F. Bente - Historical Introductions. XIX. Controversy on Christ's Descent into Hell

XIX. Controversy on Christ's Descent into Hell.

218. Luther's Doctrine.

While according to medieval theologians the descent into hell was

regarded as an act by which Christ, with His soul only, entered the

abode of the dead; and while according to Calvin and the Reformed

generally the descent into hell is but a figurative expression for the

sufferings of Christ, particularly of His soul, on the cross, Luther,

especially in a sermon delivered 1533 at Torgau, taught in accordance

with the Scriptures that Christ the God-man, body and soul, descended

into hell as Victor over Satan and his host. With special reference to

Ps. 16, 10 and Acts 2, 24. 27, Luther explained: After His burial the

whole person of Christ, the God-man, descended into hell, conquered the

devil, and destroyed the power of hell and Satan. The mode and manner,

however, in which this was done can no more be comprehended by human

reason than His sitting at the right hand of the Father, and must

therefore not be investigated, but believed and accepted in simple

faith. It is sufficient if we retain the consolation that neither hell

nor devil are any longer able to harm us. Accordingly, Luther did not

regard the descent into hell as an act belonging to the state of

humiliation, by which He paid the penalty for our sins, but as an act of

exaltation, in which Christ, as it were, plucked for us the fruits of

His sufferings which were finished when He died upon the cross.

Luther's sermon at Torgau graphically describes the descent as a

triumphant march of our victorious Savior into the stronghold of the

dismayed infernal hosts. From it we quote the following: "Before Christ

arose and ascended into heaven, and while yet lying in the grave, He

also descended into hell in order to deliver also us from it, who were

to be held in it as prisoners.... However I shall not discuss this

article in a profound and subtle manner, as to how it was done or what

it means to 'descend into hell,' but adhere to the simplest meaning

conveyed by these words, as we must represent it to children and

uneducated people." "Therefore whoever would not go wrong or stumble had

best adhere to the words and understand them in a simple way as well as

he can. Accordingly, it is customary to represent Christ in paintings on

walls, as He descends, appears before hell, clad in a priestly robe and

with a banner in His hand, with which He beats the devil and puts him to

flight, takes hell by storm, and rescues those that are His. Thus it was

also acted the night before Easter as a play for children. And I am well

pleased with the fact that it is painted, played, sung and said in this

manner for the benefit of simple people. We, too, should let it go at

that, and not trouble ourselves with profound and subtle thoughts as to

how it may have happened, since it surely did not occur bodily inasmuch

as He remained in the grave three days."

Luther continues: "However since we cannot but conceive thoughts and

images of what is presented to us in words, and unable to think of or

understand anything without such images, it is appropriate and right

that we view it literally, just as it is painted, that He descends with

the banner, shattering and destroying the gates of hell; and we should

put aside thoughts that are too deep and incomprehensible for us." "But

we ought ... simply to fix and fasten our hearts and thoughts on the

words of the Creed, which says: 'I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the

Son of God, dead, buried, and descended into hell,' that is, in the

entire person, God and man, with body and soul, undivided, 'born of the

Virgin, suffered, died, and buried'; _in like manner I must not divide

it here either, but believe and say that the same Christ, God and man in

one person, descended into hell_ but did not remain in it; as Ps. 16, 10

says of Him: 'Thou wilt not leave My soul in hell nor suffer Thine Holy

One to see corruption.' By the word 'soul,' He, in accordance with the

language of the Scripture, does not mean, as we do, a being separated

from the body, but the entire man, the Holy One of God, as He here calls

Himself. But how it may have occurred that the man lies there in the

grave, and yet descends into hell--that, indeed, we shall and must leave

unexplained and uncomprehended; for it certainly did not take place in a

bodily and tangible manner although we can only paint and conceive it in

a coarse and bodily way and speak of it in pictures." "Such, therefore

is the plainest manner to speak of this article, that we may adhere to

the words and cling to this main point, that for us, through Christ,

hell has been torn to pieces and the devil's kingdom and power utterly

destroyed, for which purpose He died, was buried, and descended,--so

that it should no longer harm or overwhelm us, as He Himself says, Matt.

16, 18...." (CONC. TRIGL., 1050)

219. Aepinus in Hamburg.

The two outstanding features of Luther's sermon are that Christ

descended into hell body and soul, and that He descended as a triumphant

Victor, and not in order to complete His suffering and the work of

atonement. The denial of these two points, in particular, caused a new

controversy, which however, was of brief duration only, and practically

confined to the city of Hamburg, hence also called the Hamburg Church

Controversy, _der Hamburger Kirchenstreit_. Its author was John Aepinus

[Huck or Hoeck; born 1499; studied under Luther; persecuted in

Brandenburg and banished; rector in Stralsund; 1532 pastor and later

superintendent in Hamburg; wrote 1547 against the Interim; sided with

Flacius against the Philippists; published books in Latin and Low

German; dealt with Christ's descent to hell especially in his

_Commentary on Psalm 16_, of 1544, and in his _Explanation of Psalm 68_,

of 1553; died May 13, 1553].

Aepinus taught that Christ's descent is a part of His suffering and

atonement. While the body was lying in the grave, His soul descended

into hell in order to suffer the qualms and pangs required to satisfy

the wrath of God, complete the work of redemption, and render a plenary

satisfaction, _satisfactio plenaria_. The descent is the last stage of

Christ's humiliation and suffering, His triumph first beginning with the

resurrection. Though we know His sufferings in hell to have been most

sad and bitter, yet we are unable to say and define what they were in

particular, or to describe them concretely, because Scripture is silent

on this question.

But while Aepinus originally held that the soul of Christ suffered in

hell the punishment of eternal death, he later on distinguished between

the first and the second death (eternal damnation) asserting the

suffering Christ endured in hell to have been a part of the punishment

of the first death, and that He did not suffer the _cruciatus AETERNI

tartarei ignis_.--Such were the views advocated, developed, and

variously modified by Aepinus in his theological lectures and

publications. From the Latin "_Consummatum est_, It is finished," the

teaching that Christ finished His suffering and the work of atonement by

His death on the cross was stigmatized by Aepinus as "_error

consummaticus_," and its advocates as "Consummatists," while these, in

turn, dubbed Aepinus and his adherents "Infernalists." (Frank 3,440.)

Among the statements of Aepinus are the following: "I believe that hell

is a place prepared by divine justice to punish the devils and wicked

men according to the quality of their sins." (437.) "On account of our

redemption Christ descended to hell, just as He suffered and died for

us." (437.) "Theologians who either deny that the soul of Christ

descended into hell, or say that Christ was present in hell only in

effect and power, and not by His presence, deprive the Church of faith

in the sufficient, complete, and perfect satisfaction and redemption of

Christ and leave to Satan the right over pious souls after their

separation from the body. For by denying that Christ sustained and bore

those punishments of death and hell which the souls were obliged to bear

after their separation from the body, they assert that complete

satisfaction has not been made for them." (439.) "I believe that the

descent of the soul of Christ to hell is a part of the Passion of

Christ, _i.e._, of the struggles, dangers, anguish, pains, and

punishments which He took upon Himself and bore in our behalf; for, in

the Scriptures, to descend to hell signifies to be involved in the

highest struggles, pain, and distress. I believe that the descent of

Christ to hell is a part of His obedience foretold by the prophets and

imposed on Him because of our sins." (440.) "I believe that the descent

of Christ pertains to His humiliation, not to His glorification and

triumph." (441.) "The descent to hell was by God's judgment laid upon

Christ as the last degree of His humiliation and exinanition and as the

extreme part of His obedience and satisfaction." (441.) "Peter clearly

teaches, Acts 2, that the soul of Christ felt the pangs of hell and

death while His body was resting in the sepulcher." (441.) "What Christ

experienced when He descended into hell is known to Himself, not to us;

may we acknowledge and accept with grateful minds that He descended

into hell for us. But let us not inquire what it was that He experienced

for us in His descent, for we may piously remain ignorant of matters

which God did not reveal to His Church, and which He does not demand

that she know." (444.)

220. Opposed by His Colleagues.

The views of Aepinus, first presented in lectures delivered 1544 before

the ministers of Hamburg, called forth dissent and opposition on the

part of his colleagues. Before long, however (1549), the controversy

began to assume a virulent character. While the conduct of Aepinus was

always marked by dignity, moderation, and mildness, his opponents

Tileman Epping, John Gartz, and Caspar Hackrott, ventilated and

assailed his teaching in their pulpits.

The chief argument against Aepinus was that his doctrine conflicted

with, and invalidated, the words of Christ, "It is finished," "To-day

shalt thou be with Me in Paradise." Aepinus rejoined that the word

"to-day" is an ambiguous term, denoting both the immediate presence and

the indefinite near future (_pro praesenti et imminente tempore

indefinito_). (414.) However, it was not in every respect Luther's

position which was occupied by some of the opponents of Aepinus. Gratz

is reported to have taught that the article concerning the descent of

Christ was not necessary to salvation that _descendere_ (descend) was

identical with _sepeliri_ (to be buried), that the descent to hell

referred to the anguish and temptation of Christ during His life; that

Christ immediately after His death entered paradise together with the

malefactor, that the work of atonement and satisfaction was completed

with His death. (446.)

In 1550 the city council of Hamburg asked Melanchthon for his opinion.

But Melanchthon's answer of September, 1550, signed also by Bugenhagen,

was rather indefinite, vague, and evasive. He said, in substance:

Although we have frequently heard the Reverend Doctor Luther speak on

this matter and read his writings, yet, since a controversy has now been

raised, we have written also to others for their views, in order to

present a unanimous opinion, and thus avoid dissensions later on. In his

_Commentary on Genesis_ and in his Torgau sermon, Luther referred

Descent only to the victory of the Son of God, indicating that the rest

must not be searched out. The Son of God did indeed overcome the

torments of hell; but the Psalms show that the pains of hell are not to

be restricted only to the time after the separation of the soul

(_dolores inferorum non restringendos esse tantum ad tempus post animae

separationem_). Luther, said Melanchthon, expressed it as his opinion

"that this article concerning the Descent must be retained even when

referred only to the victory of Christ, confessing that the tyranny of

the devil and hell is destroyed _i.e._, that all who believe in Christ

are liberated from the power of the devil and hell, according to the

word: 'No one shall pluck My sheep out of My hands.' And in a certain

way the Son of God manifested this victory to the devils, and, no doubt,

the devils felt that their power was broken by this Victor, and that the

head of the serpent was truly bruised by the Seed of the Woman, by

Christ, God and man. And among the signs of His victory was the

resurrection of many dead." With respect to the controverted point,

concerning the sufferings of the soul of Christ after its separation

from the body, Melanchthon advised that the council of Hamburg "enjoin

both parties to await the opinions of others also, and in the mean time

to avoid mentioning this question in sermons, schools, or other public

meetings." Not the article concerning the Descent itself, but "only the

investigation of this particular point, concerning the suffering of His

departed soul in hell, is to be omitted, an inquiry which also Dr.

