IE illegal non-conformist activity).

Henry More (1614-1687) affirmed the pre-existence of souls. His affirmation of Article 17 (Predestination and Election) is questioned. He supported Christian Kabbalah. He was considered extremely idiosyncratic, even for a latitudinarian.

Ralph Cudworth (1617-1688) was accused of both tritheism and Arianism. He revived Plato’s idea of a “world soul,” seemingly with the intent to eliminate the need for direct divine action in teleology. He supported non-conformists.

John Smith (1618-1652) was a strangely mystical theologian who revived Origen’s “Spiritual Senses.” He was friendly to non-conformists. He did not publish any works while alive, which makes information on his theology more difficult.

Richard Coppin (fl. 1646-1659) was accused of being a Ranter and was imprisoned on this charge. He denied the label but was nonetheless close to them theologically. He leaned into pantheistic ideas. He was accused of antinomianism. He was accused of denying Christ’s perfection and the resurrection of the dead on the last day. He was hated and rejected by his first preaching station in London. He was repeatedly tried for heresy and found guilty on more than one occasion, even being imprisoned, but he was narrowly released on each occasion for one reason or another. He preached without ever being ordained based on his claim of an “inward experience” that called him to preaching. In late life he became an independent preacher from the church of England (IE a non-conformist).

George Rust (c. 1627-1670) affirmed pre-existence of souls and a cyclical history of the universe. His anonymous work supporting Origenism was censured. He was buried with honors but likely would not have been, had his work been de-anonymized during his lifetime.

Jeremiah White (1629-1707) was a non-conformist and the chaplain of Cromwell; after the 1662 restoration, he continued association with the Cromwell estate. He was also associated with the “Calves’ Head Club,” which publicly celebrated regicide and was made up of non-conformists and Anabaptists alike.

John Tillotson (1630-1694) was suspected of Socinianism because of his friendliness toward them and because of “incautious” language in a 1693 sermon on the Trinity in which he denied the Son’s self-existence. In one of his last letters in 1694 he wrote “I wish we were well rid of [the Athanasian Creed]” (Dictionary of National Biography). He was ordained in 1661 without subscription, emphasized reason over dogma, was a latitudinarian, and had a suspect marriage to Elizabeth French, a niece of Oliver Cromwell. Tillotson ultimately defended TVH anyhow; he merely left open the possibility of other positions.

Thomas Burnet (c. 1635-1715) treated much of scripture as allegorical, including the fall. He was a millenarian. He rejected original sin. He called the traditional theory of the sacraments “magical” and rejected it. In 1695 he was forced to resign from his courtly office. Some sources even suggest he might have been a closeted atheist.

Joseph Glanvill (1636-1680) affirmed pre-existence of souls and was a firm latitudinarian. He also held to the unusual epistemology of rational fideism.

William Law (1686-1761) was a Böhme enthusiast and was accused of being “oversubjectivist.” He approached the edge of the Quaker doctrine of “Inner Light.” His work was highly controversial and Warburton accused him of the “rankest fanaticism.” He refused to take the oath of allegiance to King George I, was removed from his position at Cambridge, and was forbidden from preaching and teaching.

Thomas Newton (1704-1782) not only held to universalism for men but also for Satan himself. He was an historicist millenarian and believed in Jewish Restoration. He promoted John Milton.

James Relly (1721/2-1778) was a Methodist (thus, outside the English Church) and was regarded by Wesley, Whitefield, and others as an antinomian, among other accusations. He rejected sacraments altogether. He professed the strange doctrine of “Finished Salvation.” He taught that believers no longer sin. He founded his own sect, often called “Rellyites.” He was convicted of committing fraud and called “black with crimes; an atrocious offender, both in principle and practice” by former colleagues. He was considered rough in mannerisms, and he was ultimately buried in a Baptist burial ground.

William Newcome (1729-1800) is primarily remembered for his revision of the KJV, which was withheld from publication during his lifetime, likely over concerns about heterodoxy in the translation and textual choices. He was influenced by Daniel Whitby (an Arian), John Taylor (a radical Arminian, leaning toward Pelagianism and Arianism), and Benson (a Socinian).

I believe an honest assessment shows that not a single one of these authors is an orthodox Anglican. Three of them are not really from the era of orthodoxy at all. Several had unsound standing with the English Church, even being outside of it entirely. Others, while in good standing with the church, supported or had close ties to dissenting groups. All of them have more than one point of heterodoxy apart from universalism or annihilationism. They largely did not use historic methods for hermeneutics and embraced unusual philosophical positions. Some openly embraced Origenism wholesale, not merely universalism.

Conclusion

While there is some support for non-TVH positions in the English Church beginning in 1649, it is wholly by heterodox figures. The formularies themselves profess TVH. The history of non-TVH positions in the English Church demonstrates that it is largely driven by false philosophies used to override the historical position of TVH. Those wishing to be inline with the formularies and historic orthodox Anglicanism should hold to TVH.

1] I have refrained from using the phrase “Eternal Conscious Torment” or “ECT” as I do not believe the term is neutral in this debate, despite its common usage. The term appears on Google Ngram first in 1817, next in a handful of uses between 1874 and 1900, next in 1950-1951, then in 1961-1976 it gets a handful of uses, before reappearing in 1984, and then permanently staying in use after 1987. Close matches include a 1740 Annihilationist work using the phrase “Eternity of Hell-Torments considered” and A.A. Hodge’s Commentary on the Westminster Confession of 1869 stating “That the reprobate are to be awarded a place with the devil and his angels, to be endured with conscious torment and shame through a ceaseless eternity.”

Consistent Illiberalism and Private Property: A Reply to Dr. Cooper

Jordan Cooper recently made a post on X about inconsistency in application of adopting ideas contrary to enlightenment liberalism. I don’t intend to reply to the whole post (this would require much more time and effort), but I do want to reply to this section (emphasis mine, for portions to which I will reply):

I don’t have a problem with people pushing back against Enlightenment liberalism. There are, I think, good reasons for doing so in several areas. What I do have a problem with, however, is attempts to selectively critique liberalism, or selectively use older sources, to defend some particular prejudice you have in the current cultural political climate, without clear methodological consistency.

If you want to try to justify slavery or some other social hierarchical ordering by citing the Enlightenment privileging of “equality” (a term which must be defined because there are all sorts of different kinds of equality), then you must also get rid of all of the other political developments that arise from such a notion of equality. This would include gun rights and individual liberty over things like getting a vaccination or wearing a face mask when the government tells you to.

The point is that the same people who constantly claim that they are just rejecting Enlightenment secularism to justify their racial animosity or whatever it might be also rely so heavily on the presuppositions of liberalism that they do not even recognize them. As I have pointed out several times, Luther preaches explicitly to his congregation that they are to submit to their authorities on every single earthly matter. According to Luther, the government can tell you what to do with your bodily life, and the magistrate owns your property. No one adopts this view today (ok, maybe some Marxists do, but in a different context).

Of course, people who do this don’t actually want to implement Luther’s entire political and social theory (and even where they claim to, they don’t). They just want to adopt whatever elements of it that they think are politically expedient for their own purposes.

I will reply to each part below.

What I do have a problem with, however, is attempts to selectively critique liberalism, or selectively use older sources, to defend some particular prejudice you have in the current cultural political climate, without clear methodological consistency.

My goal is consistency, and as I have explained in previous posts (On Great Books and Did the Reformation Cause Modernism?) and in our YouTube videos critiquing “Christic Liberalism,” (Pt 1, Pt 2) I do intend to critique enlightenment liberalism. In fact, this is why I have translated (with AI) such an enormous amount of material on this (more in progress)– selectively building off of one author is problematic and will reveal blind spots. It is better to have a large collection of complete material (as opposed to selections) to entertain such a project.

This would include gun rights and individual liberty over things like getting a vaccination or wearing a face mask when the government tells you to.

Yes. Dr. Cooper is correct. Fire arm rights and many “individual liberties” are not God-given, nor are they some foundational undergirding. I reject that this is the case. As the meme goes “Your terms are acceptable.”

Whether fire arm rights are a prudent positively established right is another story, and I think it is a prudent right. Luther does make a case for self-defense (as does Hollaz: “For he who has been provoked by injury from another and thus thinks about avenging and repelling the injury, and preventing greater evils, does not offend the other, but defends himself.” -On the Magistrate q. IX), and in our current age, having a fire arm is nearly essential to do this, so it’s a very reasonable positive right to grant, even if it’s not foundational or required to a political system. Weapons were regulated in Luther’s era and the periods before and after. The reason long swords are primarily associated with knights is that often only knights (or others above them) were permitted to carry longswords in public. Others had to carry shorter swords for defense. It is nothing new to have laws regarding self defense or weapons, so I am obviously okay, in principle, with weapon regulations, even if I do not typically think they are prudent in our current context. Politics is frequently a game of prudence, so a law can be very bad even if it is technically “allowable” under the rights of a magistrate.

As I have pointed out several times, Luther preaches explicitly to his congregation that they are to submit to their authorities on every single earthly matter. According to Luther, the government can tell you what to do with your bodily life, and the magistrate owns your property. No one adopts this view today (ok, maybe some Marxists do, but in a different context).

The question here is actually if Dr. Cooper is being consistent in his critique of his interlocutors. Are his interlocutors focused on reproducing Luther’s particular system? Or are they drawing on a larger body of thought? The reason Dr. Cooper’s X post exists is in a controversy over Rev. Karl Hess’s presentation at the Bugenhagen conference on the American Interim. Does Hess only cite from Luther though? Does he profess to follow Luther’s system? No, Hess also discusses the Augsburg Interim, which occurs 2 years after Luther’s death, and discusses Walther, the father of American confessional Lutheranism. More importantly for my own post, do I seek to follow Luther’s system? No. And is it fair to consider myself an interlocutor? I believe it is– the Scholastic Lutherans YouTube channel is a relatively well-known channel in internet Lutheranism at this point; we have done four videos on political theology (the two aforementioned videos on Christic Liberalism, our reaction to the On the Line debate on Christian Nationalism, and a recording of Gerhard’s chapter on the Political Magistrate from his Divine Aphorisms); and I have very publicly promoted our compend on political theology. I intend to build off of more sources than Luther. That is, in fact, the entire point of the political theology compend– to include a wide array of authors from our tradition. Luther is great and is one source I consider when weighing opinions and arguments, but he is merely one among many of our theologians, and I don’t consider him our greatest (even in his own century, I prefer Chemnitz to Luther and believe Gerhard is the greatest theologian outside of the scriptures).

