XIV. The Synergistic Controversy.
151.
Relation of Majorism and Synergism.
The
theological connection between Majorism and synergism is much closer
than is
generally realized. Both maintain that, in part, or in a certain
respect,
salvation depends not on grace alone, but also on man and his
efforts.
The Majorists declared good works to be necessary to salvation,
or at
least to the preservation of faith and of salvation. Thus
salvation
would, in a way, depend on the right conduct of a Christian
after his
conversion. The Synergists asserted: Man, too, must do his bit
and cooperate
with the Holy Spirit if he desires to be saved. Conversion
and
salvation, therefore, would depend, at least in part, on man's
conduct
toward converting grace, and he would be justified and saved,
not by
grace alone, but by a faith which to a certain extent is a work
of his
own. The burden of both, Majorism and synergism, was the denial
of the
_sola gratia._ Both coordinated man and God as the causes of our
salvation.
Indeed, consistently carried out, both destroyed the central
Christian
truth of justification by grace alone and, with it, the
assurance
of a gracious God and of eternal salvation--the supreme
religious
concern of Luther and the entire Lutheran theology.
Majorists
and Synergists employed also the same line of argument. Both
derived
their doctrine, not from any clear statements of the Bible, but
by a
process of anti-Scriptural and fallacious reasoning. The Majorists
inferred:
Since evil works and sins against conscience destroy faith
and
justification, good works are required for their preservation. The
Synergists
argued: Since all who are not converted or finally saved must
blame,
not God, but themselves for rejecting grace, those, too, who are
converted
must be credited with at least a small share in the work of
their
salvation, that is to say, with a better conduct toward grace than
the
conduct of those who are lost.
However,
while Majorism as well as synergism, as stated, represented
essentially
the same error and argued against the doctrine of grace in
the same
unscriptural manner, the more subtle, veiled, and hence the
more
dangerous of the two, no doubt, was synergism, which reduced man's
cooperation
to a seemingly harmless minimum and, especially in the
beginning,
endeavored to clothe itself in ambiguous phrases and
apparently
pious and plausible formulas. Perhaps this accounts also for
the fact
that, though Melanchthon and the Majorists felt constrained to
abandon
as described in the preceding chapter, the coarser and more
offensive
Majoristic propositions, they had at the same time no
compunctions
about retaining and defending essentially the same error in
their
doctrine of conversion; and that, on the other hand, their
opponents,
who by that time fully realized also the viciousness of
synergism,
were not satisfied with Major's concessions in the
controversy
on good works, because he and his colleagues in Wittenberg
were
known to identify themselves with the Synergists. For the same
reason
the dangerous error lurking in the synergistic phrases does not
seem from
the first to have been recognized by the Lutherans in the same
degree as
was the error contained in the Majoristic propositions, which
indeed
had even during Luther's life to some extent become a subject of
dispute.
Yet it seems hardly possible that for years they should not
have
detected the synergistic deviations in Wittenberg from Luther's
doctrine
of free will. Perhaps the fact that at the time when
Melanchthon
came out boldly with his synergism, 1548, the Lutherans were
engrossed
with the Adiaphoristic and Majoristic controversies may help
to
explain, at least to some extent, why the synergistic error caused
small
concern, and was given but little consideration in the beginning.
As a
matter of fact, although a considerable amount of synergistic
material
had been published by 1548, the controversy did not begin till
1556,
while the error that good works are necessary to salvation was
publicly
opposed soon after its reappearance in the Leipzig Interim. At
the
Weimar Disputation, 1560, Strigel referred to this silence, saying:
"I
am astonished that I am pressed so much in this matter [concerning
synergism],
since three years ago at Worms no mention whatever [?] was
made of
this controversy, while many severe commands were given
regarding
others." (Richard, _Conf. Prin.,_ 349.) The matter was
mentioned
at Worms, but Melanchthon is reported to have satisfied Brenz
and
others by declaring that in the passages of his _Loci_ suspected of
synergism
he meant "the regenerated will."
