Although some Radical Reformers also held unscriptural beliefs, such as extreme pacifism or the ability for a person to lose their salvation, there is also evidence that some of them held to views that particularly resembled modern Free Grace viewpoints, that often makes the Free Grace movement resemble the 16th century Radical Reformation.
While modern Anabaptistic groups such as Mennonites are descendants of the Radical Reformation, they represent only few of the direct surviving strains of the movement, which showed far more wide ranges of belief in its early form.
Eternal Security
Free Grace Theology asserts that salvation is entirely a gift of God, not by any human effort, and that eternal life is granted solely through faith in Jesus Christ, apart from any subsequent good works or perseverance. This theological framework can be contrasted with both Calvinist and Arminian views, which often emphasize the necessity of works as evidence of saving faith or human cooperation in maintaining salvation.
Free Grace views of salvation seem to have appeared within the Anabaptist movement, as we see in the Augsburg confession, which states in Article XII:
"They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also those who contend that some may attain to such perfection in this life that they cannot sin."
Other evidence of eternal security comes from Lutheran polemical writings, which although hostile, may indicate a form of eternal security which is not tied to perseverance:
Source: Process, wie es soll gehalten werden mit den Widertäuffern, p.6-8
Other incorrect articles which do not concern secular government... the born again can not fall into God’s wrath and when they commit adultery, they say they are driven by the Spirit.
This is a Lutheran polemical work against anabaptists written by eight theologians in 1558. In it, the Lutherans argued the anabaptists were to be condemned because of their beliefs and that the civil authorities were justified in punishing and executing them. This section conveys an anabaptist belief in eternal security which the Lutherans are condemning as incorrect. The second portion about adultery is probably a Lutheran interpolation critiquing the supposed ramifications of the anabaptist view. The Augsburg Confession in 1530 critiques anabaptists who believed that those who had been justified by God cannot lose the Holy Spirit in Article XII. This could lead the Lutheran theologians to falsely conclude that the ramifications of this theology are that when someone sins gravely they’re doing it in and being driven by the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit cannot be lost to one who has been justified; and the Holy Spirit would therefore accompany the believer in whatever sins they commit.
However, Anabaptism was not an unified movement. The Anabaptists held a wide range of beliefs on many issues, including salvation. However, even those Anabaptists who opposed eternal security seem to have been aware of its existence, as we see in the writings of Leupold Scharnschlager:
Even today some understand Christ and Paul as ascribing righteousness and life to faith alone, as if a faith without deeds and fruit is enough for salvation. For how can it be a barren, that is, a dead faith, when life—and much more—comes forth from it? (Reformation Commentary on Scripture, New Testament XIII: Hebrews, James. Edited by Ronald K. Rittgers. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017, p. 233)
However, despite these words of Leupold showing that he himself disagreed with the idea, he directly mentioned the doctrine being in existence by saying "even today some understand". Thus, we see the fact that Free Grace theology existed during the early 16th century from the writings of Leupold.
Anthropology
The Radical Reformers were often strictly opposed to Augustinian theology, and thus consequently, they resisted claims of infant damnation, and inherited guilt, for example, Radical Reformers such as Leupod Schiemer wrote the following:
But until that light shines in Children—that is, until they know the difference between good and evil—they remain innocent and will enter into the promised land. In this case we are not referring to the earthly land of Canaan but rather the heavenly Jerusalem." - Three kinds of grace in the Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, para. 15
This was also mentioned by the Radical Reformer Sebastian Franck, who although not an Anabaptist himself, he often symphatized with their teachings and still held to Radical Reformation beliefs. Franck wrote the following:
"Nearly all Anabaptists consider children to be of pure and innocent blood, and they consider original sin not a sin which of itself condemns both the children and the adults. They also claim that it does not make anyone unclean except the one who accepts this sin, makes it his own, brings forth fruits of it and is unwilling to part from it. For they claim foreign sin does not condemn anybody, and in this they refer to the Ezekiel 18." - Chronica, Zeitbuch und Geschichtsbibel, Fol. 446
However, this belief was condemned by the Lutherans, who taught that infants are saved through Baptism:
"Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace. They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism." - Article IX
Thus, the Anabaptists rejected that infants born are born guilty, however they still maintained that we inherit consequences of sin, such as a sinful nature inclined to sin, which inevitably leads every human to sin and human mortality.