More to the point Cooper is specifically making, can the government tell us what to do with our bodily life and does the magistrate own our property? I answer from our dogmaticians that this is not the case, and that if Luther is being interpreted rightly by Dr. Cooper (I will simply grant this, though I have not dug too much into this particular question), Luther is a minority and disagrees with his own contemporaries and the tradition after him. Consider the following quotes:

SPANGENBERG: Is the power of rulers infinite? No, for they ought to command and do nothing against the law of God or the law of nature. They are to blame also when they command anything against the law of their kingdom or against the form of their empire. It was not lawful for Ahab to take wrongfully the vineyard of Naboth the citizen against his will, so it is not lawful for princes to withdraw the goods of their citizens so much as they please and at their own pleasure, for the citizens are Masters of their own goods, and John the Baptist says, “be content with your wages” etc [Luke 3:14]. For this reason the place of the kingdom’s right or title in Samuel does not grant immeasurable license unto princess, but speaks of their wages; that is to say, it grants them to take wages from the goods of private men for the necessity of the commonwealth.

SELNECKER: “And it is said that Cato the Elder once remarked: ‘Thieves of private property live in chains, but thieves of public property walk in gold and purple.'” And later “For these [things of subjects] are not merely private goods, nor is it for kings to go wherever it pleases them, nor is it permitted for them to do whatever they wish, unless they want to reserve for themselves the name of tyrants, as must be said elsewhere.”

BRENZ: “But if a prince should catch an eel and, according to the proverb, ‘play slippery games with cities,’ that is, if he seeks his own private gain in this matter and gathers these things to serve himself alone, he is no longer to be called a minister of God, nor even of the Republic, but administers his own private affairs, since all things (when he administers them properly) ought to be a subsidy for everyone, he claims for himself alone.“

This is a pretty cut and dry case in my opinion. Spangenberg, Selnecker, and Brenz all seem to affirm the existence of private property and deny that the magistrate can simply take it. What is owed to the magistrate is our wages and not our property or private goods, and when wages are gathered, they must not be gathered for private gain but only the public good. We render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s, but our private property and goods do not actually belong to Caesar at all; our wages do, however. In effect, it is true that the magistrate could simply place a 100% income tax on our wages, but as it stands, what we currently own as private property is ours and not due to Caesar at all.

Dr. Cooper’s point seems to be that adopting this idea is something from enlightenment liberalism and that his interlocutors are being inconsistent by picking and choosing what they want from Luther and from the enlightenment. Not so! Brenz, Spangenberg, and Selnecker are not from the enlightenment at all and precede it entirely.

There are caveats to this of course, and those I am simply willing to grant. There are cases in which the government can seize property; for example, when the government gave you the property in the first place, they can revoke this right (such as through a government job or benefits). Another example would be seizure of property for not paying taxes, but this can only be done insofar as you owe the taxes, I.E. if you owe $1,000 in missed taxes, the government can seize $1,000 worth of private property, but no more. As another example, if you owe property tax, the government could seize your property, but the question is, “In the absence of property tax, can the government seize your currently owned property if you have lawfully paid your taxes?” And I believe the answer according to the above dogmaticians is “no.” In an extreme case if there is already established law in the land that private property does not exist, then you do not actually have private property, so the government could then take it all. (Though perhaps one could contend that a positive law denying the existence of private property is a violation of the above principles. That is a question beyond the scope of this post). As for our current American situation, however, many people have never worked for the government or received any government wages or benefits, and private property does exist by positive law, so the government has no such right to take already owned private property earned under such conditions (outside of property taxes, but this would not apply to, say, miscellaneous goods that are exempt from property taxes).

If someone would like to challenge my interpretation of Spangenberg, Selnecker, and Brenz, I would welcome that. Alternatively, if someone finds good reason to accept Luther’s reasoning over the reasoning of these three figures, I would also welcome that. If it turns out that Luther’s reasoning is better than the reasoning of these theologians, I would gladly change my opinion to that of Luther’s. My point stands, however, that saying that the government does not “own my property” is one that I believe is grounded in our dogmatic tradition prior to the enlightenment altogether. If someone wishes to take Luther’s opinion instead, they are welcome to do so, and we could have a healthy discussion about why one position is right or wrong. I don’t find Luther’s idea offensive or abhorrent fundamentally, though I do believe he is wrong; great men can make mistakes in reasoning. If it turns out my reasoning is wrong and that Spangenberg, Selnecker, and Brenz are actually in agreement with Luther (and my interpretation is wrong), I will gladly concede that I am wrong and that the government owns my property. Again, “Your terms are acceptable” Dr. Cooper.

Of course, people who do this don’t actually want to implement Luther’s entire political and social theory (and even where they claim to, they don’t). They just want to adopt whatever elements of it that they think are politically expedient for their own purposes.

Cooper is correct (but not for the reason he believes) that some of us do not actually want to implement Luther’s entire political and social theory. I do not. I do, however, want to adopt a political social theory that includes Luther among other great theologians and philosophers of our tradition and attempts to synthesize them. Other figures in this discussion, among whom are Rev. Hess and Dr. Ramirez, also seem to draw on more figures than Luther. The bigger point, however, is that Cooper is wrong in his second sentence that I (or others) simply want to adopt whatever elements are politically expedient for our own purposes. My goal is to follow our dogmatic tradition on this subject, especially that of Lutheran orthodoxy, and I believe Hess and Ramirez also want to follow more of our figures than just Luther, including figures such as the authors of the Magdeburg Confession or CFW Walther, and I do not believe they act merely for their own political expediency.

In conclusion, I don’t believe Cooper adequately addresses the current controversy, and I believe that myself (and Hess and Ramirez for that matter) are being consistent in applying principles. I am consistently an illiberal. I can appreciate some liberal thinkers (Burke is a variety of liberal after all and I like much of what Burke says), but ultimately, I draw on our baroque scholastic tradition and counter-enlightenment illiberals (Herder, de Maistre, etc) consistently.

Augustine’s story of two shipwrecked laymen

Gratian Decretal cover

In the Treatise on the Primacy and Power of the Pope, Melanchthon cites Augustine in paragraph 67 (Triglot edition):

For wherever the Church is, there is the authority [command] to administer the Gospel. Therefore it is necessary for the Church to retain the authority to call, elect, and ordain ministers. And this authority is a gift which in reality is given to the Church, which no human power can wrest from the Church, as Paul also testifies to the Ephesians when he says, Eph 4:8: He ascended, He gave gifts to men. And he enumerates among the gifts specially belonging to the Church pastors and teachers, and adds that such are given for the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Hence, wherever there is a true church, the right to elect and ordain ministers necessarily exists. Just as in a case of necessity even a layman absolves, and becomes the minister and pastor of another; as Augustine narrates the story of two Christians in a ship, one of whom baptized the catechumen, who after Baptism then absolved the baptizer.

I’ve seen several people ask where this can be found in Augustine either on Facebook or X or old forums. Few ever get a good answer. I hope this post sheds some light. The Kolb-Wengert edition of the Book of Concord gives the following citation: Gratian, Decretrum III, dist. 4, chap. 36, cited there as a letter from Augustine to Fortunatus. This is the Gratian Decretal, part 3, distinction 4, chapter 36. The Decretal is a 12th century canon law text and the cornerstone of Roman canon law until the 20th century. Part 3 is titled “On Consecration.” Distinction 4 is on baptism. Chapter 36 is titled “Baptism is valid even if administered by laypersons. Likewise, to Fortunatus” (this can be found in Patrologia Latina 187:1807C-1808C). The title has a footnote from Migne: “Non exstat ap. Aug. –cf. c. 21.” This means the letter to Fortunatus (from Augustine) is not extant, meaning it no longer exists in any known manuscripts. It also points us back to chapter 21 of the distinction, which says this: “Ipsum non est ap. Aug.; sunt tamen similia quaedam in epistola ad Fortunatum (epistola 228, Editio Maurina); — Ivo Panormitanus, Liber I, Caput 26; Decretum, Pars 1, Caput 191 (from the book to Fortunatus).” In English: “The passage itself is not found in Augustine; however, there are certain similar statements in the letter to Fortunatus (Letter 228 in the Maurist edition); — Ivo of Palermo, Book I, Chapter 26; the Decretal, Part 1, Chapter 191 (from the book to Fortunatus).” So the passage does not exist in any known manuscript of Augustine, but similar content can be found in the extant letter to Fortunatus. This work can be found here (NPNF V1-01:299-300) in chapter 3 (paragraph 6):

We rely, however, not so much on these documents as on the Holy Scriptures, wherein a dominion extending to the ends of the earth among all nations is promised as the heritage of Christ, separated from which by their sinful schism they reproach us with the crimes which belong to the chaff in the Lord’s threshing-floor, which must be permitted to remain mixed with the good grain until the end come, until the whole be winnowed in the final judgment. From which it is manifest that, whether these charges be true or false, they do not belong to the Lord’s wheat [Matt. 13:30], which must grow until the end of the world throughout the whole field, i.e. the whole earth; as we know, not by the testimony of a false angel such as confirmed your correspondent in his error, but from the words of the Lord in the Gospel. And because these unhappy Donatists have brought the reproach of many false and empty accusations against Christians who were blameless, but who are throughout the world mingled with the chaff or tares, i.e. with Christians unworthy of the name, therefore God has, in righteous retribution, appointed that they should, by their universal Council, condemn as schismatics the Maximianists, because they had condemned Primianus, and baptized while not in communion with Primianus, and rebaptized those whom he had baptized, and then after a short interval should, under the coercion of Optatus the minion of Gildo, reinstate in the honours of their office two of these, the bishops Felicianus of Musti and Prætextatus of Assuri, and acknowledge the baptism of all whom they, while under sentence and excommunicated, had baptized. If, therefore, they are not defiled by communion with the men thus restored again to their office,—men whom with their own mouth they had condemned as wicked and impious, and whom they compared to those first heretics whom the earth swallowed up alive [Num. 16:31-33],—let them at last awake and consider how great is their blindness and folly in pronouncing the whole world defiled by unknown crimes of Africans, and the heritage of Christ (which according to the promise has been shown unto all nations) destroyed through the sins of these Africans by the maintenance of communion with them; while they refuse to acknowledge themselves to be destroyed and defiled by communicating with men whose crimes they had both known and condemned.