152.
Luther's Monergism.
According
to Lutheran theology, the true opposite of synergism is not
Calvinism
with its double election, irresistible grace, denial of
universal
redemption, etc., but the monergism of grace, embracing
particularly
the tenets that in consequence of Adam's fall man is
spiritually
dead and utterly unable to contribute in any degree or
manner
toward his own justification and conversion; moreover, that,
being an
enemy of God, man, of his own natural powers, is active only in
resisting
the saving efforts of God, as well as able and prone only to
do so;
that God alone and in every respect is the Author of man's
conversion,
perseverance, and final salvation; and that, since the grace
of God is
universal and earnestly proffered, man alone is responsible
for, and
the cause of, his own damnation.
_"Sola
fides iustificat,_ Faith alone justifies"--that was the great
slogan of
the Reformation sounded forth by Luther and his followers with
ever
increasing boldness, force and volume. And the distinct meaning of
this
proposition, which Luther called "_hoc meum dogma,_ this my dogma,"
was just
this, that we are saved not by any effort or work of our own,
but in
every respect by God's grace alone. The restoration of this
wonderful
truth, taught by St. Paul, made Luther the Reformer of the
Church.
This truth alone, as Luther had experienced, is able to impart
solid
comfort to a terror-stricken conscience, engender divine assurance
of God's
pardon and acceptance, and thus translate a poor miserable
sinner
from the terrors of hell into paradise.
In the
_Seven Penitential Psalms,_ written 1517, Luther says: "If God's
mercy is
to be praised, then all [human] merits and worthiness must come
to
naught." (Weimar 1, 161.) "Not such are blessed as have no sins or
extricate
themselves by their own labors, but only those whose sins are
graciously
forgiven by God." (167.) "It is characteristic of God (_es
ist
Gottes Natur_) to make something out of nothing. Hence God cannot
make
anything out of him who is not as yet nothing.... Therefore God
receives
none but the forsaken, heals none but the ill, gives sight to
none but
the blind, quickens none but the dead, makes pious none but the
sinners,
makes wise none but the ignorant,--in short, He has mercy on
none but
the miserable, and gives grace to none but those who are in
disgrace.
Whoever therefore, is a proud saint, wise or just, cannot
become
God's material and receive God's work within himself, but remains
in his
own work and makes an imaginary, seeming, false, and painted
saint of
himself, _i.e._, a hypocrite." (183.) "For he whom Thou [God]
dost
justify will never become righteous by his works; hence it is
called
Thy righteousness, since Thou givest it to us by grace, and we do
not
obtain it by works." (192.) "Israel the true [new] man, does not
take
refuge in himself, nor in his strength, nor in his righteousness
and
wisdom.... For help and grace is not with themselves. They are
sinners
and damned in themselves, as He also says through Hosea: O
Israel,
with thee there is nothing but damnation, but with Me is thine
help."
(210.) "He, He, God Himself, not they themselves, will deliver
the true
Israel.... Mark well, Israel has sin and cannot help itself."
(211.)
In his
explanation of Ps. 109 (110), 1518, Luther says: "He calls these
children
[conceived from spiritual seed, the Word of God] dew, since no
soul is
converted and transformed from Adam's sinful childhood to the
gracious
childhood of Christ by human work, but only by God, who works
from
heaven like the dew, as Micah writes: 'The children of Israel will
be like
the dew given by God which does not wait for the hands of men.'"
(701.)
Again: "In every single man God precedes with grace and works
before we
pray for grace or cooperate. The Doctors call this _gratiam
primam et
praevenientem,_ that is, the first and prevenient grace.
Augustine:
_Gratia Dei praevenit, ut velimus, ne frustra velimus._ God's
grace
prevenes that we will, lest we will in vain." (710.)