Rejection of infant Baptism
A major consequence of the Anabaptist rejection that Baptism is a means of grace was their rejection of infant baptism, instead teaching that only those capable of belief should be baptized. This view was often attacked by the Reformed confessions, as the Second Helvetic Confession (1566) reads:
"We condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that newborn infants of the faithful are to be baptized. For according to evangelical teaching, of such is the Kingdom of God (Luke 18:16), and they are in the covenant of God (Acts 3:25). Why, then, should the sign of God's covenant not be given to them? Why should those who belong to God and are in his Church not be initiated by holy baptism?" (chapter 20).
Infant baptism is also is also commonly rejected by modern Evangelicals, including those who hold to Free Grace theology.
Free Will
Unlike Lutherans and Calvinists, the Radical Reformers often saw unconditional election as unscriptural, instead holding to libertarian free will, breaking away from the medieval Augustinian views. Among these, a strong defence of free will was created by the moderate Anabaptist theologian, Balthasar Hubmaier, as he writes:
Grace comes to us, not out of us, so that no one can boast in himself but in the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Cor 1:4. For our flesh and blood cannot reach such sonship out of their own power, John 1:12; Matt 16:17; 1 Cor 15:50. Since, however, this sonship is offered to all people equally, for the seed of the divine Word falls equally in four kinds of earth, it follows that we have the equal power to accept the seed and to bear fruit, John 1:12; Matt 28:19; Mark 16:15; Matt 13:3ff; Mark 4:3ff. If we do not do that, then it is not God who is guilty, or his seed, but the evil of the earth, that is, we ourselves. Thus Peter hears Christ, accepts his Word, and brings forth fruit, John 1:42. Herod also hears it, however, does not accept his Word, and does not bear fruit. Now that is the fault of the wickedness of Herod. Since, however, Peter and Herod are alike sinners and evil, the reason why his inborn evil does not harm Peter and yet harms Herod is that Herod follows his inborn evil and walks according to it, but not Peter, Eph 3; 1 Cor 15:45ff; Rom 8:5-9. In addition, the fact that God looks at Peter and moves him to lament his sins has to do with the mercy of God, Matt 26:75. That he does not look at Judas is the fault of the traitor who sold innocent blood for thirty pennies. He had to sentence himself and say, "I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood," Matt 27:4. Whoever is not satisfied with this answer, namely, that the mercy of God is the cause of our salvation and our wickedness is the cause of our damnation, must ask God himself, Rom 11:11-12. I was not his advisor, nor was I with him in his council. Whoever says that God wills sin does not know what God or sin is. For sinning is always to do or to omit something against the will of God, 1 John 2:5-6. - Balthasar Hubmaier, "Freedom of the Will, II" in Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, trans & ed. Pipkin & Yoder (1989), (p 468-469)
Thus, the Radical Reformers tended to reject both the Lutheran view of single predestination and the Calvinist view of double predestination, by rather holding that God gives us a genuine free will choice to either accept Christ or not. They also strongly resisted any claims that God decrees sin, as the Calvinists held.