Now, here is a translation (by Chat GPT 4o) of the passage in Gratian cited by Melanchthon:

Chapter XXXVI. Baptism is valid even if administered by laypersons. Likewise, to Fortunatus.

Baptism is holy in itself, which has been given in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, such that in the same sacrament there also exists the authority of the tradition from our Lord to the Apostles, and from them to bishops and other priests, or even to lay Christians, who come from the same origin and stock.

And further on:
§1. For when that story is told, it moves nearly all who hear it to tears. When on a certain ship there was no believer except for one penitent, a shipwreck began to threaten. There was present a certain man who was not forgetful of his salvation and who was an exceedingly insistent demander of the sacrament, yet there was no one who could give it, except that penitent; for he had received it, but on account of the sin for which he was doing penance, he had lost holiness, though he had not lost the sacrament. For if sinners lose this (the sacrament), then why, when they are reconciled after penance, are they not baptized again? He therefore gave what he had received, and lest he end his life in danger without reconciliation, he asked from the very one whom he had baptized that he might reconcile him—and it was done: they escaped the shipwreck.

You are aware of what they did. There was no one among them who did not believe their intention to be pious, such that they believed the Lord had been present with them in their decision in that danger. For a religious and humble soul, being moved, demanded the sacrament from a man, but obtained holiness from God Himself.

But if perhaps someone does not wish to believe this which I have recounted concerning those who were endangered by the impending shipwreck (for this is not commended by the authority of the divine Scriptures, but by a report with an uncertain author), I will not object, but I will ask: if something of the kind should occur, what is to be done? For no one can say that the one who, facing imminent death, desires to be baptized, ought to be abandoned. Whoever does not believe that one baptized by a penitent has been baptized, must at least believe that such a thing can occur.

So there is the end of the citation chain and a fuller explanation of what’s going on in Melanchthon’s Treatise. I would like to add that even if this letter is not from Augustine (which remains unknown– perhaps Gratian had access to another letter to Fortunatus which no longer exists), it could perhaps be from another church father and simply have been misattributed. Either way, Gratian thought this was an orthodox view, and Gratian himself is an authority in the Western church. The citation in the Treatise is merely to prove to Rome that our view is not novel and that great theologians of the past took the same position.

Towards a Theological Taxonomy

Scholars have written various works on denominational taxonomy (Backman 1983, Smith 1990, etc.). While categorization by theology has been attempted by some of these scholars, I found them lacking in terms of preparation for this post. Most academic work on the subject is engaging the topic from a sociological perspective, considering American demographics, church polities in relation to views of authority, or voting blocks. When the topic is engaged from a theological perspective, it is generally viewed from the lens of history, which is more helpful for theologians, but still fails to capture underlying similarities and differences in my opinion. Mere origin in a particular body does not necessarily mean there will be much theological heritage passed to a “child” tradition. I believe Plymouth Brethren (the hardline dispensationalist Christian tradition) are a case-in-point for this, coming from the Anglican tradition, yet bearing almost no resemblance to that tradition at all, apart from being largely present in the Anglo-sphere geographically.

Some have attempted a sort of theological positioning on axes such as Nate Bostian. Ironically, his Protestant section doesn’t elaborate much on Lutherans, which makes his blog post less helpful to me specifically, but his idea is interesting. While useful as a pedagogical tool, which was his intent, it doesn’t quite answer questions of taxonomy so much as place denominations on spectrums of theological positions.

More recently in the online theology sphere, Redeemed Zoomer did at least some mild taxonomy in categorizing Historic Protestants and Neo-Protestants as two distinct groups.

Methodists are curiously absent, perhaps because they break the mold he has set up

The Other Paul has also contributed to this debate in his categorization of Ecclesialism as a polemical category to group together Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Assyrian Church, and the less-prevalent micro-sects springing from these groups. The idea behind this is that in polemics, grouping “Protestantism” together and comparing it to Roman Catholicism, for example, is apples-to-oranges since “Protestantism” is not a single group but an umbrella category, like “Ecclesialism.”

And here are some images of denominational “family trees” that attempt to do taxonomy. You can find dozens of these if you Google “denominational tree.”

A theological approach

I’d like to propose a taxonomy of traditions based on theology. This scheme is aimed at categorizing theologically, not historically. Many taxonomies I’ve seen aim for a historico-theological categorization, but this results in unsatisfactory results if we simply wish to categorize groups by their theological positions, regardless of branches with which they share historical ties. This taxonomy is also more on-paper than on-the-ground. While that may limit the utility of this framing, the alternative has its problems as well. On-the-ground realities require surveying large groups of laity and clergy to hear their thoughts (which is beyond my monthly budget of $0), laity (and even clergy) often don’t actually know what they believe as Burge has mentioned, and attempting to lump together mainlines, evangelicals, fundamentalists, confessionals, and every other stripe and variety within a historic tradition will frankly yield absurd an unsatisfactory results– ELCA, NALC, LCMC, and LCMS simply do not have the same foundational beliefs for example.

The utility in the scheme I’m proposing is that it allows theologically conservative Christians (IE those who hold to the historic beliefs of a group) to compare and recognize how groups are related in a strictly dogmatic way. Quite literally, this categorization comes down to the historic dogma and historic practice of these traditions.

A beautiful MS Paint rendering
Zoom in on the Eastern section
Zoom in on the Western section
Zoom in on the Non-Catholic section

How groups were parsed:

A group qualifies as a theological tradition for this chart iff (if and only if) it is self-professedly Christian, is Trinitarian, has at least modest prominence in the Western world (international categorization opens a can of worms I am not qualified to touch, for example Neeism), exists today outside of micro-sects, is historically identifiable as a discrete group and is not able to be grouped into a larger tradition that is also discrete.
A group is Catholic iff it takes a favorable reading of the fathers and medievals and utilizes them positively in theology. (Note that this does not mean any of these groups is actually in alignment with the fathers and medievals, nor does it mean that they merely engage with the fathers in some way or another).
A group is Eastern iff it is Catholic and it has its primary theological lineage to the theology found in Eastern Sees of the patristic and medieval periods.
A group is Western iff it is Catholic and not Eastern.
A group is Protestant iff it is Catholic, Western, and shares the theological heritage of the Reformation era against the Roman Catholic Church.
A group is Non-Protestant iff it is not Protestant.
A group is Classical Protestant iff it is Catholic, Western, Protestant, and shares the theology of the historical confessions and practices of the Reformation era Protestant churches.
A group is Renewalist iff it is Catholic, Western, Protestant, and is a theological renewal movement of a Classical Protestant tradition.

A group is non-Catholic iff it is not Catholic.
A group is Nuda Scripturist iff it is non-Catholic and affirms that divine revelation is complete in Scripture alone and rejects any form of continuing revelation, whether through spiritual gifts (prophecy/tongues), inner light, apostolic offices, or prophetic interpreters.
A group is Neo-Revelationist iff it is non-Catholic and affirms Scripture as authoritative while also affirming some form of continuing divine communication beyond Scripture, whether through spiritual gifts (prophecy/tongues), inner light, apostolic offices, or prophetic interpreters.
A group is mixed iff it is non-Catholic and contains within its tradition both those who affirm nuda scriptura and those who affirm ongoing revelation, with no theological consensus on this matter across the tradition.

Notes

I can hear the keyboards typing! “[My denomination] is in the wrong spot!” “I do not believe X.” “Y is ambiguous.” “Why wasn’t Z included?” I think much can be clarified in this chart with definitions and explanations.

How were groups chosen?

I would like to start first with my criteria for including a group or not. A “modest prominence in the Western world” is perhaps vague; this I will admit! But I had to make a cut off somewhere to keep the graphic useable. I could have included, for example, certain Sedevacantist or True Orthodox groups, but this seemed, to be frank, like delving into microsects. I dug around various resources online listing denominations to attempt to get a thorough list without including traditions that were merely a few thousand people in the West.

How were termini chosen?

Secondly, I would like to clarify how and why the traditions terminate where they terminate. My criterion for identifying a theological traditions was to ask, “Is the tradition historically identifiable as a discrete group? Furthermore, can it be grouped into a larger tradition that is also discrete?” If the answer is “yes” to the first question and “no” to the second, then it can be considered a theological tradition. This gets difficult around the edges, but I attempted to do this as consistently as possible. This is the reason why Methodist/Wesleyan/Holiness/Nazarene (MWHN) are a single terminus. Whether a congregation and/or church body is one of these particular traditions as opposed to another can be very blurry. They are not discrete on their own, but as a collective they are a single discrete group. Similarly, while Dutch Reformed and Presbyterian are discrete groups, they can be grouped into a larger tradition that is also discrete, namely the Reformed tradition. Here my definition of the Reformed tradition is admittedly contentious, but this is the case no matter how I cut the definition.

Notes on Anglicans and Baptists in relation to the Reformed

Separating Anglicanism and Baptists as their own tradition apart from the Reformed tradition was a conscious choice and comes down to the qualifier “historically identifiable.” The Anglican tradition shares a lot with the Dutch Reformed and Presbyterian traditions, especially in the reformation and post-reformation eras, but beyond this, there is a visible and clear divergence which remains to this day, and because I’m writing this post in the year of our Lord 2025, this has to be taken into consideration.