Luther did not consider necessary." (_C. R._ 7, 667.)

Before this Melanchthon had written in a similar vein of compromise to

Aepinus and his colleague, John Gartz. "I wish," said he in a letter of

April 4, 1550, "that there would be an amnesty between you in this

entire strife" about the descent of Christ. "Let us cultivate peace with

one another, and cover up certain wounds of ours, lest sadder

disputations originate." (7, 569; compare 6, 116.) In the following year

the Hamburg Council, acting on the advice of Melanchthon, deposed and

expelled the leaders of the opposition to Aepinus, which, however, was

not intended as a decision in favor of the doctrine of Aepinus, but

merely as a measure to restore peace and silence in the city.

221. Other Participants in This Controversy.

Though the controversy was suppressed in Hamburg, and Aepinus died May

13, 1553, the theological questions involved were not settled, nor had

all of the advocates of the views set forth by Aepinus disappeared from

the scene. Even such theologians as Westphal, Flacius, Gallus, and

Osiander were partly agreed with him. Osiander says in an opinion: "I am

asked whether the descent of Christ pertains to the satisfaction made

for us or only to His triumph over the enemies. I answer briefly that

the descent of Christ into hell pertained to the satisfaction He merited

for us as well as to the triumph over the enemies, just as His death on

the cross does not belong to the one only, but to both.... Thus by

descending into hell He rendered satisfaction for us who merited hell,

according to Ps. 16." On the other hand, a synod held July 11, 1554, at

Greifswald made it a point expressly to deny that the descent of Christ

involved any suffering of His soul, or that it was of an expiatory

nature, or that this article referred to the anguish of His soul before

His death, or that it was identical with His burial. They affirmed the

teaching of Luther, _viz._, that the entire Christ, God and man, body

and soul, descended into hell after His burial and before His

resurrection, etc. (Frank, 446f.; 416.)

Furthermore, in a letter to John Parsimonius, court-preacher in

Stuttgart, dated February 1, 1565 John Matsperger of Augsburg taught

that, in the article of the descent of Christ, the word "hell" must not

be taken figuratively for torments, death, burial, etc., but literally,

as the kingdom of Satan and the place of the damned spirits and souls

wherever that might be, that the entire Christ descended into this place

according to both divinity and humanity, with His body and soul, and not

only with the latter, while the former remained in the grave; that this

occurred immediately after His vivification or the reunion of body and

soul in the grave and before His resurrection; that the Descent was

accomplished in an instant, _viz._, in the moment after His vivification

and before His resurrection; and that Christ descended, not to suffer,

but, as a triumphant Victor, to destroy the portals of hell for all

believers. Parsimonius, too, maintained that Christ did not in any way

suffer after His death, but denied emphatically that "hell" was a

definite physical locality or place in space, and that the descent

involved a local motion of the body. Brenz assented to the views of

Parsimonius, and the preachers of Augsburg also assented to them. In

order to check his zeal against his opponents, Matsperger was deposed

and imprisoned. (Frank, 450 f.)

Such being the situation within the Lutheran Church concerning the

questions involved in the Hamburg Controversy, which by the way, had

been mentioned also in the Imperial Instruction for the Diet at

Augsburg, 1555, the _Formula of Concord_ considered it advisable to pass

also on this matter. It did so, in Article IX, by simply reproducing

what Luther had taught in the sermon referred to above. Here we read:

"We simply believe that the entire person, God and man after the burial,

descended into hell, conquered the devil, destroyed the power of hell

and took from the devil all his might." (1051, 3.) "But how this

occurred we should [not curiously investigate, but] reserve until the

other world, where not only this point [this mystery], but also still

others will be revealed, which we here simply believe, and cannot

comprehend with our blind reason." (827, 4.) Tschackert remarks: "Ever

since [the adoption of the Ninth Article of the _Formula of Concord_]

Lutheran theology has regarded the Descent of Christ as the beginning of

the state of exaltation of the human nature of the God-man." (559.)

XX. The Eleventh Article of the Formula of Concord: On Predestination.

222. Why Article XI was Embodied in the Formula.

The reason why Article XI was embodied in the _Formula of Concord_ is

stated in the opening paragraph of this article: "Although among the

theologians of the _Augsburg Confession_ there has not occurred as yet

any public dissension whatever concerning the eternal election of the

children of God that has caused offense, and has become wide-spread, yet

since this article has been brought into very painful controversy in

other places, and even among our theologians there has been some

agitation concerning it; moreover, since the same expressions were not

always employed concerning it by the theologians: therefore in order, by

the aid of divine grace, to prevent disagreement and separation on its

account in the future among our successors, we, as much as in us lies,

have desired also to present an explanation of the same here, so that

every one may know what is our unanimous doctrine, faith, and confession

also concerning this article." (1063, 1.)

The statements contained in these introductory remarks are in agreement

with the historical facts. For, while serious dissensions pertaining to

election did occur in Reformed countries, the Lutheran Church, ever

since the great conflict with Erasmus on free will, in 1525 had not been

disturbed by any general, public, and offensive controversy on this

question, neither _ad intra_ among themselves, nor _ad extra_ with the

Calvinists. Hence the chief purpose for embodying Article XI in the

_Formula_ was not to settle past or present disputes, but rather, as

stated in the paragraph quoted, to be of service in avoiding future

differences and conflicts.

This earnest concern for the future peace of our Church, as well as for

the maintenance of its doctrinal purity, was partly due to

apprehensions, which, indeed, were not without foundation. As a matter

of fact, long before the _Formula_ was drafted, the theological

atmosphere was surcharged with polemical possibilities and probabilities

regarding predestination,--a doctrine which is simple enough as long as

faith adheres to the plain Word of God, without making rationalistic and

sophistical inferences, but which in public controversies has always

proved to be a most intricate, crucial, and dangerous question.

Calvin and his adherents boldly rejected the universality of God's

grace, of Christ's redemption, and of the Spirit's efficacious operation

through the means of grace, and taught that, in the last analysis, also

the eternal doom of the damned was solely due to an absolute decree of

divine reprobation (in their estimation the logical complement of

election), and this at the very time when they pretended adherence to

the _Augsburg Confession_ and were making heavy inroads into Lutheran

territory with their doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper and the

person of Christ,--which in itself was sufficient reason for a public

discussion and determined resentment of their absolute

predestinarianism. The Synergists, on the other hand, had long ago been

busy explaining that the only way to escape the Stoic dogma of

Calvinism, and to account for the difference why some are accepted and

elected, while the rest are rejected, was to assume a different conduct

in man--_aliqua actio dissimilis in homine_. And as for their Lutheran

opponents, it cannot be denied that some of their statements were not

always sufficiently guarded to preclude all misapprehensions and false

inferences.

Thus controversial material had been everywhere heaped up in

considerable quantities. Considering these factors, which for decades

had been making for a theological storm, one may feel rather surprised

that a controversy on predestination had not arisen long ago. Tschackert

says: "They [the Lutheran theologians] evidently feared an endless

debate if the intricate question concerning predestination were made a

subject of discussion." (559.) Sooner or later, however, the conflict

was bound to come with dire results for the Church, unless provisions

were made to escape it, or to meet it in the proper way. Well aware of

this entire critical situation and the imminent dangers lurking therein,

the framers of the _Formula of Concord_ wisely resolved to embody in it

also an article on election in order to clear the theological

atmosphere, maintain the divine truth, ward off a future controversy,

and insure the peace of our Church.

223. Unguarded Statements of Anti-Synergists.

That the occasional dissimilar and inadequate references to eternal

election and related subjects made by some opponents of the Synergists

were a matter of grave concern to the authors of the _Formula of

Concord_ appears from the passage quoted from Article XI, enumerating,

among the reasons why the article on predestination was embodied in the

_Formula_, also the fact that "the same expressions were not always

employed concerning it [eternal election] by the theologians." These

theologians had staunchly defended the _sola gratia_ doctrine, but not

always without some stumbling in their language. In their expositions

they had occasionally employed phrases which, especially when torn from

their context, admitted a synergistic or Calvinistic interpretation.

The framers of the _Formula_ probably had in mind such inadequate and

unguarded statements of Bucer, Amsdorf, and others as the following.

Bucer had written: "The Scriptures do not hesitate to say that God

delivers some men into a reprobate mind and drives them to perdition.

Why, then, is it improper to say that God has afore-determined to

deliver these into a reprobate mind and to drive them to perdition?

_Scriptura non veretur dicere, Deum tradere quosdam homines in sensum

reprobum et agere in perniciem. Quid igitur indignum Deo, dicere, etiam

statuisse antea, ut illos in sensum reprobum traderet et ageret in

perniciem?_" (Frank 4, 264.) The _Formula of Concord_, however, is

careful to explain: "Moreover, it is to be diligently considered that

when God punishes sin with sins, that is, when He afterwards punishes

with obduracy and blindness those who had been converted, because of

their subsequent security, impenitence, and wilful sins this should not

be interpreted to mean _that it never had been God's good pleasure_ that

such persons should come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved."

(1001, 83.)

Brenz had said: "To the one of the entire mass of the human race God

gives faith in Christ, whereby he is justified and saved, while He

leaves the other in his incredulity that he may perish. _Deus ex

universa generis humani massa alteri quidem donat fidem in Christum, qua

iustificetur et salvetur, alterum autem relinquit in sua incredulitate,

ut pereat_." (Frank 4, 256.) Again: It was God's will to elect Jacob and

to leave Esau in his sin. What is said of these two must be understood

of the election and rejection of all men in general. "_Potuisset Deus

optimo iure ambos abiicere;... sed sic proposuerat Deus, sic visum est

Deo, sic erat voluntas Dei, sic erat bene placitum Dei, ut Iacobum

eligeret, Esau autem in peccato suo relinqueret; quod de his duobus

dictum est, hoc intelligendum erit generaliter de omnium hominum

electione et abiectione_." (256.) Hesshusius: "In this respect God does

not will that all be saved, for He has not elected all. _Hoc respectu

Deus non vult, ut omnes salventur; non enim omnes elegit_."

(Schluesselburg 5, 320. 548.) Such statements, when torn from their

context, gave color to the inference that God's grace was not universal.

The _Formula of Concord_, therefore, carefully urges that God earnestly

endeavors to save all men, also those who are finally lost, and that man

alone is the cause of his damnation.

