After finishing Loy
yesterday, I decided to take another look at the 3-books-in-one
published by Schodde as The Error of Missouri. The
middle one Intuitu Fidei was translated by Lenski. The
following quote is from part one.
Alec
Dr. Jacob Andreae
is, besides Chemnitz, one of the main authors of the Formula of
Concord. He was far more active than even Chemnitz himself in
bringing matters so far that the Formula was produced. In the
year 1574 he published a disputation on predestination in which
thesis 10 reads as follows: “Predestination and election by
grace is the eternal decree of God, declaring that He will save
those persons who are penitent and believe in Christ, the Savior
and only Redeemer of the world.” Thesis 172: “It is God’s
immutable will that all should believe in the Gospel, and that
those who believe shall be saved,” Mark 16. Th. 173: “As it is
likewise His immutable will, that those who do not believe shall
be damned.” Th. 174: “Nor does the universality of the promises
of the Gospel contradict the particularity of election” (i. e.
by the fact, that election is restricted to a few, or that only
a few are chosen). Thesis 175: “For God has not promised
salvation to all promiscuously, but only to those who believe.”
Thesis 176: “Hence the particular election is included in the
universal promise.”
Moreover in this disputation of 1574
Andreae opposes an unconditional election in the following
words: “Whoever seeks predestination in an absolute decree of
God, because God’s foreknowledge is absolutely certain, leads
men to think that such a decree necessarily brings about the
salvation of certain persons who under no circumstances can be
condemned, while it likewise effects the damnation of others so
that they cannot be saved. The result of this is that believers,
becoming perplexed when considering this divine foreknowledge,
cannot be cheered by consolation; men of Epicurean mind,
however, thereby open for themselves and others the door for
transgression; because the hidden will of God has decided
everything, all our efforts avail nothing. . . . The reason why
all are not saved is this, that they spurn the divine grace,
which God offers to all in Christ.
The fact, that this grace
cannot be accepted by our own reason or strength, does not
overthrow our proposition. All indeed are to hear, and by
hearing are to come to faith. Whoever despises preaching, must
accuse himself, and not a hidden decree of God, just as his
conscience accuses only himself. The doctrine of an absolute
decree also renders the work of the Word and the Sacrament
useless. Reprobation by an absolute will, without the foresight
of unbelief, is blasphemous. Whoever hears the Word, which he
indeed cannot believe by his own powers, to him the Holy Spirit
is promised, and He works that all who hear may also believe.
This coming to hear preaching, this willing and hearing, God
demands as a piece of outward obedience, a leading, as it were
by the hand, unto Christ, although in itself it does not effect
conversion. But this man can do, hear the Word which is the
organ of the Spirit, or stop his ears; but man has not the least
measure of power for assent, as Erasmus claimed, assent is
altogether the work of the Holy Spirit.”
Well, well, Andreae, what are you teaching here? Are you,
the actual author of the Formula of Concord still really in such
lamentable ignorance regarding the very first letter of the pure
doctrine of predestination, which consists of the very opposite of
what you teach in these propositions? Don't you know that
predestination and the universal gracious will of God are two
entirely different "sides" of God's will, which neither reason nor
the light of grace is able to harmonize with each other? Let me tell
you, my dear Andreae, you should have remained at home with your
wisdom, which betrays a "rationalizing tendency"; you had better
remain silent as long as you have no clearer light on the a b c of
the pure doctrine of predestination. See, "it is impossible for us
to mediate between, or to harmonize with our reason, these two
scriptural doctrines concerning particular election and concerning
universal grace. Not even the light of grace is able to remove this
discord, we must wait for the light of glory" ("L. u. W.", 1880,
308). How then could you write such nonsense as this: "The
universality of the promises does not contradict the particularity
of election; for God has not promised salvation to all
promiscuously, but only to those who believe; hence the particular
election is included in the universal promise." Why, the thing is
just the reverse! Election is "an altogether different thing" from
this universal promise. And therefore the particularity of election
contradicts the universality of the promise, and we cannot solve the
contradiction, and you dare not, as you venture to do. harmonize the
two by referring to passages like these: "He that believeth shall be
saved," or: "Without faith it is impossible to please God." I am
very much afraid, my dear Andreae, that you agree with the later
dogmaticians who make "election depend on faith", although I know,
of course, that you are the chief author of the Formula of Concord
and that you ought to know how it is to be understood. Certainly we
respect your Lutheranism otherwise: but when you include the
particularity of election in the universal promise ("He that
believeth shall be saved"), understanding the former by the latter,
when thus you attempt "to explain somewhat and make plausible to our
reason'" (!!) "this wonderful mystery of election" by mixing in
foreseen faith, then, we are sorry to say, you too have "forsaken
the Scriptures and the Symbol" and gone off on the wrong track of
Pelagianism. Still one thing serves to excuse you somewhat: your
co-workers on the Formula, as the extracts from Selnecker and
Chytraeus show, were likewise not quite straight on this subject,
and, to put it as mildly as possible, badly misunderstood their dear
Formula of Concord in this a b c point of the pure doctrine of
election! _Sapienti sat_. [Note from the I. F. proper. –
Translator.]