I similarly see others concerned with my placement of Baptists. Are not Baptists closely related to the Reformed tradition, remaining in the “Catholic” camp? My reasoning here is that while there is an historic tie to the Reformed, Puritan/Congregationalist, and Anglican traditions, their theology as a whole group is very distinct from these groups. Early Baptist theologians such as John Gill or Benjamin Keach might very well be tightly tied to theology closely resembling Puritans like John Owen, but Gill and Keach are not representative of the Baptist tradition as a whole, nor are the early Baptist confessions. In fact, not a single Baptist church body today of any substantial size has a confessional subscription to Reformation or post-Reformation era confessional documents. Here are all of the conservative Baptist denominations I could find with over 30 congregations in North America: SBC, NBCA, BBFI, NAFWB, ABA, GARBC, BMAA, WBF, SBF, NMBCA, IFBI, SGBs, ORB, NABC, OFWBC, NTAIBC, GAB, SBiC, CBA, EARB, and GCEBC. None have a confessional subscription. Of these 6 are fully Calvinist, 2 are Moderate Calvinists, 5 are ambiguous, and 9 are Arminian. All of the liberal/moderate Baptist bodies of any note (ABC-USA, CBF, AoB, and CBM) are ambiguous on the Arminian-Calvinist debate and non-confessional. This is not a group of churches that fits under the Reformed umbrella clearly, and none of these churches on their official websites profess beliefs about upholding historic patristic, medieval, or reformation era beliefs or practices. The majority of theology coming from these church bodies is not engaging, let alone positively appropriating, patristic or medieval theology. This places them squarely in the Non-Catholic camp. There are individual congregations of course that are virtually Puritans/Congregationalists who believe in Credobaptism, but these are far and few between by comparison and are not representative of the Baptist tradition as a whole.

Evangelicals as a tradition

I foresee many questioning the tradition of “evangelicals” being included. This group is probably the most vague on the chart and also probably the least discrete, but it is nearly impossible to handle it otherwise. Evangelical is being identified here this way: I do not mean the sociological label. Nor do I mean the political label. Nor do I mean to identify “theologically conservative” groups. Nor do I mean to identify groups distinct from fundamentalists and distinct from liberals. I mean to identify groups such as Calvary Chapel, Vineyard Churches USA, Mosaic, ARC, Acts 29 Network, various non-denominational churches in the West, etc. “Evangelicals” tend to be similar in theology to Baptists and MWHN groups. Nearly all of them do not baptize infants. They do not believe in salvific sacraments. They are non-liturgical and use contemporary Christian music. They emphasize scripture, preaching, altar calls, emotional worship, and evangelism. I believe this is a fair description of the group that is extraordinarily nebulous, making it difficult to define cleanly. This group includes non-Pentecostal charismatics, neo-charismatics, moderate continuationists, and cessationists under its bubble. These groups are similarly blurry around the edges, but my contention is that they are more discretely identified as the evangelical tradition collectively than they are individually.

Conclusion

I hope readers find this helpful. I’ve put a lot of thought into this taxonomy over the course of a few years, periodically mulling. This taxonomy certainly has its limitations, but I also think it is useful in a way that previous attempts at taxonomy are not.

Three Golden Ages in the Church

I recently finished Bengt Hagglund’s History of Theology. It’s a shoddy work, but it did remind me of something I have read in Chemnitz (and heard from other theologians as well): Nearly all the greatest fathers of the church come from a single age. This is not to exclude the excellence of other men, but in stature, some simply stand above the rest, and the history of the church is not balanced, as if each era is simply as good or as bad as the last. This should be apparent from reading the Bible itself of course. I have heard some say in response to critiques of the church in our present day that each era has its woes and flaws. While this is true so far as it goes, I take this to be an attitude of complacency, making out our era to be just as good as those of the past. Surely, our era has some things that are better than in the past– modern technology makes access to theological resources easier than ever before, and we have one of the most powerful tools in all of theology now: Ctrl+F (a tool of great destruction in the hands of the unwise). But theologically, I cannot say the church today is simply as orthodox as it has been in other eras, despite flaws of those eras. It was only 70 years ago in the 1950s that the Synodical Conference was by-and-large on the same page on topics such as following Lutheran orthodoxy, traditional liturgy, unity of good order, etc. Now it seems you can find every which different doctrine and practice in Synodical Conference Churches, and we have managed to schism.

This post is not, however, about bemoaning flaws in the church today. I wish to return to Chemnitz!

Before we go on, we should note that almost all of the greatest fathers flourished at about the same time. Athanasius, as an old man, wrote to Basil, who was still young, and the letter is extant. Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus were in school together in Athens for several years and lived in the same house. There also exists a letter from Basil to Ambrose, and Ambrose in turn baptized Augustine. Jerome was an old man while Augustine was still a young man, as their exchange of letters shows. Epiphanius corresponded with Jerome. Chrysostom also was a contemporary. This was a beautiful period, and afterward there was hardly a shadow of such men in the church for many centuries. At almost the same time they began to flourish and at almost the same time they declined.

Martin Chemnitz, Loci Theologici Vol I, Treatise on the Reading of the Fathers or Doctors of the Church

I don’t believe Chemnitz means to discredit the work of earlier or later figures; he has great things to say about Cyprian, who lived earlier, and he makes use of later figures such as Isidore of Seville, Gregory the Great, and Suidas in this volume. But his statement stands! The greatest fathers of the church begin with Athanasius (296/298-373) and end with Cyril of Alexandria (376-444), or perhaps if we wish to extend the era slightly, Pope Leo I (391-461). This era includes nearly all the best-known names of the post-Apostolic church of the first millennium: Athanasius, Ephrem the Syrian, the Cappadocian trio (Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus), the Western doctors (Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine), Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, the Desert Fathers, and Pope Leo I. It also is the era of all the greatest early ecclesiastical historians: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozoumen, Theodoret, and Rufinus. Some minor but significant figures also fall in this era: Peter Chrysologus, Prosper of Aquitaine, John Cassian, Vincent of Lerins, Didymus the Blind, and others. No other era in the early church can compare by the number of great saints and theologians.

But it wasn’t all dark history for the church from then until the time of Luther. The middle ages has a similar era that produced nearly all the greatest men of its time: roughly from the time of Saint Dominic (1170-1221) to Duns Scotus (1265/66-1308). While the middle ages has some notable figures before this era, such as Anselm of Canterbury (1033/4-1109) and Anselm of Laon (1050-1117), and after, such as John Tauler (1300-1361) and John Ruusbroec (1293/94-1381), no other era compares in the density of flourishing. This golden age of the medieval period includes the founders of both the Dominican and Franciscan orders and their greatest doctors: Dominic, Francis, Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus, Anthony of Padua, Thomas Aquinas, Guillaume Durand, Thomas Gallus, Bonaventure, Henry of Ghent, Giles of Rome, Roger Bacon, and Duns Scotus. It also includes some of the most notable figures in church culture: Dante Alighieri, Pérotin, Franco of Cologne, and others.

And lastly, the era of the Reformation and post-Reformation from Luther (1483-1546) until David Hollaz (1648-1713) stands out for its enormous theological flourishing, serious church reform, voluminous hymnody and cultural output, and increased personal piety. Again, some figures before (Jan Hus (1369-1415), Johannes von Goch (1400-1475), etc) and after (Loescher (1673-1749), Johann Georg Hamann (1730-1788), etc) are notable, but the number of figures is small by comparison. This era features Luther, Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, Brenz, Chemnitz, Selnecker, Andreae, Musculus, Chytraeus, Korner, Kirchner, Aegidius and Nicolaus Hunnius, Hutter, Meisner, Mentzer I-IV, Johann Gerhard, Paul Gerhardt, Nicolai, Herberger, Calov, Brochmand, Quenstedt, Arndt, Glassius, Baier, and Hollaz (among others).

May Christ return or else grant His Bride another golden age!

Introduction to Soteriology: Single Predestination – a Scriptural and Patristic Apology

Note: For all Biblical quotations, the NKJV is used, unless I am citing the Greek Old Testament (LXX), for which the NETS is used. The italics in Biblical quotations are from the translators to note words added for clarity that are not present in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

A distinct aspect of Calvinist soteriology is double predestination. This doctrine squares well with the doctrine of limited atonement, discussed in a previous blog post. Double predestination states that God not only predestined some (the elect) unto salvation but also predestined others (the reprobate) unto condemnation. Generally, this is expressed in terms of “unequal ultimacy,” which is to say that God actively predestines the elect but passively predestines the reprobate, though some hyper-Calvinists may disagree.

Lutherans and Arminians reject that God predestines people unto condemnation, in line with their doctrine of universal atonement. While it is hypothetically possible to hold a doctrine of universal atonement and double predestination, this would lead to a great deal of theological tension to remain consistent and avoid logical contradictions.

The doctrine of double predestination is stated in the Continental Reformed confessions in the Canons of Dordt and in the Presbyterian confessions in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Moreover, Holy Scripture most especially highlights this eternal and undeserved grace of our election and brings it out more clearly for us, in that it further bears witness that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God’s eternal election– those, that is, concerning whom God, on the basis of his entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure, made the following decision: to leave them in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves; not to grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but finally to condemn and eternally punish them (having been left in their own ways and under his just judgment), not only for their unbelief but also for all their other sins, in order to display his justice. And this is the decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger.

Canons of Dordt, Article 15: Reprobation

VI. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, fore-ordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

Westminster Confession of Faith, Article III: Of God’s Eternal Decree

The doctrine of double predestination is rejected in the Lutheran confessions in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord and in the appendix in the 1592 Saxon Visitation Articles.

Therefore we reject the following errors:

1. As when it is taught that God is unwilling that all men repent and believe the Gospel.

2. Also, that when God calls us to Himself, He is not in earnest that all men should come to Him.

3. Also, that God is unwilling that every one should be saved, but that some, without regard to their sins, from the mere counsel, purpose, and will of God, are ordained to condemnation so that they cannot be saved.