Conclusion
The Radical Reformation in many ways showed support for concerns often held today by the Free Grace movement, such as on eternal security, free will, believers' baptism and opposition to strict Calvinistic views. Now, neither movement was a monolith, some Free Grace individuals such as Charles Ryrie were somewhat influenced by Calvinism, and many Radical Reformers were still not clear in their understanding of grace (including modern forms of Anabaptism), nevertheless, when looking at the Reformation period, it is the Radical Reformation where we can see many parallels between modern Free Grace and old Radical Reformation concerns,
Hi Valtteri,
ReplyDeleteHow's it going? I haven't seen you post for a bit so I hope everything is okay and all. God bless
I have been for the large part really been struggling with OCD, especially as I accidentally stumbled upon critiques of Old Testament historicity (like claims like because the Brazen Altar walls were made of wood, the fire itself would destroy the walls as bronze does not protect from heat well, so the text has errors), or Colenso's calculations trying to discredit the possibility of the Pentateuch. I have been reaching out for answers ofc, but it just has been recently creating mental distress due to my OCD-charecteristics making it really difficult to tolerate any uncertainty.
DeleteWow, I'm sorry to hear that. I will be praying for you.
ReplyDeleteBTW, the objection that the fire on the Brazen Altar would destroy it is complete rubbish. What burns up is the skeptics' objection, not the Brazen Altar! Because first of all, acacia wood is naturally fire resistant. Secondly, the acacia wood was encased in solid bronze so the wood never came in direct contact with the fire. Thirdly, the Brazen Altar was quite large. The dimensions given in Exodus 27:1 describe it as being 5 cubits long, 5 cubits wide, and 3 cubits high. If a cubit is 18 inches (or 1.5 feet), then the Brazen Altar was 7.5 feet long, 7.5 feet wide, and 4.5 feet high. It was thus quite large! A fire could easily be arranged inside it without ever getting close to its walls. Thus, fourthly, the fire was not directly next to the bronze walls of the altar. The altar was like a hollow box and there was metal grating placed about half-way down in the middle to put the sacrifices on. Commenting on Exodus 27:1-2, Norm Geisler says that stones or earth were placed in the bottom of the hollow altar and then the wood for burning was arranged on top of the stones under the metal grating. And of course the sacrifices would be placed on top of the metal grating. (See Norm Geisler's book "When Critics Ask," p. 79.) But actually, both the firewood and the animal sacrifices could have been place on top of the metal grating! In this case the fire would be even more separated from the walls of the altar because the metal grating was placed only about half-way down in the middle of the altar so air flow could go under it. Thus both the firewood and the animal sacrifices would be on top of the metal grating. This makes sense especially for the sacrifice of the burnt offering where the entire animal sacrifice was burned up (see Leviticus 1:7-9).
Someone might say, "But the acacia wood could warp." My response would be, first of all, saying that the acacia wood could warp is quite different from saying that it will burn up and be destroyed. Secondly, in regard to the acacia wood warping, just how much could it even warp if it was encased in solid bronze? The bronze inner and outer casing of the altar would likely help to keep the wood from warping, is my point.
These objections by skeptics are like old wives tales. Even though they have already been answered and debunked, they keep getting passed around because the skeptics are like a one-trick pony or someone who plays on a one-string fiddle. They are always playing same old song. Or to use yet another metaphor, they just keep recycling these worn-out and debunked objections hoping that somebody will fall for it.
I guess for me a major issue is however, is that my mind creates infinite "what if" scenarios due to OCD-patterns, so even when I get explanations which are rational, my mind still often ends up creating stress, because when my mind encounters even 0,1% uncertainty, it tends to make a "mountain out of a molehill".
DeleteAnother issue which I have been long thinking is that if the populations were literal, it would not technically have been purely naturally possible for all the mandatory offerings to have been managed on the altar, though that scenario probably never happened because Israel was never so actively obedient, but what do you think would have happened in a hypothetical scenario where Israel actually would have been obedient at those numbers?
What chapters and verses in the Old Testament are you referring to? Or what sacrifices?
ReplyDeleteI have two initial thoughts in regard to your question.
ReplyDelete1) In 2 Chronicles 7:7 it says that Solomon consecrated the middle courtyard for doing more sacrifices because the single bronze altar could not accommodate the vast number of sacrifices that were performed that day. It was a special day however, being the dedication of the newly build temple. So this shows that Israel had a way of handling the situation if they were faced with that problem of having an overabundance of sacrifices.