In his _Sententia de Declaratione Victorini_ of 1562 Nicholas Amsdorf

said: "God has but one mode of working in all creatures.... Therefore

God works in the same way in man who has a will and intellect as in all

other creatures, rocks and blocks included, _viz._, through His willing

and saying alone.... As rocks and blocks are in the power of God, so and

in the same manner man's will and intellect are in the will of God, so

that man can will and choose absolutely nothing else than what God wills

and says, be it from grace or from wrath. _Non est nisi unus modus

agendi Dei cum omnibus creaturis.... Quare eodem modo cum homine volente

et intelligente agit Deus, quemadmodum cum omnibus creaturis reliquis,

lapide et trunco, per solum suum velle et dicere.... Sicut lapides et

trunci sunt in potestate Dei, ita et eodem modo voluntas et intellectus

hominis sunt in voluntate Dei, ut homo nihil prorsus velle et eligere

possit nisi id, quod vult et dicit Deus, sive ex gratia, sive ex ira,

derelinquens eum in manu consilii eius_." (Schlb. 5, 547; Gieseler 3, 2,

230; Frank 4, 259.) This, too, was not embodied in the _Formula of

Concord_, which teaches that, although man before his conversion has no

mode of working anything good in spiritual things, God nevertheless has

a different way of working in rational creatures than in irrational and

that man is not coerced, neither in his sinning nor in his conversion.

(905, 60ff.)

224. Synergistic Predestination.

The connection between the doctrines of conversion and election is most

intimate. A correct presentation of the former naturally leads to a

correct presentation of the latter, and vice versa. Hence Melanchthon,

the father of synergism in conversion, was also the author of a

synergistic predestination. In his first period he speaks of

predestination as Luther did, but, as Frank puts it, "with less of

mysticism conformably to reason, following the same line of thought as

Zwingli (_mit weniger Mystik, auf verstandesmaessige, Zwinglis

Ausfuehrungen aehnliche Weise_." [transcriber: sic on punctuation] (1,

125; _C. R._ 21, 88. 93.) In reality he probably had never fully grasped

the truly religious and evangelical view of Luther, which, indeed, would

account for his later synergistic deviations as well as for the charges

of Stoicism he preferred against Luther. After abandoning his former

doctrine, he, as a rule, was noncommittal as to his exact views on

election. But whenever he ventured an opinion, it savored of synergism.

September 30, 1531, he wrote to Brenz: "But in the entire _Apology_ I

have avoided that long and inexplicable disputation concerning

predestination. Everywhere I speak as though predestination follows our

faith and works. And this I do intentionally, for I do not wish to

perturb consciences with these inexplicable labyrinths. _Sed ego in tota

Apologia fugi illam longam et inexplicabilem disputationem de

praedestinatione. Ubique sic loquor, quasi praedestinatio sequatur

nostram fidem et opera. Ac facio hoc certo consilio; non enim volo

conscientias perturbare illis inexplicabilibus labyrinthis_." (_C. R._

2, 547.)

In the third, revised edition of his _Explanation of the Epistle to the

Romans_, 1532, he suggests "that divine compassion is truly the cause of

election, but that there is some cause also in him who accepts, namely,

in as far as he does not repudiate the grace offered. _Verecundius est,

quod aliquamdiu placuit Augustino, misericordiam Dei vere causam

electionis esse, sed tamen eatenus aliquam causam in accipiente esse,

quatenus promissionem oblatam non repudiat, quia malum ex nobis est_."

(Gieseler 3, 2, 192; Seeberg 4, 2, 442.) In an addition to his _Loci_ in

1533, Melanchthon again speaks of a cause of justification and election

residing in man, in order to harmonize the statements that the promise

of the Gospel is both gratis and universal. (_C. R._ 21, 332.) In the

_Loci_ edition of 1543 we read: "God elected because He had decreed to

call us to the knowledge of His Son, and desires His will and benefits

to be known to the human race. He therefore approves and elected those

who obey the call. _Elegit Deus, quia vocare nos ad Filii agnitionem

decrevit et vult generi humano suam voluntatem et sua beneficia

innotescere. Approbat igitur ac elegit obtemperantes vocationi_." (21,

917.)

The bold synergistic views concerning conversion later on developed by

Melanchthon plainly involve the doctrine that there must be in man a

cause of discrimination why some are elected while others are rejected.

In his _Loci_ of 1548 he had written: "Since the promise is universal,

and since there are no contradictory wills in God, some cause of

discrimination must be in us why Saul is rejected and David accepted

(_cur Saul abiiciatur David recipiatur_), that is, there must be some

dissimilar action in these two." (21, 659.) Self-evidently Melanchthon

would not have hesitated to replace the phrase "why Saul was rejected

and David accepted," with "why Saul was rejected and David elected."

Melanchthon held that the sole alternative of and hence the only escape

from, the doctrine of absolute necessity (_Stoica anagke_) and from the

absolute decree, which makes God responsible also for sin and eternal

damnation, was the synergistic assumption of man's "ability to apply

himself to grace--_facultas applicandi se ad gratiam_." Accordingly, as

he dubbed those who opposed his Calvinizing views on the Lord's Supper

as "bread-worshipers," so he stigmatized as Stoics all Lutherans who

opposed his synergistic tendencies. (_C. R._ 8, 782. 783. 916; 9, 100.

565. 733; 23, 392.) Seeberg summarizes Melanchthon's doctrine as

follows: "Grace alone saves, but it saves by imparting to man the

freedom to decide for himself. This synergistic element reappears in his

doctrine of election." (4, 2, 446.) "God elects all men who desire to

believe." (_Grundriss_, 144.)

Naturally the Synergists of Wittenberg and other places followed Master

Philip also in the doctrine of election. In 1555, John Pfeffinger

declared in his _Quaestiones Quinque_ (extensively quoted from in the

chapter on the Synergistic Controversy), thesis 17: "If the will were

idle or purely passive [in conversion], there would be no distinction

between the pious and the impious, or the elect and the damned, as

between Saul and David, between Judas and Peter. God would become a

respecter of persons and the author of contumacy in the wicked and

damned. Moreover, contradictory wills would be ascribed to God which

conflicts with the entire Scripture. Hence it follows that there is in

us some cause why some assent while others do not assent." Thesis 23:

"For we are elected and received because we believe in the Son. (_Ideo

enim electi sumus et recepti, quia credimus in Filium_.) But our

apprehension must concur. For since the promise of grace is universal,

and we must obey the promise, it follows that between the elect and the

rejected some difference must be inferred from our will, _viz._, that

those are rejected who resist the promise while contrariwise those are

accepted who embrace the promise."

The Synergists argued: If in every respect grace alone is the cause of

our salvation, conversion, and election, grace cannot be universal. Or,

since man's contempt of God's Word is the cause of his reprobation,

man's acceptance of God's grace must be regarded as a cause of his

election. Joachim Ernest of Anhalt, for instance, in a letter to

Landgrave William of Hesse, dated April 20, 1577, criticized the

_Formula of Concord_ for not allowing and admitting this argument.

(Frank 4, 135. 267.)

225. Calvinistic Predestination.

While the Synergists, in answering the question why only some are saved,

denied the _sola gratia_ and taught a conversion and predestination

conditioned by the conduct of man, John Calvin and his adherents, on the

other hand, made rapid progress in the opposite direction, developing

with increasing clearness and boldness an absolute, bifurcated

predestination, _i.e._, a capricious election to eternal damnation as

well as to salvation, and in accordance therewith denied the

universality of God's grace, of Christ's redemption, and of the

efficacious operation of the Holy Spirit through the means of grace. In

his "_Institutio Religionis Christianae_, Instruction in the Christian

Religion," of which the first edition appeared 1535, the second in 1539,

and the third in 1559, Calvin taught that God created and foreordained

some to eternal life, others to eternal damnation. Man's election means

that he has been created for eternal life, man's reprobation, that he

has been created for eternal damnation. We read (_Lib_. 3, cap. 21, 5):

"_Praedestinationem vocamus aeternum Dei decretum, quo apud se

constitutum habuit, quid de unoquoque homine fieri vellet. Non enim pari

conditione creantur omnes; sed aliis vita aeterna, aliis damnatio

aeterna praeordinatur. Itaque prout in alterutrum finem quisque conditus

est, ita vel ad vitam, vel ad mortem praedestinatum dicimus_." (Tholuck,

_Calvini Institutio_ 2, 133.) In the edition of 1559 Calvin says that

eternal election illustrates the grace of God by showing "that He does

not adopt all promiscuously unto the hope of salvation, but bestows on

some what He denies to others--_quod non omnes promiscue adoptat in spem

salutis, sed dat aliis, quod aliis negat_." (Gieseler 3, 2, 172.) Again:

"I certainly admit that all the sons of Adam have fallen by the will of

God into the miserable condition of bondage, in which they are now

fettered; for, as I said in the beginning, one must always finally go

back to the decision of the divine will alone, whose cause is hidden in

itself. _Fateor sane, in hanc qua nunc illigati sunt conditionis

miseriam Dei voluntate cecidisse universos filios Adam; atque id est,

quod principio dicebam, redeundum tandem semper esse ad solum divinae

voluntatis arbitrium, cuius causa sit in ipso abscondita_." (173.)

Calvin's successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, was also a strict

supralapsarian. At the colloquy of Moempelgard (Montbeliard), 1586, in

disputing with Andreae, he defended the proposition "that Adam had

indeed of his own accord fallen into these calamities, yet,

nevertheless, not only according to the prescience, but also according

to the ordination and decree of God--_sponte quidem, sed tamen non modo

praesciente, sed etiam iuste ordinante et decernente Deo_." (186.)

"There never has been, nor is, nor will be a time," said he, "when God

has wished, wishes, or will wish, to have compassion on every individual

person. _Nullum tempus fuit vel est vel erit, quo voluerit, velit aut

voliturus sit Deus singulorum misereri_." (Pieper, _Dogm_. 2, 25. 50.)

In foisting his doctrine of election on the Reformed churches, Calvin

met with at least some opposition. The words in the paragraph of the

_Formula of Concord_ quoted above: "Yet, since this article [of

predestination] has been brought into very painful controversy in other

places," probably refer to the conflicts in Geneva and Switzerland.

October 16, 1551, Jerome Bolsec [a Carmelite in Paris, secretly spread

Pelagianism in Geneva; sided with the Protestants in Paris and Orleans

after his banishment from Geneva; reembraced Romanism when persecution

set in; wrote against Calvin and Beza, died 1584] was imprisoned in

Geneva because of his opposition to Calvin's doctrine of predestination.

Melanchthon remarks in a letter of February 1, 1552: "Laelius [Socinus]

wrote me that in Geneva the struggle concerning the Stoic necessity is

so great that a certain one who dissented from Zeno [Calvin] was

incarcerated. What a miserable affair! The doctrine of salvation is

obscured by disputations foreign to it." (_C. R._ 7, 932.) Although the

German cantons (Zurich, Bern, Basel) advised moderation, Bolsec was

banished from Geneva, with the result however, that he continued his

agitation against Calvin in other parts of Switzerland. In Bern all

discussions on predestination were prohibited by the city council.