Epitome of the Formula of Concord, Article XI: Election

The pure and true Doctrine of our Churches on this Article [On Predestination and the Eternal Providence of God]:

1] That Christ died for all men, and, as the Lamb of God, took away the sins of the whole world.
2] That God created no man for condemnation; but wills that all men should be saved and arrive at the knowledge of truth. He therefore commands all to hear Christ, his Son, in the gospel; and promises, by his hearing, the virtue and operation of the Holy Ghost for conversion and salvation.
3] That many men, by their own fault, perish: some, who will not hear the gospel concerning Christ; some, who again fall from grace, either by fundamental error, or by sins against conscience.
4] That all sinners who repent will be received into favor; and none will be excluded, though his sins be red as blood; since the mercy of God is greater than the sins of the whole world, and God hath mercy on all his works.

The False and Erroneous doctrine of the Calvinists On Predestination and the Providence of God:

1] That Christ did not die for all men, but only for the elect.
2] That God created the greater part of mankind for eternal damnation, and wills not that the greater part should be converted and live.
3] That the elected and regenerated can not lose faith and the Holy Spirit, or be damned, though they commit great sins and crimes of every kind.
4] That those who are not elect are necessarily damned, and can not arrive at salvation, though they be baptized a thousand times, and receive the Eucharist every day, and lead as blameless a life as ever can be led.

1592 Saxon Visitation Articles, Article IV: On Predestination and the Eternal Providence of God

Below the Lutheran position is defended, but before that I wish to apologize for how overdue this particular post was. I have written many other things instead of finishing off this series, but at the request of a reader, I have decided to finally finish it. Enjoy.

The Patristic Witness

There are a number of councils that anathematize double predestination. The Council of Arles (475 AD) and the Council of Orange (529 AD) are two early councils that condemn double predestination; later councils do the same in response to Gottschalk of Orbais (808-868 AD) and logical deductions rooted in the philosophy of John Scotus Eriugena (800-877 AD).

The positions of the two early councils are seen below.

I condemn with you that view… which states that Christ our Lord and Savior did not incur death for the salvation of all; which states that the foreknowledge of God violently impels man to death, or that they who perish, perish by the will of God… which states that some have been condemned to death, others have been predestined to life.

Council of Arles (475 AD), Letter of submission of Lucidus the priest

We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.

Council of Orange (529 AD), Conclusion

Among the writings of the individual early fathers, it should be noted that many do not entertain the idea of double predestination as they do not even believe in a monergistic single predestination. That is to say, they believe that predestination involves human action rather than being solely an act of God. This position, a synergistic predestination, makes a double predestination (at least as formulated by the Calvinist position) impossible. In fact, the idea of a double predestination is not something that even was proposed or addressed by the fathers prior to Augustine.

To see the primary authors on this subject that consider the discussion of double predestination, see my previous post on universal atonement. Augustine, Prosper, and Fulgentius are the authors that discuss the topic, and their position on double predestination is congruent with the Lutheran position. Johann Gerhard, the archtheologian of the Lutheran tradition, states in his volume On Creation and Predestination (§ 177), “We claim that many have been reprobated from eternity but, nevertheless, not out of an absolute hatred or decree of God, but because God foresaw that they would persist unto the end in their unbelief and impenitence. We seek the reason for reprobation in man himself and place it there, not in an absolute decree of God.” Thus, there is, in a sense, double predestination, but only on the condition that man chooses his own condemnation, and this is the position seen in Fulgentius of Ruspe, Ad Monimum Bk 1, and Prosper of Aquitaine, The Call of All Nations.

The Scriptural Witness

God Desires All to Be Saved

1 Timothy 2:3-4 reads, “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

2 Peter 3:9 reads, “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”

Romans 11:32 reads, “For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.”

Luke 19:41 reads, “Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it.”

On this verse I quote Gerhard (On Predestination § 65): The tears of Christ mourning the destruction of Jerusalem are described in Luke [19]:41. They are an obvious indication that Christ is hardly pleased with the temporal and eternal perdition of the Jews. For tears are “the legates of grief,” as Cyprian says (Letter 7, bk. 2). They are “the blood of the wounded spirit,” as Brenz says (on John 11).

Ezekiel 33:11 reads, “‘Say to them: “As I live,” says the Lord GOD, “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?”‘”

Man Causes His Own Reprobation

Matthew 25:31-41 reads, “‘When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, “Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.” Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, “Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?” And the King will answer and say to them, “Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.” Then He will also say to those on the left hand, “Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels…”‘”

Note that in for those who will inherit the kingdom, it was “prepared for you from the foundation of the world,” but those who are cursed are cast into an everlasting fire “prepared for the devil and his angels.” It was not prepared originally or from eternity for men but for demons. Election from the foundation of the world for the elect but not reprobation from the foundation of the world for the reprobate.

Acts 13:46-48 reads, “Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, ‘It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us: “I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.”‘ Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.”

The Jews judge themselves unworthy of everlasting life in their rejection of the Word of God. They cause their own reprobation. And in the last verse, it is said that those who were converted had been “appointed” but no contrast is given for those who rejected the Word apart from what has already been said: “you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy.”

Romans 11:9 reads, “And David says: ‘Let their table become a snare and a trap, A stumbling block and a recompense to them. Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see, And bow down their back always.'”

The context here is that Israel was elected but the rest are blinded. The important note here is that their snare or trap that blinds them is a “recompense” to them. They have caused it themselves.

Little else is said of this topic in scripture apart from Romans 9, which will be treated below. The reader must understand that the topic of double and single predestination is tightly tied into the other parts of soteriology, such as the extent of the atonement (as has been mentioned previously), and whether or not grace is resistible. If the Lutheran position on universal atonement, resistible grace, and the universal will to save all is granted, the Lutheran position on single predestination naturally follows. As a brief example, consider Acts 7:51: “You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.” On the Lutheran view of resistible grace, this is the Spirit genuinely pressing on the resistant Jews. The Spirit is active in His movement to convert them. This demonstrates that God has not “passed over” these men.

Addressing common counterarguments

Romans 9:14-23 is the central text to this debate. Here is the passage:

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Notes on the chief verses:

Romans 9:18:

This verse is sometimes used to say that God has not had mercy upon all, but this is expressly denied by Paul in Romans 11:32: “For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.” And this mercy is not a will without intention of fulfillment. Consider Romans 10:21: “All day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and contrary people.” (cf. Isaiah 65:2). And later in 22, Paul says God “endured with much longsuffering” over the vessels of wrath. This all goes to prove that God sought to convert and save them, ruling out a double predestination. Verse 18 is chiefly about ruling out works righteousness, hence in verse 16 earlier: “So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.”

Romans 9:22-23:

Examine the differences between the vessels of mercy and the vessels of wrath: 1) The vessels of mercy are prepared unto glory in the active voice (προητοίμασεν) and the vessels of wrath are prepared unto destruction in the passive voice (κατηρτισμένα). The quote Pieper, “Thus the use of the active in regard to the one group and the passive in regard to the other indeed indicates that the preparation for glory and the fitting unto damnation do not have the same author. The fitting unto destruction is not traced back to God.” (Pieper, Vol. III, Eternal Election, 7). 2) The vessels of mercy are “prepared beforehand” (προητοίμασεν) but the vessels of wrath have no corollary in the passage. There is eternal preparation for mercy but not for wrath.

Conclusion

The controversy of double vs single predestination should primarily be framed first with the other presuppositions on soteriology, and it is for this reason that I wrote this post last in the introduction to soteriology series. It is almost an appendix to the discussion as it presupposes the rest of it. I hope that this series assists others. Know that it is far from comprehensive, hence being an “introduction.” I am glad to have finally finished this series.

Further Reading

St. Prosper of Aquitaine’s The Call of All Nations

St. Augustine’s On Grace and Free Will

St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica on predestination

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 an interpolation?

This post is a little different than what I typically discuss on this blog and is very niche. I’ve been listening through Mike Winger’s series on Women in Ministry recently in order to understand the evangelical landscape and also to hear what contemporary egalitarian scholarship says about the topic. The second longest video in the series addresses 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, which is the head coverings passage. Of note was a particular argument that the section is actually an interpolation and should be removed from the text. Winger rather quickly dismisses this argument due to the lack of textual basis for removal and for its fringe position in scholarship. But I wanted to ask “Is there evidence for this?” and actually investigate it, if only to beat a dead horse. You can read Walker’s work arguing that it is an interpolation (he provides a history of the discussion in footnote 3). I don’t really take this argument to be serious, but I figured I’d investigate further just to see. In this brief post, I’m going to make three arguments that I believe are quite strong for its inclusion in the Bible.

Textual basis

Winger notes that there is no manuscript (mss) evidence for removing the passage– no mss omit the section. This cannot be emphasized enough. This alone should call into question why anyone would posit that it’s an interpolation and settle the whole matter. This is not like the Johannine Comma or the Long Ending of Mark, which have genuine mss debates. But let’s investigate further anyhow.

One litmus text for an interpolation is seeing whether the passage was cited throughout history. If the passage is an interpolation, we’d expect some people to have access to mss with the passage and some not, which would result in fewer citations of the section.

A search on Catholic Cross Reference for patristic citations of 1Cor. 11:2-16 yields 121 results, and a search on Biblindex yields 645 results. Let’s consider a passage of comparable length that does have significant variants: Mark 16:9-20, the Long Ending of Mark; 52 results on CCR and 464 on Biblindex. Note that the Long Ending of Mark has fewer citations than 1 Cor. 11:2-16. Even scaled for verse count, it is fewer. (12/18)*121=81 and (12/18)*645=430. What this could tell us is that fewer people had access to the Long Ending of Mark due to the mss variants.

Another litmus test (and probably a better one at that) for the passage on patristic citations is comparing it to the rest of the chapter (vv. 17-34); CCR: 137 results; Biblindex: 742. This is slightly more than the previous section, but when we scale it for the number of verses (15 verses in the supposed interpolation and 18 verses in the remainder of the chapter), it’s right in line ((15/18)*137=114 and ((15/18)*742=618). We actually see slightly fewer citations of the rest of the chapter by scale. Why would an interpolation have more citations by scale?