2) My second thought is in regard to when you asked about how would it be "possible for all the mandatory offerings to have been managed on the altar"? I'd say that the situation that I just mentioned from 2 Chronicles 7:7 is the exception, not the rule. I should note, however, that a similar problem was encountered when King Hezekiah reinstituted temple worship and conducted reforms (see 2 Chron. 29:34). Normally, it seems that Israel did not have the problem of having too many sacrifices for the one brazen altar to accommodate. There is an interesting note in 2 Chron 30:4-5 in the description of King Hezekiah's reforms. The text says that "Israel...had not celebrated it [i.e. the Passover] in great numbers as it was prescribed." So your thought is correct that for the most part "Israel was never so actively obedient," for the problem to even present itself. But when in the few instances when it did become a problem, the Bible tells us how the Levitical priests handled it. Either they consecrated more altars in the temple courtyard in order to accommodate all the sacrifices (as in the days of King Solomon), or they conscripted more Levites to help (as when King Hezekiah reinstituted the Passover).
BTW, I like Hubmaier's statement that you quoted on the topic of Free Will. I think his statement is helpful in illustrating how man's will is, at least to some extent, indeed free. Namely, in that people can choose to sin, which is against God's will. Thus showing (negatively) that we are free to make our own choice.
ReplyDeleteSomeone might say that such reasoning still does not prove or illustrate free will, but only shows that man is in bondage to sin. But in response to such an objection I would say, but you can't have it both ways. Because at times man obeys God, and at times man chooses to sin. So either:
1) we are in bondage to both God's will and sin (in which case bondage is essentially freedom because what other choice is there if sin is anything contrary to God's will?), or
2) God's will is sin and we thus we are in bondage to both because they are the same (the effect of #2 is the same as #1), or
3) they are distinct and we are in bondage to neither because we can choose to obey one or the other
That seems to be the logic, as far as I can tell. But maybe I'm missing something. What are your thoughts about it?
I would say that apart from God drawing everyone to Himself (Jn. 6:44), and apart from Christ drawing all people to Himself (Jn. 12:32), and apart from the Holy Spirit's ministry to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment (Jn. 12:8-9), people are in bondage to sin. But since God took the initiative to draw us, we can respond to Him.
The Bible verse that says "no one seeks God" (Rom. 3:11) means in the sense that no one naturally seeks God. Or, no one seeks God of their own initiative. We are like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden when, after they sinned, they hid from God. That is all of us if left to ourselves. But praise the Lord, God went out looking for Adam and Eve! Jesus said He came to earth "to seek and save the lost" (Lk. 19:10). And concerning the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit, we know that He convicts "the world" of sin because they don't believe in Jesus (Jn. 16:8ff).
In Acts 7, Stephen said to the Pharisees who were about to stone him to death: "Ye do always resist the Spirit" (Acts 7:51). And so God wants even the Pharisees to get saved. So since God has enlightened the whole world (see John chapter 1), man can therefore make a choice to seek God or not.
That's why I say that we can choose to do God's will or we can choose to sin. Since God took the initiative and has enlightened the world and is drawing all men to Himself, we have the capacity to respond to God. Or not. To me, that is free will. Because what other choice is there? There is either God's will or not God's will. Right? I suppose someone could say there are subsets to the category of "not God's will," but that doesn't disprove my point. The only two main choice that I see are:
1) God's will, or
2) Not God's will (Sin).
As I said, there may be different categories of sin, but they all are subsets under the umbrella of "Not God's will". And we have a choice to do God's will or not do God's will.
So I don't know, it doesn't seem that complicated. How is our will not free? Maybe I'm missing something.
I also want to mention that in the Bible, in the Old Testament one of the offerings was even called a "freewill offering" (Lev. 23:38). So that seems to support the premise that our will is free to make a choice.
ReplyDelete