Calvin complained in a letter of September 18, 1554: "The preachers of

Bern publicly declare that I am a heretic worse than all the Papists."

(Gieseler 3, 2, 178.) January 26, 1555, the council of Bern renewed its

decree against public doctrinal discussions, notably those on

predestination--"_principalement touchant la matiere de la divine

predestination, qui nous semble non etre necessaire_," etc. (179.) Later

on the doctrine of Calvin was opposed by the Arminians from

Semi-Pelagian principles.

226. Calvinistic Confessions.

The essential features of Calvin's doctrine of predestination were

embodied in most of the Reformed confessions. The _Consensus Genevensis_

of January 1, 1552, written by Calvin against Albert Pighius [a

fanatical defender of Popery against Luther, Bucer, Calvin; died

December 26, 1542] and adopted by the pastors of Geneva, is entitled:

"_Concerning God's Eternal Predestination_, by which He has elected some

to salvation and left theothers to their perdition--_qua in salutem

alios ex hominibus elegit, alios suo exitio reliquit_." (Niemeyer,

_Collectio Confessionum_, 218. 221.) The _Confessio Belgica_, of 1559,

and the _Confessio Gallicana_, of 1561, teach the same absolute

predestinarianism. In Article XVI of the Belgic Confession we read: In

predestination God proved Himself to be what He is in reality, _viz._,

merciful and just. "Merciful by liberating and saving from damnation and

perdition those whom ... He elected; just, by leaving the others in

their fall and in the perdition into which they precipitated themselves.

_Iustum vero, alios in illo suo lapsu et perditione relinquendo, in quam

sese ipsi praecipites dederunt_." (Niemeyer, 370.) The _Gallic

Confession_ [prepared by Calvin and his pupil, De Chandieu; approved by

a synod at Paris 1559; delivered by Beza to Charles IX, 1561, translated

into German 1562, and into Latin, 1566; adopted 1571 by the Synod of La

Rochelle] maintains that God elected some but left the others in their

corruption and damnation. In Article XII we read: "We believe that from

this corruption and general damnation in which all men are plunged, God,

according to His eternal and immutable counsel, calls those whom He has

chosen by His goodness and mercy alone in our Lord Jesus Christ, without

consideration of their works, to display in them the riches of His

mercy, leaving the rest in this same corruption and condemnation to show

in them His justice. _Credimus ex hac corruptione et damnatione

universali, in qua omnes homines natura sunt submersi, Deum alios quidem

eripere, quos videlicet aeterno et immutabili suo consilio sola sua

bonitate et misericordia, nulloque operum ipsorum respectu in Iesu

Christo elegit; alios vero in ea corruptione et damnatione relinquere,

in quibus nimirum iuste suo tempore damnandis iustitiam suam demonstret,

sicut in aliis divitias misericordiae suae declarat_." (Niemeyer, 332;

Schaff 3, 366.)

The _Formula Consensus Helveticae_ of 1675 says, canon 13: "As from

eternity Christ was elected Head, Leader, and Heir of all those who in

time are saved by His grace, thus also in the time of the New Covenant

He has been the Bondsman for those only who by eternal election were

given to Him to be His peculiar people, seed, and heredity. _Sicut

Christus ab aeterno electus est ut Caput, Princeps et Haeres omnium

eorum, qui in tempore per gratiam eius salvantur, ita etiam in tempore

Novi Foederis Sponsor factus est pro iis solis qui per aeternam

electionem dati ipsi sunt ut populus peculii, semen et haereditas

eius_," etc. (Niemeyer, 733.)

The same Calvinistic doctrines were subsequently embodied in the _Canons

of the Synod of Dort_, promulgated May 6, 1619, and in the _Westminster

Confession of Faith_, published 1647. In the former we read: "That some

receive the gift of faith from God, and others do not receive it,

proceeds from God's eternal election.... According to His just judgment

He leaves the non-elect to their own wickedness and obduracy." (Schaff

3, 582.) "The elect, in due time, though in various degrees and in

different measures, attain the assurance of this eternal and

unchangeable election, not by inquisitively prying into the secret and

deep things of God, but by observing in themselves, with a spiritual joy

and holy pleasure, the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the

Word of God, such as a true faith in Christ, filial fear, a godly sorrow

for sin, a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc." (583.)

"Not all, but some only, are elected, while others are passed by in the

eternal decree; whom God, out of His sovereign, most just,

irreprehensible, and unchangeable good pleasure, hath decreed to leave

in the common misery into which they have wilfully plunged themselves,

and not to bestow upon them saving faith and the grace of conversion."

... (584.) "For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will

and purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy

of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect,

for bestowing _upon them alone_ the gift of justifying faith, thereby to

bring them infallibly to salvation; that is, it was the will of God that

Christ by the blood of the cross whereby He confirmed the New Covenant

should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and

language all those, _and those only_, who were from eternity chosen to

salvation, and given to Him by the Father." (587.) "But God, who is rich

in mercy, according to His unchangeable purpose of election, does not

_wholly_ withdraw the Holy Spirit from His own people, even in their

melancholy falls, nor suffer them to proceed so far as to lose the grace

of adoption and forfeit the state of justification," etc. (Schaff 3,

593; Niemeyer, 716.)

The _Westminster Confession_ declares: "By the decree of God, for the

manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto

everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death."

(Schaff 3, 608.) "As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath

He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all

the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in

Adam, are redeemed by Christ are effectually called unto faith in Christ

by His Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified,

and kept by His power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any

other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted,

sanctified, and saved but the elect only." (609.) "The rest of mankind

God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will,

whereby He extends or withholds mercy as He pleases for the glory of His

sovereign power over His creatures, _to pass by_, and to ordain them to

dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious

justice." (610; Niemeyer, _Appendix_ 6. 7.)

227. Marbach and Zanchi in Strassburg.

In view of the situation portrayed in the preceding paragraphs, it is

certainly remarkable that a general public controversy, particularly

with the Calvinists and Synergists had not been inaugurated long before

the _Formula of Concord_ was able to write that such a conflict had not

yet occurred. Surely the powder required for a predestinarian

conflagration was everywhere stored up in considerable quantities,

within as well as without the Lutheran Church. Nor was a local skirmish

lacking which might have served as the spark and been welcomed as a

signal for a general attack. It was the conflict between Marbach and

Zanchi, probably referred to by the words quoted above from Article XI:

"Something of it [of a discussion concerning eternal election] has been

mooted also among our theologians." This controversy took place from

1561 to 1563, at Strassburg, where Lutheranism and Calvinism came into

immediate contact. In 1536 Strassburg had adopted the _Wittenberg

Concord_ and with it the _Augsburg Confession_ which since took the

place of the _Tetrapolitana_ delivered to Emperor Charles at the Diet

of Augsburg, 1530. The efficient and zealous leader in Lutheranizing

the city was John Marbach a graduate of Wittenberg and, together with

Mathesius, a former guest at Luther's table. He was born in 1521 and

labored in Strassburg from 1545 to 1581, the year of his death. He had

Bucer's Catechism replaced by Luther's, and entered the public

controversy against the Calvinists with a publication entitled,

_Concerning the Lord's Supper, against the Sacramentarians_, which

defends the omnipresence of Christ also according to His human nature.

In his efforts to Lutheranize the city, Marbach was opposed by the

Crypto-Calvinist Jerome Zanchi (born 1516, died 1590), a converted

Italian and a pupil of Peter Martyr [born September 8, 1500; won for

Protestantism by reading books of Bucer, Zwingli, and others; professor,

first in Strassburg, 1547 in Oxford; compelled to return to the

Continent (Strassburg and Zurich) by Bloody Mary; died November 12,

1562, when just about to write a book against Brenz]. From 1553 to 1563

Zanchi was professor of Old Testament exegesis in Strassburg. Though he

had signed the _Augsburg Confession_, he was and remained a rigid

Calvinist, both with respect to the doctrine of predestination and that

of the Lord's Supper, but withheld his public dissent until about 1561.

It was the Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverance of the saints,

according to which grace once received cannot be lost, upon which Zanchi

now laid especial emphasis. According to Loescher (_Historia Motuum_ 3,

30) he taught: "1. To the elect in this world faith is given by God only

once. 2. The elect who have once been endowed with true faith ... can

never again lose faith altogether. 3. The elect never sin with their

whole mind or their entire will. 4. When Peter denied Christ, he,

indeed, lacked the confession of the mouth, but not the faith of the

heart. _1. Electis in hoc saeculo semel tantum vera fides a Deo datur.

2. Electi semel vera fide donati Christoque per Spiritum Sanctum insiti

fidem prorsus amittere ... non possunt. 3. In electis regeneratis duo

sunt homines, interior et exterior. Ii, quum peccant, secundum tantum

hominem exteriorem, i.e., ea tantum parte, qua non sunt regeniti,

peccant; secundum vero interiorem hominem nolunt peccatum et

condelectantur legi Dei; quare non toto animo aut plena voluntate

peccant. 4. Petrum, quum negavit Christum, defecit quidem fidei

confessio in ore sed non defecit fides in corde_." (Tschackert 560;

Frank 4, 261.)

This tenet, that believers can neither lose their faith nor be eternally

lost, had been plainly rejected by Luther. In the _Smalcald Articles_ we

read: "On the other hand, if certain sectarists would arise, some of

whom are perhaps already extant, and in the time of the insurrection [of

the peasants, 1525] came to my own view, holding that all those who had

once received the Spirit or the forgiveness of sins, or had become

believers, even though they should afterwards sin, would still remain in

the faith, and such sin would not harm them, and hence crying thus: 'Do

whatever you please; if you believe, it all amounts to nothing: faith

blots out all sins,' etc.--they say, besides, that if any one sins after

he has received faith and the Spirit, he never truly had the Spirit and

faith: I have had before me many such insane men, and I fear that in

some such a devil is still remaining [hiding and dwelling]. It is,

accordingly, necessary to know and to teach that when holy men, still

having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving

with it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery,

murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed

from them. For the Holy Ghost does not permit sin to have dominion, to

gain the upper hand, so as to be accomplished, but represses and

restrains it so that it must not do what it wishes. But if it does what

it wishes, the Holy Ghost and faith are not present. For St. John says,

1 Ep. 3, 9: 'Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin,... and he

cannot sin.' And yet it is also the truth when the same St. John says,

1 Ep. 1, 8: 'If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and

the truth is not in us.'" (491, 42f.)

In an opinion of March 9, 1559, Melanchthon remarks that about 1529 some

Antinomians maintained and argued "that, since in this life sin remains

in saints, they remain holy and retain the Holy Spirit and salvation

even when they commit adultery and other sins against their

conscience.... There are many at many places who are imbued with this

error [that righteousness, Holy Spirit, and sins against the conscience

can remain in a man at the same time], regard themselves holy although

they live and persevere in sins against their consciences." (_C. R._ 9,

764. 405. 473; 8, 411.)