The patristic evidence in isolation is not a smoking gun by any means, but when you consider that no mss lack 1 Cor. 11:2-16, this simply serves to bolsters the point.

Vocabulary

Walker gives arguments related to vocabulary in his work, contending that 1 Cor. 11:2-16 does not use terms in a Pauline way. I’m not going to analyze that work; I don’t believe such detailed analysis on this topic is worth the light of day given the first argument in this post (though scholars have replied to him on the vocabulary issue). I’m going to do a simple analysis and ask whether there are any red flags that this would be an interpolation. There need to be serious red flags here to counter the first argument. If there aren’t any, it seems without warrant to put more effort into this question given the first argument made above.

One simple way to look at vocabulary of a passage though is simply to ask whether or not there are unique terms to the passage that don’t appear elsewhere in works of the same author. Unique terms on their own aren’t problematic if we wouldn’t expect them in other contexts, however. What we’re looking for are terms that only appear in 1 Cor. 11:2-16 that we might expect to appear elsewhere in the Pauline corpus but don’t. The following is a list of words that only appear in this passage and nowhere else in the Pauline corpus: ἀκατακάλυπτος, ξυράω, κομάω, περιβόλαιον, φιλόνεικος, and συνήθεια. Let’s look at each. I’ll provide the word with a link to Blue Letter Bible and the English definition from Strong.

ἀκατακάλυπτος – unveiled:—uncovered.

ξυράω – to shave or “shear” the hair:—shave.

κομάω – to wear tresses of hair:—have long hair.

περιβόλαιον* – something thrown around one, i.e. a mantle, veil:—covering, vesture.

φιλόνεικος – fond of strife, i.e. disputatious:—contentious.

συνήθεια* – mutual habituation, i.e. usage:—custom.

The first four words (ἀκατακάλυπτος, ξυράω, κομάω, and περιβόλαιον) would not be expected to be found elsewhere unless Paul were addressing issues about hair and covering things, which he never does elsewhere except in 1 Tim. 2:9 where he addresses modesty for women, but given the brevity of the address (a single verse), expecting Paul to use a particular term simply because he used it elsewhere is unreasonable. Paul does use “covered” (ἐπεκαλύφθησαν) language in Rom. 4:7 (citing Ps. 32:1-2) without ever using περιβόλαιον, but he does not expand on the discussion about covering, and furthermore, this is a different context of “covering.” In Romans Paul is talking about sins being “covered;” he is not discussing mantles or cloths themselves. Paul does elsewhere speak of “cloaks,” but this a moot point because Paul uses different words for “cloak” in different contexts. He uses πρόφασις (Phil. 1:18 and 1 Thess. 2:5) to mean a “pretence” for something, not for literal cloth, and he uses φαιλόνης (1 Tim. 4:13) to speak of a literal cloak, but here we wouldn’t expect him to use περιβόλαιον because that would refer to a “covering” or “hood,” not to the whole garment, which is what he left at Troas. If anything, all this demonstrates is that Paul uses different words for “covering” depending on the needed term for the context rather than using a single blanket term consistently. It should also be noted that περιβόλαιον is found in Heb. 1:12 (quoting Ps. 102:25-27), where it is indeed used to describe a cloth in a simile, but I’ve listed it here because Hebrews is of contested authorship.

The fifth word, φιλόνεικος, is unique to the passage at hand. To make this word evidence for interpolation, we would need a context in which we would expect to see the word in Paul or expect the construction to be foreign to him. Is there a context where we would expect to see this phrase? One might think to look at places where Paul discusses vices, especially quarreling or arguing, but when Paul discusses vices, he more often lists the vices themselves, not “lovers of [vice].” In the context of 1 Cor. 11, he’s not giving a list of vices, however, so it’s fitting that he uses φιλόνεικος rather than simply saying the vice. Perhaps the construction is foreign to Paul? Not so. He does sometimes use the similar construction “lover of [thing].” Consider Titus 1:8 in which he uses “lover of hospitality” (φιλόξενον) and “lover of good men” (φιλάγαθον). Additionally, Paul also uses νῖκος multiple times in 1 Cor. 15, which is probably the root of the second half of φιλόνεικος.

Lastly, συνήθεια on its own is simply not a common word in the Bible in general. It occurs in the LXX only in 4 Maccabees and only occurs elsewhere in John once, at least in the Textus Receptus and Majority Text. It does occur in Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:7 in the critical text; I’ve included it as a “unique” word only because it does not appear in some textual traditions for 1 Corinthians 8:7. The variant in the Textus Receptus/Majority Text in 1 Cor. 8:7 is a similar word (συνειδήσει). Paul also uses the root of this word (ἦθος) in 1 Corinthians 15:33, just adding σύν (with) to the beginning (σύν is also frequently used by Paul and so are other σύν constructions), so this is not unusual vocabulary for Paul either way.

In conclusion of this argument, a surface level look at unique words yields a very weak case for removal.

Novelty

This argument is also entirely novel, first being posed in 1935 in Remarques sur la littérature épistolaire du Nouveau Testament by A.F. Loisy, after which it seems it didn’t gain much attention until the 1970s when the passage became controversial given the egalitarian-complementarian debates and the rise of feminism (thus providing incentive for its removal by egalitarians and feminists). If there were a good case for removal or any evidence pointing in that direction, one would expect somebody to have pointed out the oddities at some point in history, but that is not what we see. The argument for removal also still remains an entirely fringe position to this day.

Conclusion

There is plenty of good reason to take this passage to be original, and the counter-evidence is lacking.

On Great Books

In 1952 Encyclopaedia Britannica published Great Books of the Western World in 54 volumes. The series is probably the most famous collection of “Great Books.” The series sought to promote liberal education, give readers familiarity with the Western canon, and engage them in “the great conversation” (the history of the development of ideas). With the increased interest in classical education in recent years, the series is highly relevant in that it seeks to provide books for something like a classical education. In many ways, the series succeeds, but it also falls short and is not without criticism. Some criticism has come from the “left,” wishing that there would be more “diversity” in the series or more “radical” texts. Readers might wonder why I might criticize standard texts from the Western canon, given that I am a promoter of classic texts, historic Western ideas in theology and philosophy, etc. The rubber meets the proverbial road in that the series fails in its omissions and includes many texts that are not “great” at all, unless one only means “greatly influential,” which the editors expressly deny is the purpose, or “greatly evil,” which is merely to say “not great at all, but rather the opposite.” Perhaps the most obvious example is Volume 50, which is Marx and Engels (Capital and Manifesto of the Communist Party). This is probably an uncontroversial take from anyone right of center, but I maintain that this is merely the most extreme example of a widespread problem in the series.

The reader must first understand that the so-called “liberal” education mentioned by the editors is not the classical education program. “Liberal” in this series refers to enlightenment liberalism, which promotes different virtues than the classic seven (faith, hope, love, prudence, justice, temperance, fortitude) under a different curriculum (not the trivium and quadrivium). In many ways, the enlightenment sought to untangle itself from this classical system and instead make something new, which may occasionally borrow from the classical system, but is not in itself based on the classical system. For example, “freedom” might be prized in both the classical and the enlightenment systems, but this term does not have the same definition. In another example, a mixed-polity government may be promoted both by Aristotle and renaissance humanists in the classical tradition and liberals in the enlightenment tradition, but what that looks like in the enlightenment tradition does not look the same necessarily. Not only this, but the series in Vols II-III provide a list of topics of “Great Ideas.” Each volume is supposed to discuss at least 25 of these 102 “Great Ideas.” But if one looks at these ideas, one will find an enlightenment liberal bias, for example “Evolution,” “Slavery,” and “Science” are included. None of these topics on their own are in themselves problematic, but categorizing these things as part of “Great Ideas” reveals some bias when other “Great Ideas” are missing (faith, hope, love, fortitude, grammar, geometry, music, etc). This misstep may seem small, but it is borne out strongly in the series. A great deal of focus is placed on utilitarian advancements and enlightenment ideas (more on this in a moment). In a classical education the emphasis is on the promotion of virtue through the trivium and quadrivium of grammar, logic, rhetoric, math, geometry, music, and astronomy (these last two have differing definitions from the modern usage). “STEM” fields are not unrelated to these; the quadrivium is tightly related to “STEM,” but “STEM” in itself today (and for most of the modern period) is highly focused on utilitarian ends, not promotion of virtue. “STEM” fields are seen as a means to the end of improved production of goods and the like, not an end in and of themselves (as is conceived in a classical sense), and many of the later works in Great Books of the Western World reflect the former, not the latter. These more abstract critiques bring us to the more particular discussion of book choices.

Perhaps the most obvious way that these biases play out in the series is just looking at the period choice of volumes. Vols I-III are introductory. Vols IV-XVIII are classical period. Vols XIX-XXII are medieval (though vols XXI-XXII are proto-renaissance volumes). Vols XXIII-XXIX (and Vol XXXII) are renaissance and scientific revolution. Vols XXX-XXI and XXXIII-XLVII are early modern period enlightenment works (for the most part). Vols XLVIII-LIV (or through LX if we include the 2nd edition) are modern period works downstream of the enlightenment. Some changes in the 2nd edition are positive. Vols XX, XXIII, XLIII, and XLIV offer some more renaissance works and some early modern and modern period works that are a move away from enlightenment ideas. One notices immediately that the medieval period is practically glossed over. The early medieval period does not have a single work. The high medieval period has a single work abridged from 3 original vols into 2. The late medieval period has 2 proto-renaissance works. Roughly 1000 years are given 4 vols total. The classical period has some good representation, but spans roughly 1200 years in 15 vols. The renaissance (roughly 300 years) get 6 volumes. The scientific revolution (concurrent with the renaissance and into the early modern period) gets 4 vols. The enlightenment (roughly 200 years) gets 12 vols. The modern period (roughly 200 years) gets the rest (11 or 24 vols depending on if you include the 2nd edition). The numbers don’t exactly add up to 54 (or 60 in the 2nd edition) because some figures fit into multiple categories. Roughly speaking, there’s a heavy bias in the works from 1500 onward. Every volume added in the 2nd edition was from after 1500. Only 21 vols are from before 1500. In the first edition this means there are 30 works after 1500. In the second edition, there are 36. Roughly 2200 years is put into 21 volumes, while roughly 500 is put into 36 volumes This is not for lack of great extant works prior to 1500; there are many.

