recognizes, lies at its center; and thus he gives us a definition of evangelicalism from the Wesleyan stand- point. It proves to be just that all the saving process is from God, and that all the power exerted in saving the soul is God’s. It may please us in passing to ask whether this evangelicalism is really separable from the doctrine of unconditional election from which Dr. Beet wishes to separate it; and to note that he himself appears to recognize that in the minds of some at least the two must go together. But what it particularly behooves us to observe now is the emphasis with which, as a Wesleyan, Dr. Beet bears his testimony to the general evangelical postulate. Whether he gives validity to this postulate in all his thinking is of course a different matter.
From the Lutheran side the consciousness of the evangelical principle is equally prominent. Indeed the Evangelical Lutheran is very apt to look upon evangelicalism as his own peculiar possession, and to betray a certain measure of surprise when he finds it in the hands of others also. A. J. Haller, writing in Zahn and Burger's Magazine," expresses himself in the following emphatic language: “That salvation is not acquired by man by means of any activity of his own, but is given him by God's grace, that I can- not believe in Jesus Christ my Lord or come to him of my own reason or power, but the Holy Spirit has called me, enlightened, sanctified and preserved me, this is assuredly the alpha and omega of all evangelical belief, and is not denied even by either Calvinists or
[96]
-
UNIVERSALISM
Methodists." The purity of this evangelical confes- sion must be frankly recognized, even though we can- not avoid cherishing misgivings whether it is permitted to condition all of the thought of its author, misgiv- ings which are indeed immediately justified when we find him going on to speak of regeneration, and speak- ing of it after a fashion which is in spirit less evangeli- cal than sacerdotal, and indeed is not untouched by the naturalism which usually accompanies this type of sacerdotalism. Не is sure that regeneration is monergistic, but also that it is the effect of baptism as its producing cause; and he is very much concerned to defend this conception from the charge of magical working. “It might be called magical" he remarks,” “if it were maintained that men were completely transformed in regeneration, with no subsequent de- mand made upon them for any ethical self-determi- nation. That, however, an absolutely new power is created in them by God, the saving or condemning action of which depends on their subsequent or con- temporary determination (Entscheidung), this has as little to do with magic as the belief that in the Lord's Supper Christ's body and blood are certainly and truly given for blessing to some, for judgment to others."
A passage like this reveals the difficulty a Lutheran who wishes to abide by his official confession has in giving effect to his evangelical profession. He may declare that all the power exerted in saving the soul is from God, but this is crossed by his sacerdotal con-
[ 97 ]
THE PLAN OF SALVATION
sciousness that grace is conveyed by the means of grace, otherwise not. The grace of regeneration, for example, is conveyed ordinarily (some say only) by baptism. And this grace of regeneration is the monergistic operation of God. Even so, however, it cannot be said that the effect is all of God. For, in the first place, whether it takes effect at all, is de- pendent on the attitude of the recipient. He cannot coóperate with God in producing it; but he can fatally resist. And therefore Baier” carefully defines: “God produces in the man who is baptized and who does not resist the divine grace, the work of regeneration or renovation through the Sacrament, in the very act itself (hoc actu ipso)." And then, in the second place, whether this gift of regeneration proves a blessing or a curse to the recipient depends on how he takes it and deals with it. “Ап absolutely new power is created in him by God,” says Haller," “the action of which, whether for blessing or cursing, is dependent on the subject's subsequent, or even already presently operative decision." This carries with it, naturally, what is here covered up, that this self-determination of the recipient is his natural self-determination. For if it were itself given in the new power communi- cated in regeneration, then it were inconceivable that it could act otherwise than for blessing. Whether man is saved or not, depends therefore in no sense on the monergistic regeneration wrought by God in his baptism. It depends on how man receives this “new power" communicated to him and how he uses it. [98]
UNIVERSALISM
And thus we are back on the plane of pure natu- ralism.