The perseverance of saints as taught by Zanchi was the point to which

Marbach immediately took exception. A long discussion followed, which

was finally settled by the _Strassburg Formula of Concord_ of 1563,

outside theologians participating and acting as arbiters. This

_Formula_, which was probably prepared by Jacob Andreae, treated in its

first article the Lord's Supper; in its second, predestination. It

rejected the doctrine that, once received, faith cannot be lost, and

prescribed the _Wittenberg Concord_ of 1536 as the doctrinal rule

regarding the Holy Supper. The document was signed by both parties,

Zanchi stating over his signature: "_Hanc doctrinae formam ut piam

agnosco, ita eam recipio_." Evidently his mental reservation was that he

be permitted to withdraw from it in as far as he did not regard it as

pious. Later Zanchi declared openly that he had subscribed the _Formula_

only conditionally. Soon after his subscription he left Strassburg,

serving till 1568 as preacher of a Reformed Italian congregation in

Chiavenna, till 1576 as professor in the Reformed University of

Heidelberg, and till 1582 as professor in Neustadt. He died at

Heidelberg as professor emeritus November 19, 1590. Marbach continued

his work at Strassburg, and was active also in promoting the cause of

the _Formula of Concord_. His controversy with Zanchi, though of a local

character, may be regarded as the immediate cause for adding Article XI.

The thorough Lutheranizing of the city was completed by Pappus, a pupil

of Marbach. In 1597 Strassburg adopted the _Formula of Concord_.

228. The Strassburg Formula.

The _Strassburg Formula of Concord_ sets forth the Scriptural and

peculiarly Lutheran point of view in the doctrine of election, according

to which a Christian, in order to attain to a truly divine assurance of

his election and final salvation, is to consider predestination not _a

priori_, but _a posteriori_. That is to say, he is not to speculate on

the act of eternal election as such, but to consider it as manifested to

him in Christ and the Gospel of Christ. Judging from his own false

conception of predestination, Calvin remarked that the _Strassburg

Formula_ did not deny but rather veiled, the doctrine of election,--a

stricture frequently made also on Article XI of the _Formula of

Concord_, whose truly Scriptural and evangelical view of election the

Reformed have never fully grasped and realized.

The _Strassburg Formula_ taught that, in accordance with Rom. 15, 4, the

doctrine of predestination must be presented so as not to bring it into

conflict with the doctrines of repentance and justification nor to

deprive alarmed consciences of the consolation of the Gospel, nor in any

way to violate the truth that the only cause of our salvation is the

grace of God alone; that the consolation afforded by election,

especially in tribulations (that no one shall pluck us out of the hands

of Christ), remains firm and solid only as long as the universality of

God's promises is kept inviolate, that Christ died and earned salvation

for all, and earnestly invites all to partake of it by faith, which is

the gift of grace, and which alone receives the salvation proffered to

all; that the reason why the gift of faith is not bestowed upon all men,

though Christ seriously invites all to come to Him, is a mystery known

to God alone, which human reason cannot fathom; that the will of God

proposed in Christ and revealed in the Bible, to which all men are

directed, and in which it is most safe to acquiesce, is not

contradictory of the hidden will of God. (Loescher, _Hist Mot_. 2, 229;

Frank 4, 126. 262; Tschackert, 560.)

Particularly with respect to the "mystery," the _Strassburg Formula_

says: "The fact that this grace or this gift of faith is not given by

God to all when He calls all to Himself, and, according to His infinite

goodness, certainly calls earnestly: 'Come unto the marriage, for all

things are now ready,' is a sealed mystery known to God alone, past

finding out for human reason; a secret that must be contemplated with

fear and be adored, as it is written: 'O the depth of the riches both of

the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and

His ways past finding out!' Rom. 11, 33. And Christ gives thanks to the

Father because He has hid these things from the wise and prudent and

revealed them unto babes. Matt. 11, 25. Troubled consciences, however,

must not take offense at this hidden way of the divine will but look

upon the will of God revealed in Christ, who calls all sinners to

Himself." This was also the teaching of the contemporary theologians.

Moerlin wrote: "God has revealed to us that He will save only those who

believe in Christ, and that unbelief is chargeable to us. Hidden,

however, are God's judgments--why He converts Paul but does not convert

Caiaphas; why He receives fallen Peter again and abandons Judas to

despair." Chemnitz: "Why, then, is it that God does not put such faith

into the heart of Judas so that he, too, might have believed and been

saved through Christ? Here we must leave off questioning and say, Rom.

11: 'O the depth!'... We cannot and must not search this nor meditate

too deeply upon such questions." Kirchner: "Since, therefore, faith in

Christ is a special gift of God, why does He not bestow it upon all?

Answer: We must defer the discussion of this question unto eternal life,

and in the mean time be content to know that God does not want us to

search His secret judgments, Rom. 11: 'O the depth,' etc." In a similar

way Chemnitz, Selneccer, and Kirchner expressed themselves in their

_Apology of the Book of Concord_, of 1582, declaring that, "when asked

why God does not convert all men, we must answer with the apostle: 'How

unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!' but not

ascribe to God the Lord the willing and real cause of the reprobation

or damnation of the impenitent." (Pieper, _Dogm_. 2, 585f.)

229. Predestination according to Article XI of Formula of Concord.

In keeping with her fundamental teaching of _sola gratia_ and _gratia

universalis_, according to which God's grace is the only cause of man's

salvation, and man's evil will the sole cause of his damnation, the

Lutheran Church holds that eternal election is an election of grace,

_i.e._, a predestination to salvation only. God's eternal election, says

the _Formula of Concord_, "does not extend at once over the godly and

the wicked, but only over the children of God, who were elected and

ordained to eternal life before the foundation of the world was laid, as

Paul says, Eph. 1, 4. 5: 'He hath chosen us in Him, having predestinated

us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ.'" (1065, 5.) This

election, the _Formula_ continues, "not only foresees and foreknows the

salvation of the elect, but is also, from the gracious will and pleasure

of God in Christ Jesus, a cause which procures, works, helps, and

promotes our salvation, and what pertains thereto; and upon this [divine

predestination] our salvation is so founded that the gates of hell

cannot prevail against it, Matt. 16, 18, as is written John 10, 28:

'Neither shall any man pluck My sheep out of My hand,' And again, Acts

13, 48: 'And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.'" (1065,

8.) While thus election is a cause of faith and salvation, there is no

cause of election in man. The teaching "that not only the mercy of God

and the most holy merit of Christ but also in us there is a cause of

God's election on account of which God has elected us to everlasting

life," is rejected by the _Formula of Concord_ as one of the

"blasphemous and dreadful erroneous doctrines whereby all the comfort

which they have in the holy Gospel and the use of the holy Sacraments is

taken from Christians." (837, 20f.)

Concerning the way of considering eternal election, the _Formula_

writes: "If we wish to think or speak correctly and profitably

concerning eternal election, or the predestination and ordination of the

children of God to eternal life, we should accustom ourselves not to

speculate concerning the bare, secret, concealed, inscrutable

foreknowledge of God, but how the counsel, purpose, and ordination of

God in Christ Jesus, who is the true Book of Life, is revealed to us

through the Word, namely, that the entire doctrine concerning the

purpose, counsel, will, and ordination of God pertaining to our

redemption, call, justification, and salvation should be taken together;

as Paul treats and has explained this article Rom. 8, 29f.; Eph. 1, 4f.,

as also Christ in the parable, Matt. 22, 1ff." (1067, 13.)

While according to the Lutheran Church election is the cause of faith

and salvation, there is no such a thing as an election of wrath or a

predestination to sin and damnation, of both of which God is not the

cause and author. According to the _Formula_ the vessels of mercy are

prepared by God alone, but the vessels of dishonor are prepared for

damnation, not by God, but by themselves. Moreover, God earnestly

desires that all men turn from their wicked ways and live. We read: "For

all preparation for condemnation is by the devil and man, through sin,

and in no respect by God, who does not wish that any man be damned; how,

then, should He Himself prepare any man for condemnation? For as God is

not a cause of sins, so, too, He is no cause of punishment, of

damnation; but the only cause of damnation is sin; for the wages of sin

is death. Rom. 6, 23. And as God does not will sin, and has no pleasure

in sin, so He does not wish the death of the sinner either, Ezek. 33,

11, nor has He pleasure in his condemnation. For He is not willing that

any one should perish, but that all should come to repentance, 2 Pet. 3,

9. So, too, it is written in Ezek. 18, 23; 33, 11: 'As I live, saith the

Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked but that the

wicked turn from his way and live,' And St. Paul testifies in clear

words that from vessels of dishonor vessels of honor may be made by

God's power and working, when he writes 2 Tim. 2, 21: 'If a man,

therefore, purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor,

sanctified and meet for the Master's use, and prepared unto every good

work,' For he who is to purge himself must first have been unclean, and

hence a vessel of dishonor. But concerning the vessels of mercy he says

clearly that the Lord Himself has prepared them for glory, which he does

not say concerning the damned, who themselves, and not God, have

prepared themselves as vessels of damnation." (1089, 81f.) "Hence the

apostle distinguishes with special care the work of God, who alone makes

vessels of honor, and the work of the devil and of man, who by the

instigation of the devil, and not of God, has made himself a vessel of

dishonor. For thus it is written, Rom. 9, 22f.: 'God endured with much

long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, that He might

make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had

afore prepared unto glory.' Here, then, the apostle clearly says that

God endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath, but does not

say that He made them vessels of wrath; for if this had been His will,

He would not have required any great long-suffering for it. The fault,

however, that they are fitted for destruction belongs to the devil and

to men themselves, and not to God." (1089, 79f.)

It is man's own fault when he is not converted by the Word or afterwards

falls away again. We read: "But the reason why not all who hear it [the

Word of God] believe and are therefore condemned the more deeply, is not

because God had begrudged them their salvation; but it is their own

fault, as they have heard the Word in such a manner as not to learn, but

only to despise, blaspheme, and disgrace it, and have resisted the Holy

Ghost, who through the Word wished to work in them, as was the case at

the time of Christ with the Pharisees and their adherents." (1089, 78.)

"For few receive the Word and follow it; the greatest number despise the

Word, and will not come to the wedding, Matt. 22, 3ff. The cause of this

contempt for the Word is not God's foreknowledge [or predestination],

but the perverse will of man, which rejects or perverts the means and

instrument of the Holy Ghost, which God offers him through the call, and

resists the Holy Ghost, who wishes to be efficacious, and works through

the Word, as Christ says: 'How often would I have gathered you together,

and ye would not!' Matt. 23, 37. Thus many receive the Word with joy,

but afterwards fall away again, Luke 8, 13. But the cause is not as

though God were unwilling to grant grace for perseverance to those in

whom He has begun the good work, for that is contrary to St. Paul, Phil.