In his 40
theses for the Heidelberg disputation, also of 1518, Luther
says of
man's powers in spiritual matters: "13. Free will after sin [the
Fall] is
a mere titular affair [an empty title only], and sins mortally
when it
does what it is able to do. _Liberum arbitrium post peccatum res
est de
solo titulo et dum facit, quod in se est, peccat mortaliter._"
"16.
A man desirous of obtaining grace by doing what he is able to do
adds sin
to sin, becoming doubly guilty. _Homo putans, se ad gratiam
velle
pervenire faciendo, quod est in se, peccatum addit peccato, ut
duplo
reus fiat._" "18. It is certain that a man must utterly despair of
himself
in order to become apt to acquire the grace of Christ. _Certum
est,
hominem de se penitus oportere desperare, ut aptus fiat ad
consequendam
gratiam Christi._" (W. 1, 354.) By way of explanation
Luther
added to thesis 13: "The first part [of this thesis, that free
will is a
mere empty title] is apparent, because the will is a captive
and a
servant to sin, not that it is nothing, but that it is free only
to [do]
evil--_non quod sit nihil, sed quod non sit liberum nisi ad
malum._
John 8, 34. 36: 'Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
If the
Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.' Hence, St.
Augustine
says in his book _De Spiritu et Litera:_ Free will without
grace can
only sin--_non nisi ad peccandum valet._ And in his second
book
against Julianus: You call that a free will which in truth is
captive,
etc." To thesis 16 Luther added: "When man does what he is able
to do
(_dum facit, quod est in se_), he sins, seeking altogether his
own. And
if he is minded to become worthy of, and apt for, grace by a
sin, he
adds proud presumption."
In his
sermon of 1519 on Genesis 4, Luther remarked: "This passage ['The
Lord had
respect unto Abel'] subverts the entire liberty of our human
will.
_Hic locus semel invertit universam libertatem voluntatis
nostrae._"
(Weimar 9, 337.) In a sermon of September 8, 1520, we read:
"By
nature we are born accursed;... through Christ we are born again
children
of life. Thus we are born not by free will, not by works, not
by our
efforts. As a child in the womb is not born by its own works, but
suffers
itself to be carried and to be given birth, so we are justified
by
suffering, not by doing." (474.) "Where, then," Luther exclaimed
about the
same time in his _Operationes in Psalmos,_ "will free will
remain?
where the doing what one can? _Ubi ergo manebit liberum
arbitrium,
ubi facere quod in se?_" (5, 544. 74.) In a sermon of
February
2, 1521, he said: "Whatever grace is in us comes from God
alone.
Here free will is entirely dead. All that we attempt to establish
with our
powers is lost unless He prevenes and makes us alive through
His
grace. Grace is His own work, which we receive in our hearts by
faith.
This grace the soul did not possess before, for it is the new
man....
The great proud saints will not do this [ascribe everything to
God and
His mercy]. They, too, would have a share in it, saying to our
Lord:
'This I have done by my free will, this I have deserved.'" (9,
573; 5,
544.)
Thus
Luther, from the very beginning of the Reformation, stood for the
doctrine
of justification, conversion, and salvation by grace alone.
Most
emphatically he denied that man though free to a certain extent in
human and
temporal affairs, is able to cooperate with the powers of his
natural,
unregenerate will in matters spiritual and pertaining to God.
This was
also the position which Luther victoriously defended against
Erasmus
in his _De Servo Arbitrio_ of 1525. Goaded on by the Romanists
to come
out publicly against the German heretic, the great Humanist, in
his
_Diatribe_ of 1524, had shrewdly planned to attack his opponent at
the most
vulnerable point. As such he regarded Luther's monergistic
doctrine,
according to which it is God alone who justifies, converts,
preserves,
and saves men, without any works of their own. In reality,
however,
as presently appeared from his glorious classic on the
_sola-gratia_
doctrine, Erasmus had assaulted the strongest gate of
Luther's
fortress. For the source of the wonderful power which Luther
displayed
throughout the Reformation was none other than the divine
conviction
born of the Word of God that in every respect grace alone is
the cause
of our justification and salvation. And if ever this blessed
doctrine
was firmly established, successfully defended, and greatly
glorified,
it was in Luther's book against Erasmus.