It’s also noteworthy which works were chosen from these periods. The two late medieval vols (XXI-XXII, Dante and Chaucer) are proto-renaissance works rather than works that specifically represent the unique character of the late medieval period (such as folk fiction and epics, poets and musical texts, German mystical works, late scholastic works, nominalist philosophy, etc). Vol XXIII is Machiavelli and Hobbes. Both of these are transitional figures who can be classified as renaissance figures, but as I have argued previously, Machiavelli is a proto-enlightenment figure, and Hobbes is himself a founder of the enlightenment. Vol XXV is Montaigne, another proto-enlightenment figure (argued in the same post mentioned earlier), being a skeptic who sets up for enlightenment foundationalism. The early modern period is skewed as well. The enlightenment and scientific revolution get strong representation (the former is over-represented), but this is not at all characteristic of the period as a whole. In the 1500s-1600s, the dominant ideas were still classical/medieval thought, especially that of Aristotle and late renaissance developments. But this would not be the idea one gets from the Great Books series. Not a single work of renaissance or baroque scholasticism (works built on primarily Aristotelian and subsequent medieval and humanist developments) is included despite this being the primary literary output of the universities. Among renaissance works that are not proto-enlightenment, only fiction is included, no exploration of their ideas directly– only works that explore these themes through fiction. Very little is included in the series in terms of works opposing the enlightenment. Perhaps the only works in the original series that show opposition to enlightenment thought are Goethe’s Faust (Vol XLVII), Tolstoy’s War and Peace (Vol LI), Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov (Vol LII), and Hegel (Vol XLVI), three of which are fiction works, and Tolstoy and Hegel are very mixed bags in this respect. The 2nd edition does include Calvin’s Institutes (Vol XX) and Erasmus (Vol XXIII), which better represent renaissance humanism without being proto-enlightenment works, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche (Vol XLIII) for some existentialist philosophy (more of a different turn in thought than opposition to the enlightenment), and Alexis de Tocqueville (Vol XLIV) which is a liberal work but offers some critiques of the same. But the 2nd edition also intentionally added “diversity” (meaning diverse authors, not diverse ideas) and included figures such as Voltaire (a rather radical enlightenment figure).

I cannot entirely blame the editors of the series for some of the bias. Daniel Novotný has pointed out that renaissance/baroque scholasticism is basically an unexplored area academically, and Isaiah Berlin’s seminal works in counter-enlightenment were not published until after the 2nd edition of Great Books. Yet one cannot help but see the apparent bias for enlightenment ideas in the second half of the series when there were popular options otherwise (Burke, Herder, Hawthorne, Coleridge, Cooper, etc). Excusing the editors does not mean that we should simply follow them, however.

Below I offer an alternative 60 volume set to the Great Books series that I believe balances it better and provides for a liberal education in the classical sense of that term. This new set is still biased; it is biased in a classical and counter-enlightenment direction. I do not pretend to be unbiased here; rather, I believe this set better represents what is great about Western works of literature. I have not omitted figures for simple disagreement, nor do I endorse everything in these volumes. The editors of the original series say that they themselves do not pretend to agree with everything said in the volumes but rather present them as important to the history of ideas. I have kept some enlightenment liberal works for this purpose and have modified some volumes that I retained. Some liberal thinkers I have kept offer critiques of the liberal tradition (Burke, Tocqueville, Ames) and others can be read with a more critical lens even if that wasn’t the original intent (Melville). Vols I-III would need revision, but I will not go into any more depth here than that. There are many figures I would have liked to include, but space is limited with only 60 vols. When a volume is taken from the original series, I have included the number in parentheses. I have coded the volumes with letters as noted below for the convenience of readers.

I – The new series includes 3 introductory volumes.

C – 23 classical period volumes, with 13 volumes before 1 AD and 10 after 1 AD, beginning with Homer (c. 800 BC) and ending with Isidore of Seville (d. 636 AD).

M – 10 volumes of the middle ages beginning with Bede (672-735) and ending with Chaucer (d. 1400). 2 volumes of the early middle ages. 6 volumes of the high middle ages. 3 in the late middle ages. The inclusion of Islamic and Jewish works may be controversial in a series of the Western canon, but these works were built on classical Western sources and subsequently influenced medieval Western figures.

R – 8 volumes of renaissance material beginning with Copernicus (1473-1543) and ending with Milton (d. 1674).

B – 1 volume of baroque scholastic work (Vol XXXVIII – Poinsot/Scherzer).

S – 3 volumes of scientific revolution beginning with Copernicus (1473-1543) and ending with Leibniz (d. 1716) (though vols XXVII-XXX treat some medieval scientific developments and some scientific topics are touched in Poinsot/Scherzer).

E – 7 volumes contain enlightenment themes beginning with Gilbert (1544-1603) and ending with de Tocqueville (d. 1859).

Em – 15 volumes in the early modern period as a whole beginning with Luther (1484-1546) and ending with de Maistre (d. 1821).

Ce – 12 volumes contain counter-enlightenment themes of some variety beginning with Barrow (1630-1677) and ending with Herbert (d. 1986).

Mo – 12 modern volumes are included beginning with Wordsworth (1770-1880) and ending with Herbert (d. 1986).