1, 6; but the cause is that they wilfully turn away again from the holy

commandment, grieve and embitter the Holy Ghost, implicate themselves

again in the filth of the world, and garnish again the habitation of the

heart for the devil. With them the last state is worse than the first."

(1077 41f.; 835, 12.)

It is not because of any deficiency in God that men are lost; for His

grace is universal as well as serious and efficacious. The _Formula of

Concord_ declares: "However, that many are called and few chosen is not

owing to the fact that the call of God, which is made through the Word,

had the meaning as though God said: Outwardly, through the Word, I

indeed call to My kingdom all of you to whom I give My Word; however, in

My heart I do not mean this with respect to all, but only with respect

to a few; for it is My will that the greatest part of those whom I call

through the Word shall not be enlightened nor converted, but be and

remain damned, although through the Word, in the call, I declare Myself

to them otherwise. _Hoc enim esset Deo contradictorias voluntates

affingere_. For this would be to assign contradictory wills to God. That

is, in this way it would be taught that God, who surely is Eternal

Truth, would be contrary to Himself [or say one thing, but revolve

another in His heart], while, on the contrary, God [rebukes and]

punishes also in men this wickedness, when a person declares himself to

one purpose, and thinks and means another in the heart, Ps. 5, 9; 12,

2f." (1075, 36.)

It is a punishment of their previous sins and not a result of God's

predestination when sinners are hardened; nor does such hardening

signify that it never was God's good pleasure to save them. "Moreover,"

says the _Formula_, "it is to be diligently considered that when God

punishes sin with sins, that is when He afterwards punishes with

obduracy and blindness those who had been converted because of their

subsequent security, impenitence, and wilful sins, this should not be

interpreted to mean that it never had been God's good pleasure that such

persons should come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved. For both

these facts are God's revealed will: first, that God will receive into

grace all who repent and believe in Christ; secondly, that He also will

punish those who wilfully turn away from the holy commandment, and again

entangle themselves in the filth of the world 2 Pet. 2, 20, and garnish

their hearts for Satan, Luke 11, 25f., and do despite unto the Spirit of

God, Heb. 10, 29, and that they shall be hardened, blinded, and

eternally condemned if they persist therein." (1091, 83.)

"But that God ... hardened Pharaoh's heart, namely, that Pharaoh always

sinned again and again, and became the more obdurate the more he was

admonished, that was a punishment of his antecedent sin and horrible

tyranny, which in many and manifold ways he practised inhumanly and

against the accusations of his heart towards the children of Israel. And

since God caused His Word to be preached and His will to be proclaimed

to him, and Pharaoh nevertheless wilfully reared up straightway against

all admonitions and warnings, God withdrew His hand from him and thus

his heart became hardened and obdurate, and God executed His judgment

upon him; for he was guilty of nothing else than hell-fire. Accordingly,

the holy apostle also introduces the example of Pharaoh for no other

reason than to prove by it the justice of God which He exercises towards

the impenitent and despisers of His Word; by no means, however, has he

intended or understood it to mean that God begrudged salvation to him or

any person, but had so ordained him to eternal damnation in His secret

counsel that he should not be able, or that it should not be possible

for him, to be saved." (1091, 85f.)

230. Agreement of Articles XI and II.

In the _Formula of Concord_, Article XI is closely related to most of

the other articles particularly to Article I, Of Original Sin, and

Article II, Of Free Will and Conversion. Election is to conversion what

the concave side of a lens is to the convex. Both correspond to each

other in every particular. What God does for and in man when He

converts, justifies, sanctifies, preserves, and finally glorifies him,

He has in eternity resolved to do,--that is one way in which eternal

election may be defined. Synergists and Calvinists, however have always

maintained that the Second Article is in a hopeless conflict with the

Eleventh. But the truth is, the Second fully confirms and corroborates

the Eleventh, and _vice versa;_ for both maintain the _sola gratia_ as

well as the _universalis gratia_.

Both articles teach that in every respect grace alone is the cause of

our conversion and salvation, and that this grace is not confined to

some men only, but is a grace for all. Both teach that man, though

contributing absolutely nothing to his conversion and salvation, is

nevertheless the sole cause of his own damnation. Both disavow Calvinism

which denies the universality of grace. Both reject synergism, which

corrupts grace by teaching a cooperation of man towards his own

conversion and salvation. Teaching therefore, as they do, the same

truths, both articles will and must ever stand and fall together. It

was, no doubt, chiefly due to this complete harmony between the Second

and the Eleventh Article that after the former (which received its

present shape only after repeated changes and additions) had been

decided upon the revision of the latter (the Eleventh) caused but little

delay. (Frank 4, V. 133.)

Concerning the alleged conflict between Articles II and XI, we read in

Schaff's _Creeds of Christendom:_ "There is an obvious and

irreconcilable antagonism between Article II and Article XI. They

contain not simply opposite truths to be reconciled by theological

science, but contradictory assertions, which ought never to be put into

a creed. The _Formula_ adopts one part of Luther's book _De Servo

Arbitrio_, 1525, and rejects the other, which follows with logical

necessity. It is Augustinian, yea, hyper-Augustinian and

hyper-Calvinistic in the doctrine of human depravity, and

anti-Augustinian in the doctrine of divine predestination. It endorses

the anthropological premise, and denies the theological conclusion. If

man is by nature like a stone and block, and unable even to accept the

grace of God, as Article II teaches, he can only be converted by an act

of almighty power and irresistible grace, which Article XI denies. If

some men are saved without any cooperation on their part, while others,

with the same inability and the same opportunities, are lost, the

difference points to a particular predestination and the inscrutable

decree of God. On the other hand if God sincerely wills the salvation of

all men, as Article XI teaches, and yet only a part are actually saved,

there must be some difference in the attitude of the saved and the lost

towards converting grace, which is denied in Article II. The Lutheran

system, then, to be consistent, must rectify itself, and develop either

from Article II in the direction of Augustinianism and Calvinism, or

from Article XI in the direction of synergism and Arminianism. The

former would be simply returning to Luther's original doctrine [?],

which he never recalled, though he may have modified it a little; the

latter is the path pointed out by Melanchthon, and adopted more or less

by some of the ablest modern Lutherans." (1, 314. 330.) Prior to Schaff,

similar charges had been raised by Planck, Schweizer, Heppe, and others,

who maintained that Article XI suffers from a "theological confusion

otherwise not found in the _Formula_."

Apart from other unwarranted assertions in the passage quoted from

Schaff, the chief charges there raised against the _Formula of Concord_

are: 1. that Articles XI and II are contradictory to each other, 2. that

the Lutheran Church has failed to harmonize the doctrines of _sola

gratia_ and _gratia universalis_. However, the first of these strictures

is based on gross ignorance of the facts, resulting from a superficial

investigation of the articles involved, for the alleged disagreement is

purely imaginary. As a matter of fact, no one can read the two articles

attentively without being everywhere impressed with their complete

harmony. In every possible way Article XI excludes synergism, and

corroborates the _sola gratia_ doctrine of Article II. And Article II,

in turn, nowhere denies, rather everywhere, directly or indirectly,

confirms, the universal grace particularly emphasized in Article XI.

The framers of the _Formula_ were well aware of the fact that the least

error in the doctrine of free will and conversion was bound to manifest

itself also in the doctrine of election, and that perhaps in a form much

more difficult to detect. Hence Article XI was not only intended to be a

bulwark against the assaults on the doctrine of grace coming from

 Calvinistic quarters, but also an additional reenforcement of the

article of Free Will against the Synergists, in order to prevent a

future recrudescence of their errors in the sphere of predestination.

Its object is clearly to maintain the doctrine of the Bible, according

to which it is grace alone that saves, a grace which, at the same time,

is a grace for all, and thus to steer clear of synergism as well as of

Calvinism, and forever to close the doors of the Lutheran Church to

every form of these two errors.

According to the Second Article, Christians cannot be assured of their

election if the doctrine of conversion [by grace alone] is not properly

presented. (901, 47. 57.) And Article XI most emphatically supports

Article II in its efforts to weed out every kind of synergistic or

Romanistic corruption. For here we read: "Thus far the mystery of

predestination is revealed to us in God's Word; and if we abide thereby

and cleave thereto, it is a very useful salutary, consolatory doctrine;

for it establishes very effectually the article that we are justified

and saved without all works and merits of ours, purely out of grace

alone, for Christ's sake. For before the time of the world, before we

existed, yea, before the foundation of the world was laid, when, of

course, we could do nothing good, we were according to God's purpose

chosen by grace in Christ to salvation, Rom. 9, 11; 2 Tim. 1, 9.

Moreover, all opinions and erroneous doctrines concerning the powers of

our natural will are thereby overthrown, because God in His counsel,

before the time of the world, decided and ordained that He Himself, by

the power of His Holy Ghost, would produce and work in us, through the

Word, everything that pertains to our conversion." (1077, 43f.; 837,

20.)

Again: "By this doctrine and explanation of the eternal and saving

choice of the elect children of God, His own glory is entirely and fully

given to God, that in Christ He saves us out of pure [and free] mercy,

without any merits or good works of ours, according to the purpose of

His will, as it is written Eph. 1, 5f.: 'Having predestinated us,'...

Therefore it is false and wrong when it is taught that not alone the

mercy of God and the most holy merit of Christ, but that also in us

there is a cause of God's predestination on account of which God has

chosen us to eternal life." Indeed, one of the most exclusive

formulations against every possible kind of subtile synergism is found

in Article XI when it teaches that the reason why some are converted and

saved while others are lost, must not be sought in man, _i.e._, in any

minor guilt or less faulty conduct toward grace shown by those who are

saved, as compared with the guilt and conduct of those who are lost.

(1081, 57f.) If, therefore, the argument of the Calvinists and

Synergists that the _sola gratia_ doctrine involves a denial of

universal grace were correct, the charge of Calvinism would have to be

raised against Article XI as well as against Article II.

In a similar manner the Second Article confirms the Eleventh by

corroborating its anti-Calvinistic teaching of universal grace and

redemption; of man's responsibility for his own damnation; of man's

conversion, not by compulsion or coercion, etc. The Second Article most

emphatically teaches the _sola gratia_, but without in any way limiting,

violating, or encroaching upon, universal grace. It is not merely

opposed to Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian and synergistic errors, but to Stoic

and Calvinistic aberrations as well. While it is not the special object

of the Second Article to set forth the universality of God's grace, its

anti-Calvinistic attitude is nevertheless everywhere apparent.