Justification,
conversion, perseverance in faith, and final salvation,
obtained
not by any effort of ours, but in every respect received as a
gracious
gift of God alone--that was the teaching also to which Luther
faithfully,
most determinedly, and without any wavering adhered
throughout
his life. In his _Large Confession_ of 1528, for example, we
read:
"Herewith I reject and condemn as nothing but error all dogmas
which
extol our free will, as they directly conflict with this help and
grace of
our Savior Jesus Christ. For since outside of Christ death and
sin are
our lords, and the devil our god and prince, there can be no
power or
might, no wisdom or understanding, whereby we can qualify
ourselves
for, or strive after, righteousness and life; but we must be
blinded
people and prisoners of sin and the devil's own, to do and to
think
what pleases them and is contrary to God and His commandments."
(CONC.
TRIGL. 897, 43.)
153.
Luther's Doctrine Endorsed.
To adhere
faithfully to Luther's doctrine of conversion and salvation by
grace
alone was also the determination of the loyal Lutherans in their
opposition
to the Synergists. Planck correctly remarks that the doctrine
which
Flacius and the Anti-Synergists defended was the very doctrine
which
"Luther advocated in his conflict with Erasmus." (_Prot.
Lehrbegriff_
4, 667.) This was substantially conceded even by the
opponents.
When, for example, at the colloquy in Worms, 1557, the
Romanists
demanded that Flacius's doctrine of free will be condemned by
the
Lutherans, Melanchthon declared that herein one ought not to submit
to the
Papists, who slyly, under the name of Illyricus [Flacius],
demanded
the condemnation of Luther, whose opinion in the doctrine of
free will
he [Melanchthon] was neither able nor willing to condemn.
(Gieseler
3, 2, 232.) In their _Confession,_ published in March, 1569,
the
theologians of Ducal Saxony (Wigand, Coelestin, Irenaeus, Kirchner,
etc.)
declared: "We also add that we embrace the doctrine and opinion of
Dr.
Luther, the Elias of these latter days of the world, as it is most
luminously
and skilfully set forth in the book _De Servo Arbitrio,_
against
Erasmus, in the _Commentary on Genesis,_ and in other books; and
we hold
that this teaching of Luther agrees with the eternal Word of
God."
(Schluesselburg, _Catalogus_ 5, 133.)
Luther's
_sola-gratia_-doctrine was embodied also in the _Formula of
Concord,_
and this with a special endorsement of his book _De Servo
Arbitrio._
For here we read: "Even so Dr. Luther wrote of this matter
[the
doctrine that our free will has no power whatever to qualify itself
for
righteousness, etc.] also in his book _De Servo Arbitrio; i.e._, Of
the
Captive Will of Man, in opposition to Erasmus, and elucidated and
supported
this position well and thoroughly [_egregie et solide_]; and
afterward
he repeated and explained it in his glorious exposition of the
book of
Genesis, especially of chapter 26. There likewise his meaning
and
understanding of some other peculiar disputations introduced
incidentally
by Erasmus, as of absolute necessity, etc., have been
secured
by him in the best and most careful way against all
misunderstanding
and perversion; to which we also hereby appeal and
refer
others." (897, 44; 981, 28.) In the passage of his _Commentary on
Genesis_
referred to by the _Formula,_ Luther does not, as has been
claimed,
retract or modify his former statements concerning the
inability
of the human will and the monergism of grace, but emphasizes
that, in
reading _De Servo Arbitrio,_ one must heed and not overlook his
frequent
admonitions to concern oneself with God as He has revealed
Himself
in the Gospel, and not speculate concerning God in His
transcendence,
absoluteness, and majesty, as the One in whom we live and
move and
have our being, and without whom nothing can either exist or
occur,
and whose wonderful ways are past finding out. (CONC. TRIGL.,
898.) And
the fact that the Lutheran theologians, living at the time and
immediately
after the framing of the _Formula of Concord,_ objected
neither
to the book _De Servo Arbitrio_ itself nor to its public
endorsement
by the _Formula of Concord,_ is an additional proof of the
fact that
they were in complete agreement with Luther's teaching of
conversion
and salvation by grace alone. (Frank 1, 120.)