  • Vol I – The Great Conversation (Modified Vol I) (I)
  • Vol II-III – Syntopicon (Modified Vol II-III) (I)
  • Vol IV – Homer (Vol IV) (C)
  • Vol V – Hesiod and Homeric works (C)
    • Theogony, Works and Days, Shield of Heracles, Homeric Hymns, and Homerica
  • Vol VI – Incomplete Hesiod works and pre-Socratic philosophy (C)
    • Hesiod
      • Catalogue of Women
      • Megalai Ehoiai
      • Wedding of Ceyx
      • Melampodia
      • Descent of Perithous
      • Idaean Dactyls
      • Precepts of Chiron
      • Megala Erga
      • Astronomia
      • Aegimius
      • Kiln
      • Biographical testimonies
    • Ancilla to the pre-Socratics
    • The Older Sophists
    • Delphic Maxims
  • Vol VII – Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes (Vol V) (C)
  • Vol VIII – Herodotus, Thucydides (Vol VI) (C)
  • Vol IX – Plato Tetralogies I-V (Modified Vol VII) (C)
    • I – Euthtphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo
    • II – Cratylus, Theaetetus, Sophist, Statesman
    • III – Parmenides, Philebus, Symposium, Phaedrus
    • IV – I Alcibiades, II Alcibiades, Rivals (Lovers), Hipparchus
    • V – Theages, Charmides, Laches, Lysis
  • Vol X – Plato Tetralogies VI-IX (Modified Vol VII) (C)
    • VI – Euthydemus, Protagoras, Gorgias, Meno
    • VII – Hippias Major, Hippias Minor, Ion, Menexenus
    • VIII – Clitopho, Republic, Timaeus, Critias
    • IX – Minos, Laws, Epinomis, Letters
  • Vol XI – Other Socratic Works (C)
    • Xenophon
      • Memoirs of Socrates
      • Apology of Socrates
      • Symposium
      • Oeconomicus
      • Anabasis
      • Hellenica
    • Spurious Platonic works
      • Definitions
      • Axiochus
      • Epigrams
      • Sysiphus
      • Eryxias
      • Halcyon
      • On Virtue
      • Timaeus Locrus
      • On Justice
      • Demodocus
  • Vol XII – Aristotle (Vol VIII) (C)
  • Vol XIII – Aristotle (Vol IX) (C)
  • Vol XIV – Hippocrates and Galen (Vol X) (C)
  • Vol XV – Euclid, Archimedes, Apollonius, Nicomachus (Vol XI) (C)
  • Vol XVI – Cicero (C)
    • In Verrem
    • Catilinarian orations
    • Philippics
    • On Oration
    • On the Republic
    • On the Laws
    • On Duties
    • On the Ends of Good and Evil
    • On the Nature of the Gods
  • Vol XVII – Seneca (C)
    • Moral Letters to Lucilius
    • On the Happy Life
    • On the Shortness of Life
    • On Anger
    • On Benefits
    • Thyestes
    • On Providence
    • On the Tranquility of the Mind
  • Vol XVIII – Lucretius, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius (Vol XII) (C)
  • Vol XIX – Virgil (Vol XIII) (C)
  • Vol XX – Plutarch (Vol XIV) (C)
  • Vol XXI – Tacitus (Vol XV) (C)
  • Vol XXII – Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler (Vol XVI) (C, R, S, Em)
  • Vol XXIIII – Plotinus (Vol XVII) (C)
  • Vol XXIV – Augustine (Vol XVIII) (C)
  • Vol XXV – Ecclesiastical History (C, M)
    • Eusebius and the continuation by Rufinus
    • Selections from Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Evagrius
    • Sulpicius Severus
    • Selections from Bede
  • Vol XXVI – Boethius and Isidore of Seville (C)
    • Boethius
      • The Consolation of Philosophy
      • Theological Treatises
    • Isidore
      • Selections from Origins
  • Vol XXVII – Alcuin of York, John Scotus Eriugena, Pope Sylvester II, Anselm of Canterbury (M)
    • Alcuin: On Dialectic
    • Eriugena: Selections from On the Division of Nature
    • Sylvester: Selected correspondence
    • Anselm: Monologion, Proslogion, and Why God Became Man
  • Vol XXVIII – Avicenna (M)
    • Selections from The Book of Healing
    • Selections from The Metaphysics
    • Selections from The Book of Knowledge
    • Selections from The Canon of Medicine
    • Selections from The Eastern Philosophy
  • Vol XXIX – Averroes and Al-Ghazali (M)
    • Al-Ghazali
      • The Incoherence of the Philosophers
    • Averroes
      • Selections from De Anima, Nicomachaean Ethics, and Physics
      • The Incoherence of the Incoherence
      • The Decisive Treatise
      • On the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy
  • Vol XXX – Maimonides (M)
    • Selections from The Guide for the Perplexed, the Mishneh Torah, and Medical Writings
    • Introduction to Pirkei Avot
    • Thirteen Principles of Faith
    • Letter to Yemen
  • Vol XXXI – Thomas Aquinas (Vol XIX) (M)
  • Vol XXXII – Thomas Aquinas (Vol XX) (M)
  • Vol XXXIII – Thomas von Kempis, Julian of Norwich, Meister Eckhart, Johannes Tauler, and anonymous works (M)
    • Kempis: Imitation of Christ
    • Julian: Revelations of Divine Love
    • Eckhart: Sermon selections
    • Tauler: Sermon selections
    • Anonymous: Theologia Germanica and The Cloud of Unknowing
  • Vol XXXIV – Dante (Vol XXI) (M)
  • Vol XXXV – Chaucer (Vol XXII) (M)
  • Vol XXXVI – Martin Luther (R, Em)
    • Small Catechism
    • Selections from the Large Catechism
    • The Smalcald Articles
    • Selections from The Bondage of the Will
    • On Secular Authority
    • The Freedom of a Christian
    • An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation
    • Selections from Table Talk
  • Vol XXXVII – Desiderius Erasmus: The Praise of Folly (Vol XXIII 2nd ed) (R, Em)
  • Vol XXXVIII – John Poinsot and Johann Adam Scherzer (B, Em)
    • Poinsot: Selections from Cursus philosophicus Thomisticus
    • Scherzer: Axiomata Resoluta
  • Vol XXXIX – Shakespeare part 1 (Vol XXVI) (R, Em)
  • Vol XL – Shakespeare part 2 (Vol XXVII) (R, Em)
  • Vol XLI – William Gilbert, Galileo Galilei, and William Harvey (Vol XXVIII) (S, E, Em)
  • Vol XLII – Francis Bacon, René Descartes, Robert Hooke, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, Isaac Barrow, Tycho Brahe, Gottfried Leibniz (S, E, Ce, Em)
    • Bacon: Novum Organon (abridged)
    • Descartes: Discourse on the Method
    • Hook: Micrographia
    • Newton: Selections from The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy
    • Boyle: Selections from The Sceptical Chymist
    • Barrow: Selected lectures
    • Brahe: Instruments of the Renewed Astronomy
    • Leibniz: Selected Correspondence
  • Vol XLIII – Miguel de Cervantes: Don Quixote (Vol XXIX) (R, Em)
  • Vol XLIV – John Milton (Vol XXXII) (R, Em)
  • Vol XLV – Adam Smith (Vol XXXIX) (E, Em)
  • Vol XLVI – Kant and Hamann (Modified Vol XLII) (E, Ce, Em)
    • Kant
      • Critique of Pure Reason
      • Critique of Practical Reason
      • Critique of Judgement
    • Hamann
      • Meta-Critique of Pure Reason
      • Socratic Memorabilia
      • Excerpts from the London Writings
  • Vol XLVII – Kierkegaard and Nietzsche (Vol XVIII 2nd ed) (Mo)
    • Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling
    • Nietzsche: Beyond Good and Evil
  • Vol XLVIII – American founding works (Modified Vol XLIII) (E, Ce, Em)
    • American State Papers: Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights
    • Hamilton, Madison, and Jay: The Federalist
    • Ames
      • The Dangers of American Liberty
      • Political State of America
      • Mire of Democracy
      • Speech on the Jay Treaty
      • Selected Letters
  • Vol XLIX – William Wordsworth, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and James Fenimore Cooper (Ce, Mo)
    • Wordsworth and Coleridge: Lyrical Ballads and Selected poetry
    • Hawthorne: The Scarlet Letter, The House of the Seven Gables, and Selected short stories
    • Cooper: The Last of the Mohicans
  • Vol L – Tocqueville (Vol XVIV 2nd ed) (E, Ce, Mo)
  • Vol LI – Edmund Burke (E, Ce, Em)
    • A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful
    • Reflections on the Revolution in France
    • Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents
    • Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies
    • Speech on the Impeachment of Warren Hastings
    • Letters on a Regicide Peace
    • Selected Correspondence
  • Vol LII – Johann Gottfried von Herder, Joseph de Maistre, Francois-René de Chateaubriand, Novalis (Ce, Em, Mo)
    • Herder
      • Selections from Outline of a History of a Philosophy of Man
      • On the Origin of Language
    • de Maistre
      • Considerations on France
      • St. Petersburg Dialogues
    • Chateaubriand
      • Selections from The Genius of Christianity
    • Novalis
      • Hymns to the Night
      • Faith and Love
  • Vol LIII – Melville: Moby Dick (Vol XLVIII) (Mo)
  • Vol LIV – Goethe: Faust (Vol XLVII) (Ce, Mo)
  • Vol LV – Tolstoy: War and Peace (Vol LI) (E, Ce, Mo)
  • Vol LVI – Dostoevsky: The Brothers Karamazov (Vol LII) (Ce, Mo)
  • Vol LVII – JRR Tolkien: The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Ring (Ce, Mo)
  • Vol LVIII – JRR Tolkien: The Two Towers and The Return of the King (Ce, Mo)
  • Vol LIX – CS Lewis: Mere Christianity, Screwtape Letters, The Great Divorce, The Abolition of Man, On Stories, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and Till We Have Faces (Ce, Mo)
  • Vol LX – Frank Herbert: Dune (Ce, Mo)

List of Lutheran Orthodox Works in English

Vic. Nicholas Totenhagen and I worked together to compile works from the era of Lutheran orthodoxy (roughly from the time of the reformation up through the early 1700s) available in English (and a handful of modern reprints in Latin and German). This list does not include small translations online such as those on Studium or Lutheran Orthodox Translations. It is instead a list of larger scale translations and compendiums. We did not include every single volume of Luther’s Works available in English as that would be excessive. For Luther’s Works, there are several editions in English: American Edition, St. Louis Edition, Philadelphia Edition, Lenker Edition, Cole Edition, the Ohio House Postils, and miscellaneous smaller translations.

This list includes roughly 150 works available in English, which is probably higher than you might expect if you have not spent a lot of time digging around for these works. Quite a few works are available in Early Modern English, which makes them more challenging to read, but many are in contemporary English as well. The list also includes compendiums, such as The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church by Heinrich Schmid, works that include a great number of quotes from the era such as The Complete Works of Revere Franklin Weidner, and works that contain a substantial number of smaller translations such as Lives & Writings of the Great Fathers of the Lutheran Church by Timothy Schmelling.

Five Arguments Against Transubstantiation

In this post I make five arguments against transubstantiation as the mechanism for the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. These arguments are not exhaustive, but they are the five I typically bring up when discussing this topic. Specifically I am arguing that the substance of the bread and substance of the wine remain after consecration; I am not disputing the mode of Christ’s presence in the Supper.

1. From 1 Corinthians 10-11:

Paul in 1 Corinthians 10-11 uses the terms of “cup” and “bread” to refer to both the consecrated and unconsecrated elements alike, which implies that the bread and wine remain after consecration, for the natural meaning of “cup” and “bread” is to refer to substances, not merely their accidents, unless we have good reason to believe otherwise from the context of the text, but we don’t have good reason to believe otherwise from the context of the text.

2. From Proverbs 9:5:

Solomon in Proverbs 9:5 foreshadows communion: “Come, eat of My bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled.” If communion were no longer bread and mingled wine, then why would God call it “His bread” and the “wine which He mingled?” The unconsecrated elements are mere food; they become “His” when they have been consecrated, so the consecrated elements must still be bread and wine as God calls them “His” here.

3. From the fathers:

Irenaeus says that in communion there two realities– one earthly and one heavenly and in another place used participatory language to describe how the elements are transformed, which would not entail that the original substance ceases to be. Furthermore, he compares this participation to how we will participate in the Divine in the resurrection, but surely, we will not cease to be human in the resurrection.

Justin, Cyprian, Augustine, Leo, Gelasius, Chrysostom and others all use language about communion to describe it like the two natures of Christ, with both a divine and earthly nature, which surely cannot be with transubstantiation, as the earthly nature no longer remains but only the accidents.

Gelasius, Theodoret, and Chrysostom also are all explicit in teaching that the substances of the bread and wine remain.

Gelasius (Concerning the two natures in Christ against Eutyches): “The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature, yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease.”

Theodoret (Dialogue 2): “Even after the consecration, the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance, figure, and form.”

Chrysostom (Epistle to Caesarius): “Before the bread is consecrated, we call it bread, but when the grace of God by the Spirit has consecrated it, it is no longer called bread, but is esteemed worthy to be called the Lord’s body, although the nature of bread still remains in it.”

4. From natural perception:

Our natural experience tells us that our sense experience is reliable in determining things as they are, but scripture also tells us that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. Denying that the substance of bread and wine remains results in a general denial of the reliability of our sense experience. This seems absurd and a contradiction of Job 12:7-8: ​“But now ask the beasts, and they will teach you; ​​And the birds of the air, and they will tell you; ​​Or speak to the earth, and it will teach you; ​​And the fish of the sea will explain to you” and Romans 1:20: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.”

5. From the metaphysical implications:

The fifth argument is like the fourth, but it approaches the topic from the broader implications of the doctrine in metaphysics. Transubstantiation deprives us of any certitude we may have of the material world. If transubstantiation is true, and thus, a substance and the accidents attached thereto may be discordant, how can we know that the accidents we perceive in the world around us are not merely all inhering in other substances? All things could be not as they appear to our senses but entirely otherwise, but this is also absurd and a contradiction of Job 12 and Romans 1.