Article II plainly teaches that "it is not God's will that anyone should

be damned, but that all men should be converted to Him and be saved

eternally. Ezek. 33, 11: 'As I live.'" (901, 49.) It teaches that

"Christ, in whom we are chosen, offers to all men His grace in the Word

and holy Sacraments, and wishes earnestly that it be heard, and has

promised that where two or three are gathered together in His name, and

are occupied with His holy Word, He will be in their midst." (903, 57.)

It maintains that through the Gospel the Holy Ghost offers man grace and

salvation, effects conversion through the preaching and hearing of God's

Word, and is present with this Word in order to convert men. (787, 4ff.;

889, 18.) It holds that "all who wish to be saved ought to hear this

preaching, because the preaching and hearing of God's Word are the

instruments of the Holy Ghost, by, with, and through which He desires to

work efficaciously, and to convert men to God, and to work in them both

to will and to do." (901, 52ff.)  It admonishes that no one should doubt

that the power and efficacy of the Holy Ghost is present with, and

efficacious in, the Word when it is preached purely and listened to

attentively, and that we should base our certainty concerning the

presence, operation, and gifts of the Holy Ghost not on our feeling, but

on the promise that the Word of God preached and heard is truly an

office and work of the Holy Ghost, by which He is certainly efficacious

and works in our hearts, 2 Cor. 2, 14ff.; 3, 5ff." [tr. note: sic on

punctuation] (903, 56.) It asserts that men who refuse to hear the Word

of God are not converted because they despised the instrument of the

Holy Spirit and would not hear (903, 58); that God does not force men to

become godly; that those who always resist the Holy Ghost and

persistently oppose the known truth are not converted (905, 60). If,

therefore, the inference were correct that the doctrine of universal

grace involved a denial of the _sola gratia_, then the charge of

synergism would have to be raised against Article II as well as against

Article XI.  Both articles will always stand and fall together; for both

teach that the grace of God is the only cause of our conversion and

salvation, and that this grace is truly universal.

231. Mystery in Doctrine of Grace.

The second charge raised by Calvinists and Synergists against the

_Formula of Concord_ is its failure to harmonize "logically" what they

term "contradictory doctrines": _sola gratia_ and _universalis gratia_,

--a stricture which must be characterized as flowing from rationalistic

premises, mistaking a divine mystery for a real contradiction, and in

reality directed against the clear Word of God itself. Says Schaff, who

also in this point voices the views of Calvinists as well as Synergists:

"The _Formula of Concord_ sanctioned a compromise between Augustinianism

and universalism, or between the original Luther and the later

Melanchthon, by teaching both the absolute inability of man and the

universality of divine grace, without an attempt to solve these

contradictory positions." (304.) "Thus the particularism of election and

the universalism of vocation, the absolute inability of fallen man, and

the guilt of the unbeliever for rejecting what he cannot accept, are

illogically combined." (1, 330.) The real charge here raised against the

_Formula of Concord_ is, that it fails to modify the doctrines of _sola

gratia_ or _universalis gratia_ in a manner satisfactory to the demands

of human reason; for Synergists and Calvinists are agreed that, in the

interest of rational harmony, one or the other must be abandoned, either

_universalis gratia seria et efficax_, or _sola gratia_.

In judging of the charge in question, it should not be overlooked that,

according to the _Formula of Concord_, all Christians, theologians

included, are bound to derive their entire doctrine from the Bible

alone; that matters of faith must be decided exclusively by clear

passages of Holy Scripture, that human reason ought not in any point to

criticize and lord it over the infallible Word of God; that reason must

be subjected to the obedience of Christ, and dare not hinder faith in

believing the divine testimonies even when they seemingly contradict

each other. We are not commanded to harmonize, says the _Formula_, but

to believe, confess, defend, and faithfully to adhere to the teachings

of the Bible. (1078, 52ff.) In the doctrine of conversion and salvation,

therefore, Lutherans confess both the _sola gratia_ and the _universalis

gratia_, because they are convinced that both are clearly taught in the

Bible, and that to reject or modify either of them would amount to a

criticism of the Word of God, and hence of God Himself. Synergists

differ from Lutherans, not in maintaining universal grace (which in

reality they deny as to intention as well as extension, for they corrupt

the Scriptural content of grace by making it dependent on man's conduct,

and thereby limit its extension to such only as comply with its

conditions), but in denying the _sola gratia_, and teaching that the

will of man enters conversion as a factor alongside of grace. And

Calvinists differ from Lutherans not in maintaining the _sola gratia_,

but in denying universal grace.

But while, in accordance with the clear Word of God, faithfully adhering

to both the _sola gratia_ and _universalis gratia_, and firmly

maintaining that whoever is saved is saved by grace alone, and whoever

is lost is lost through his own fault alone, the _Formula of Concord_ at

the same time fully acknowledges the difficulty presenting itself to

human reason when we hold fast to this teaching. In particular, it

admits that the question, not answered in the Bible, _viz_., why some

are saved while others are lost, embraces a mystery which we lack the

means and ability of solving, as well as the data. Accordingly, the

_Formula_ also makes no efforts whatever to harmonize them, but rather

discountenances and warns against all attempts to cater to human reason

in this respect, and insists that both doctrines be maintained intact

and taught conjointly. Lutherans are fully satisfied that here every

effort at rational harmonization cannot but lead either to Calvinistic

corruption of universal grace or to synergistic modification of _sola

gratia_.

Thus the Lutheran Church not only admits, but zealously guards, the

mystery contained in the doctrine of grace and election. It

distinguishes between God in as far as He is known and not known; in as

far as He has revealed Himself, and in as far as He is still hidden to

us, but as we shall learn to know Him hereafter. The truths which may be

known concerning God are contained in the Gospel, revealed in the Bible.

The things still hidden from us include the unsearchable judgments of

God, His wonderful ways with men, and, in particular, the question why

some are saved while others are lost. God has not seen fit to reveal

these mysteries. And since reason cannot search or fathom God, man's

quest for an answer is both presumptuous and vain. That is to say, we

are utterly unable to uncover the divine counsels, which would show that

the mysterious judgments and ways proceeding from them are in complete

harmony with the universal grace proclaimed by the Gospel.

Yet Lutherans believe that the hidden God is not in real conflict with

God as revealed in the Bible, and that the secret will of God does not

in the least invalidate the gracious will of the Gospel. According to

the _Formula of Concord_ there are no real contradictions in God; in Him

everything is yea and amen; His very being is pure reality and truth.

Hence, when relying on God as revealed in Christ, that is to say,

relying on grace which is pure grace only and at the same time grace for

all, Christians may be assured that there is absolutely nothing in the

unknown God, _i.e._, in as far as He has not revealed Himself to them,

which might subvert their simple faith in His gracious promises. The

face of God depicted in the Gospel is the true face of God. Whoever has

seen Christ has seen the Father as He is in reality.

Indeed, also the hidden God, together with His secret counsels,

unsearchable judgments, and ways past finding out, even the majestic

God, in whom we live and move and have our being, the God who has all

things well in hand, and without whom nothing can be or occur, must, in

the light of the Scriptures, be viewed as an additional guarantee that,

in spite of all contingencies, the merciful divine promises of the

Gospel shall stand firm and immovable. Upon eternal election, says the

_Formula of Concord_, "our salvation is so [firmly] founded 'that the

gates of hell cannot prevail against it.'" (1065, 8.) As for us,

therefore, it remains our joyous privilege not to investigate what God

has withheld from us or to climb into the adyton of God's transcendent

majesty, but merely to rely on, and securely trust in, the blessed

Gospel, which proclaims grace for all and salvation by grace alone, and

teaches that whoever is saved must praise God alone for it, while

whoever is damned must blame only himself.

Regarding the mystery involved in predestination, the _Formula of

Concord_ explains: "A distinction must be observed with especial care

between that which is expressly revealed concerning it [predestination]

in God's Word and what is not revealed. For in addition to what has been

revealed in Christ concerning this, of which we have hitherto spoken,

God has still kept secret and concealed much concerning this mystery,

and reserved it for His wisdom and knowledge alone, which we should not

investigate, nor should we indulge our thoughts in this matter, nor draw

conclusions nor inquire curiously, but should adhere to the revealed

Word. This admonition is most urgently needed. For our curiosity has

always much more pleasure in concerning itself with these matters

[investigating things abstruse and hidden] than with what God has

revealed to us concerning this in His Word, because we cannot harmonize

it [cannot by the acumen of our natural ability harmonize the intricate

and involved things occurring in this mystery], which, moreover, we have

not been commanded to do."

The _Formula_ enumerates as such inscrutable mysteries: Why God gives

His Word at one place, but not at another; why He removes it from one

place, and allows it to remain at another; why one is hardened, while

another, who is in the same guilt, is converted again. Such and similar

questions, says the _Formula_, we cannot answer and must not endeavor to

solve. On the contrary, we are to adhere unflinchingly to both truths,

_viz_., that those who are converted are saved, not because they are

better than others, but by pure grace alone; and that those who are not

converted and not saved cannot accuse God of any neglect or injustice

but are lost by their own fault. The _Formula_ concludes its paragraphs

on the mysteries in predestination by saying: "When we proceed thus far

in this article [maintaining that God alone is the cause of man's

salvation and man alone is the cause of his damnation, and refusing to

solve the problems involved], we remain on the right [safe and royal]

way, as it is written Hos. 13, 9: 'O Israel, thou hast destroyed

thyself; but in Me is thy help.' However, as regards these things in

this disputation which would soar too high and beyond these limits, we

should, with Paul, place the finger upon our lips, remember and say,

Rom. 9, 20: 'O man, who art thou that repliest against God?'" (1078,

52ff.)

232. Predestination a Comforting Article.

Christian doctrines, or doctrines of the Church, are such only as are in

exact harmony with the Scriptures. They alone, too, are able to serve

the purpose for which the Scriptures are given, _viz_., to convert and

save sinners, and to comfort troubled Christians. Scriptural doctrines

are always profitable, and detrimental doctrines are never Scriptural.

This is true also of the article of eternal election. It is a truly

edifying doctrine as also the _Formula of Concord_ is solicitous to

explain. (1092, 89ff.) However, it is comforting only when taught in its

purity, _i.e._, when presented and preserved in strict adherence to the

Bible; that is to say, when both the _sola gratia_ and _gratia

universalis_ are kept inviolate. Whenever the doctrine of predestination

causes despair or carnal security, it has been either misrepresented or

misunderstood.

In the introductory paragraphs of Article XI we read: "For the doctrine

concerning this article, if taught from, and according to the pattern of

the divine Word, neither can nor should be regarded as useless or

unnecessary, much less as offensive or injurious, because the Holy

Scriptures not only in but one place and incidentally, but in many

places thoroughly treat and urge the same. Moreover, we should not

neglect or reject the doctrine of the divine Word on account of abuse or

misunderstanding, but precisely on that account, in order to avert all

abuse and misunderstanding the true meaning should and must be explained

from the foundation of the Scriptures." (1063, 2; 1067, 13.)