This
_sola-gratia_-doctrine, the vital truth of Christianity,
rediscovered
and proclaimed once more by Luther, was, as stated, the
target at
which Erasmus directed his shafts. In his _Diatribe_ he
defined
the power of free will to be the faculty of applying oneself to
grace
(_facultas applicandi se ad gratiam_), and declared that those are
the best
theologians who, while ascribing as much as possible to the
grace of
God, do not eliminate this human factor. He wrote: Free will is
"the
ability of the human will according to which man is able either to
turn
himself to what leads to eternal salvation or to turn away from
it."
(St.L. 18, 1612.) Again: "Those, therefore, who are farthest apart
from the
views of Pelagius ascribe to grace the most, but to free will
almost
nothing; yet they do not abolish it entirely. They say that man
cannot
will anything good without special grace, cannot begin anything
good,
cannot continue in it, cannot complete anything without the chief
thing,
the constant help of divine grace. This opinion seems to be
pretty
probable because it leaves to man a striving and an effort, and
yet does
not admit that he is to ascribe even the least to his own
powers."
(1619.) One must avoid extremes, and seek the middle of the
road,
said Erasmus. Pelagius had fallen into Scylla, and Luther into
Charybdis.
"I am pleased with the opinion of those who ascribe to free
will
something, but to grace by far the most." (1666.) Essentially,
this was
the error held, nursed, and defended also by the Synergists,
though
frequently in more guarded and ambiguous phrases. But their
theory of
conversion also involved, as Schaff and Schmauk put it, "the
idea of a
partnership between God and man, and a corresponding division
of work
and merit." (_Conf. Principle,_ 600.)
However,
these attempts to revamp the Semi-Pelagian teaching resulted in
a
controversy which more and longer than any other endangered and
disquieted
the Lutheran Church, before as well as after the adoption of
the
_Formula of Concord._ Whether the unregenerate man, when the Word of
God is
preached, and the grace of God is offered him, is able to prepare
himself
for grace, accept it, and assent thereto, was, according to the
_Formula
of Concord,_ "the question upon which, _for quite a number of
years
now,_ there has been a controversy among some theologians in the
churches
of the Augsburg Confession." (881, 2.) And of all the
controversies
after Luther's death the synergistic controversy was most
momentous
and consequential. For the doctrine of grace with which it
dealt is
the vital breath of every Christian. Without it neither faith
nor the
Christian religion can live and remain. "If we believe," says
Luther in
_De Servo Arbitrio,_ "that Christ has redeemed men by His
blood,
then we must confess that the entire man was lost; otherwise we
make
Christ superfluous or the Redeemer of but the meanest part of us,
which is
blasphemous and sacrilegious." Reading the book of Erasmus, in
which he
bent every effort toward exploding the doctrine of grace,
Luther
felt the hand of his opponent clutching his throat. In the
closing
paragraph of _De Servo Arbitrio_ Luther wrote: "I highly laud
and extol
you for this thing also, that of all others you alone have
gone to
the heart of the subject.... You alone have discerned the core
of the
matter and have aimed at the throat, for which I thank you
heartily.--_Unus
tu et solus cardinem rerum vidisti, et ipsum iugulum
petisti,
pro quo ex animo tibi gratias ago, in hac enim causa libentius
versor,
quantum favet tempus et otium._" (E. v. a. 7, 367. 137; St. L.
18, 1967;
Pieper, _Dogm._ 2, 543.) And so the Synergists, who renewed
the
doctrine of Erasmus, also flew at the throat of Christianity.
Genuine
Lutheranism would have been strangled if synergism had emerged
victorious
from this great controversy of grace versus free will.
