Warum die Souveränität Gottes und die Verantwortung des Menschen stets zusammengehen (müssen)

»Some who have manifested deep concern for the responsibility of man and have feared that the emphasis on God’s activity would crowd out the responsibility of man have proposed as the fundamental principle [of „Calvinism“] the combined thought of God’s sovereign decree and the responsibility of man, since they saw in Calvinism an emphasis upon both factors.

It is undoubtedly true that Calvinism does stress human responsibility to a very high degree. But again it would not be according to the genius of the Calvinist to place God’s sovereign decree and man’s responsibility, or any other aspect of man, on a level. God is to the Calvinist the first and last word, the primary thought always.

God’s sovereign decree and man’s responsibility do present themselves to the human mind as an apparent contradiction, an antinomy, a paradox, something which the mind of man fails to solve. This paradox, like the one of God’s transcendence and His immanence, or spirit and matter, the Calvinist readily adopts, even though he cannot solve it. However, he adopts this paradox, not because he holds to two coequal fundamental principles, God’s sovereignty and the freedom and responsibility of man, but just because he wants to let God be God.

He discovers that God in His written Word has stressed the responsibility of man, and that He is in no wise accountable for the sin of man, even though He is Ruler of all. It is just because the Calvinist would let God be God, that is, the final Authority for his thinking, even when his own logic fails to give an adequate account of things, that he accepts the full responsibility of man, as God has informed him in His Word. The sovereignty of God, it will then be seen, is a prior thought to the responsibility of man.«

H. Henry Meeter, The Basic Ideas of Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1939), Kap. I, S. 29–40.

Warum also müssen Gottes Souveränität und die Verantwortung des Menschen stets zusammengehen? Weil Gottes Wort ganz klar beides lehrt und nirgendwo irgendeinen Widerspruch zwischen diesen beiden Wahrheiten benennt.

Wer hier eine Spannung wahrnimmt und diese einseitig auflösen will, leidet an Tension Deficient Disorder 😉

Das Ziel der Theologie

Das Ziel der Theologie ist die Anbetung Gottes. 
Die Körperhaltung der Theologie ist auf den Knien. 
Die Praxis der Theologie ist Buße.

Sinclair B. Ferguson, zitiert in: James Montgomery Boice und Philip Graham Ryken, The Doctrines of Grace, Wheaton, IL (Crossway) 2002, S. 179; Deutsch: James Montgomery Boice und Philip Graham Ryken, Die Lehren der Gnade, Oerlinghausen (Betanien) 2009, S. 201.

Was ist eigentlich „Calvinismus“? (I)

»There are, in the religious world, almost as many different shades, phases, kinds, and degrees, of Calvinism, as there are Calvinists, (or professors of the doctrines of Calvin,) and almost as many diverse opinions on the faith and character of the Reformer himself.

Calvinism is a designation, by which the doctrines of the sovereign grace of God have been distinguished for the last two centuries; but, more particularly and generally, for the last century. The term derives, of course, its descriptiveness, from the historical fact, that the eminent Swiss Reformer was the chosen servant of God, appointed by Him to proclaim and defend, more prominently than any cotemporary or antecedent witness, the sublime doctrines in question. Not that these stupendous truths originated with Calvin, but with God himself. They form an essential portion of the revelation of his Word. They are no more Calvinism, than Augustinism, or Lutherism, or Bucerism, or Cranmerism, or Latimerism: for they are Bibleism: and they are the ism of every saint, and true minister of Christ: they are the solidity and security of all true religion: they are the fast-hold of faith: they form a substantial ingredient in every true ministry of the Gospel: and they constitute an essential doctrine in the confession of every true Church of Christ.«

Hendry H. Cole in seinem Vorwort zu: Calvin, John ; Cole, Hendry H.: Calvin’s Calvinism: A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God. London : Wertheim and Macintosh, 1856.

Lehrpredigt – oder Leerpredigt?

The Sword and The Trowel Cover Page Metropolitan Tabernacle top

»Einige Prediger haben eine Heidenangst davor, dass ihre Predigten zu viel biblische Lehre enthalten und so das geistliche Verdauungsvermögen ihrer Zuhörer schädigen könnten. Diese Angst ist völlig überflüssig … Wir leben in einer Zeit, die schwerlich eine theologische genannt werden kann, eine Zeit, in der man sich über gesundes biblisches Lehren furchtbar aufregt. Hier wird das Prinzip deutlich, dass der Unverständige stets die Weisheit verachtet. Die ruhmreichen Giganten der Zeit der Puritaner ernährten sich von etwas Besserem als buntem Zuckerzeugs und balaststoffarmen Knabbereien, die heute so in Mode sind.«

»Some preachers seem to be afraid lest their sermons should be too rich in doctrine, and so injure the spiritual digestions of their hearers. The fear is superfluous. . . . This is not a theological age, and therefore it rails at sound doctrinal teaching, on the principle that ignorance despises wisdom. The glorious giants of the Puritan age fed on something better than the whipped creams and pastries which are now so much in vogue.«

C. H. Spurgeon, The Sword and Trowel (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1865–1891), S. 125–126.

Kirchenväter – Eine Autorität in Lehrfragen?

Der Bibellehrer John N. Darby (1800–1882) schrieb am 23. März 1880 in einem Brief Henry Chisholm Anstey (1843–1922) Folgendes:

»As to the Fathers, I have read some, consulted almost all, and some a good deal. But when, many years ago, I set about to read them, I found them as a body such trash that I gave it up as a study: for history they are of course useful, and I have examined them largely. Did Mr. – ever read Hermas? If that is not enough to destroy all confidence in the early church, I do not know what would. Did he ever read Cyprian or Chrysostom on the state of the church in their days? Talking of looking to the primitive church for some doctrine or morality is the most wicked humbug that ever was: either people have not read what is patristic, or they must love and excuse wickedness.«

Brief an H C Anstey. Letters of J.N.D., Bd. 3, [Kingston-on-Thames, o.J.], S. 70, Nr. 60.

Hybris und Ignoranz verarmen den Menschen ganz

»Es kommt nicht von ungefähr, dass das lnfragestellen der Bibel als dem geoffenbarten Gotteswort mit dem Einsetzen des aufklärerischen Denkens korrespondiert und dass damit die Erhebung des Menschen über Gott begann. Dies hängt ursächlich zusammen mit dem Anspruch, alles erkennen zu wollen, und dem allmählich entstehenden Glauben, auch tatsächlich alles erkennen zu können.

Demgegenüber ist hervorzuheben, dass die Menschen dieser Welt die Bibel niemals vollkommen werden ergründen können, was freilich eine Anfrage an die Denkmöglichkeiten und den Erkenntnisradius des Menschen bedeutet und nicht etwa eine Anfrage an den Realitätsgehalt von Gottes Wort

Prof. (em.) Dr. Lutz E. v. Padberg (*1950)
Die Bibel – Grundlage für Glauben, Denken und Erkennen (Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hänssler, 1986).