"If it is treated properly," says also the Epitome, the doctrine of

predestination "is a consolatory article" (830, 1); that is to say, if

predestination is viewed in the light of the Gospel, and particularly,

if _sola gratia_ as well as _gratia universalis_ are kept inviolate.

Outside of God's revelation in the Gospel there is no true and wholesome

knowledge whatever concerning election, but mere noxious human dreams.

And when the universality of grace is denied, it is impossible for any

one to know whether he is elected, and whether the grace spoken of in

the Gospel is intended for or belongs to him. "Therefore," says the

_Formula of Concord_, "if we wish to consider our eternal election to

salvation with profit, we must in every way hold sturdily and firmly to

this, that, as the preaching of repentance, so also the promise of the

Gospel is _universalis_ (universal), that is, it pertains to all men,

Luke 24, 47," etc. (1071, 28.) By denying that universal grace is meant

seriously and discounting the universal promises of the Gospel, "the

necessary consolatory foundation is rendered altogether uncertain and

void, as we are daily reminded and admonished that only from God's Word,

through which He treats with us and calls us, we are to learn and

conclude what His will toward us is, and that we should believe and not

doubt what it affirms to us and promises." (1075, 36.) If God cannot be

trusted in His universal promises, absolutely nothing in the Bible can

be relied upon. A doctrine of election from which universal grace is

eliminated, necessarily leads to despair or to contumaciousness and

carnal security. Calvin was right when he designated his predestination

theory, which denies universal grace, a "horrible decree." It left him

without any objective foundation whatever upon which to rest his faith

and hope.

In like manner, when the doctrine of election and grace is modified

synergistically, no one can know for certain whether he has really been

pardoned and will be saved finally, because here salvation is not

exclusively based on the sure and immovable grace and promises of God,

but, at least in part, on man's own doubtful conduct--a rotten plank

which can serve neither foot for safely crossing the great abyss of sin

and death. Only when presented and taught in strict adherence to the

Bible is the doctrine of election and grace fully qualified to engender

divine certainty of our present adoption and final salvation as well,

since it assures us that God sincerely desires to save all men (us

included), that He alone does, and has promised to do, everything

pertaining thereto, and that nothing is able to thwart His promises,

since He who made them and confirmed them with an oath is none other

than the majestic God Himself.

Accordingly, when Calvinists and Synergists criticize the _Formula of

Concord_ for not harmonizing (modifying in the interest of rational

harmony) the clear doctrines of the Bible, which they brand as

contradictions, they merely display their own conflicting, untenable

position. For while professing to follow the Scriptures, they at the

same time demand that its doctrines be corrected according to the

dictate of reason, thus plainly revealing that their theology is not

founded on the Bible, but orientated in rationalism, the true ultimate

principle of Calvinism as well as synergism.

In the last analysis, therefore, the charge of inconsistency against

the _Formula of Concord_ is tantamount to an indirect admission that the

Lutheran Church is both a consistently Scriptural and a truly

evangelical Church. Consistently Scriptural, because it receives in

simple faith and with implicit obedience every clear Word of God, all

counter-arguments to the contrary notwithstanding. Truly evangelical,

because in adhering with unswerving loyalty to the seemingly

contradictory, but truly Scriptural doctrine of grace, it serves the

purpose of the Scriptures, which--praise the Lord--is none other than to

save, edify, and comfort poor disconsolate sinners.

233. Statements of Article XI on Consolation Offered by Predestination.

The purpose of the entire Scripture, says the _Formula of Concord_, is

to comfort penitent sinners. If we therefore abide by, and cleave to,

predestination as it is revealed to us in God's Word, "it is a very

useful, salutary, consolatory doctrine." Every presentation of eternal

election, however which produces carnal security or despair, is false.

We read: "If any one presents the doctrine concerning the gracious

election of God in such a manner that troubled Christians cannot derive

comfort from it, but are thereby incited to despair, or that the

impenitent are confirmed in their wantonness, it is undoubtedly sure and

true that such a doctrine is taught, not according to the Word and will

of God, but according to [the blind judgment of human] reason and the

instigation of the devil. For, as the apostle testifies, Rom. 15, 4:

'Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning,

that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.'

But when this consolation and hope are weakened or entirely removed by

Scripture, it is certain that it is understood and explained contrary to

the will and meaning of the Holy Ghost." (1093, 91f., 837, 16; 1077,

43.)

Predestination is comforting when Christians are taught to seek their

election in Christ. We read: "Moreover, this doctrine gives no one a

cause either for despondency or for a shameless, dissolute life, namely,

when men are taught that they must seek eternal election in Christ and

His holy Gospel, as in the Book of Life, which excludes no penitent

sinner, but beckons and calls all the poor, heavy-laden, and troubled

sinners who are disturbed by the sense of God's wrath, to repentance and

the knowledge of their sins and to faith in Christ, and promises the

Holy Ghost for purification and renewal, and thus gives the most

enduring consolation to all troubled, afflicted men, that they know that

their salvation is not placed in their own hands (for otherwise they

would lose it much more easily than was the case with Adam and Eve in

Paradise, yea, every hour and moment), but in the gracious election of

God which He has revealed to us in Christ, out of whose hand no man

shall pluck us, John 10, 28; 2 Tim. 2, 19." (1093, 89.)

In order to manifest its consolatory power predestination must be

presented in proper relation to the revealed order of salvation. We

read: "With this revealed will of God [His universal, gracious promises

in the Gospel] we should concern ourselves, follow and be diligently

engaged upon it, because through the Word, whereby He calls us, the Holy

Ghost bestows grace, power, and ability to this end [to begin and

complete our salvation], and should not [attempt to] sound the abyss of

God's hidden predestination, as it is written in Luke 13, 24, where one

asks: 'Lord, are there few that be saved?' and Christ answers: 'Strive

to enter in at the strait gate.' Accordingly, Luther says [in his

Preface to the Epistle to the Romans]: 'Follow the Epistle to the Romans

in its order, concern yourself first with Christ and His Gospel, that

you may recognize your sins and His grace; next that you contend with

sin, as Paul teaches from the first to the eighth chapter; then, when in

the eighth chapter you will come into [will have been exercised by]

temptation under the cross and afflictions,--this will teach you in the

ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters how consolatory predestination is,'

etc." (1073, 33.)

Predestination, properly taught, affords the glorious comfort that no

one shall pluck us out of the almighty hands of Christ. The _Formula_

says: "Thus this doctrine affords also the excellent glorious

consolation that God was so greatly concerned about the conversion,

righteousness, and salvation of every Christian, and so faithfully

purposed it [provided therefor] that before the foundation of the world

was laid, He deliberated concerning it, and in His [secret] purpose

ordained how He would bring me thereto [call and lead me to salvation],

and preserve me therein. Also, that He wished to secure my salvation so

well and certainly that, since through the weakness and wickedness of

our flesh it could easily be lost from our hands, or through craft and

might of the devil and the world be snatched and taken from us, He

ordained it in His eternal purpose, which cannot fail or be overthrown,

and placed it for preservation in the almighty hand of our Savior Jesus

Christ, from which no one can pluck us, John 10, 28. Hence Paul also

says, Rom. 8, 28. 39: 'Because we have been called according to the

purpose of God, who will separate us from the love of God in Christ?'

[Paul builds the certainty of our blessedness upon the foundation of the

divine purpose, when, from our being called according to the purpose of

God, he infers that no one can separate us, etc.]" (1079, 45.) "This

article also affords a glorious testimony that the Church of God will

exist and abide in opposition to all the gates of hell, and likewise

teaches which is the true Church of God, lest we be offended by the

great authority [and majestic appearance] of the false Church, Rom. 9,

24. 25." (1079, 50.)

Especially in temptations and tribulations the doctrine of eternal

election reveals its comforting power. We read: "Moreover, this doctrine

affords glorious consolation under the cross and amid temptations,

namely, that God in His counsel, before the time of the world determined

and decreed that He would assist us in all distresses [anxieties and

perplexities], grant patience, give consolation, excite [nourish and

encourage] hope, and produce such an outcome as would contribute to our

salvation. Also, as Paul in a very consolatory way treats this, Rom. 8,

28. 29. 35. 38. 39, that God in His purpose has ordained before the time

of the world by what crosses and sufferings He would conform every one

of His elect to the image of His Son, and that to every one his cross

shall and must work together for good, because they are called according

to the purpose, whence Paul has concluded that it is certain and

indubitable that neither tribulation nor distress, nor death, nor life,

etc., shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in

Christ Jesus, our Lord." (1079, 48.)

XXI. Luther and Article XI of the Formula of Concord.

234. Luther Falsely Charged with Calvinism.

Calvinists and Synergists have always contended that Luther's original

doctrine of predestination was essentially identical with that of John

Calvin. Melanchthon was among the first who raised a charge to this

effect. In his _Opinion_ to Elector August, dated March 9, 1559, we

read: "During Luther's life and afterwards I rejected these Stoic and

Manichean deliria, when Luther and others wrote: All works, good and

bad, in all men, good and bad, must occur as they do. Now it is apparent

that such speech contradicts the Word of God, is detrimental to all

discipline and blasphemes God. Therefore I have sedulously made a

distinction, showing to what extent man has a free will to observe

outward discipline, also before regeneration," etc. (_C. R._ 9, 766.)

Instead of referring to his own early statements, which were liable to

misinterpretation more than anything that Luther had written,

Melanchthon disingenuously mentions Luther, whose real meaning he

misrepresents and probably had never fully grasped. The true reason why

Melanchthon charged Luther and his loyal adherents with Stoicism was his

own synergistic departure from the Lutheran doctrine of original sin and

of salvation by grace alone. Following Melanchthon, rationalizing

Synergists everywhere have always held that without abandoning Luther's

doctrine of original sin and of the _gratia sola_ there is no escape

from Calvinism.

In this point Reformed theologians agree with the Synergists, and have

therefore always claimed Luther as their ally. I. Mueller declared in

_Lutheri de Praedestionatione et Libero Arbitrio Doctrina_ of 1832: "As

to the chief point (_quod ad caput rei attinet_), Zwingli's view of

predestination is in harmony with Luther's _De Servo Arbitrio_." In his

_Zentraldogmen_ of 1854 Alexander Schweizer endeavored to prove that the

identical doctrine of predestination was originally the central dogma of

the Lutheran as well as of the Zwinglian reformation. "It is not so much

the dogma [of predestination] itself," said he (1, 445), "as its

position which is in dispute" among Lutherans and Calvinists. Schweizer

(1, 483) based his assertion on the false assumption "that the doctrines

of the captive will and of absolute predestination [denial of universal

grace] are two halves of the same ring." (Frank 1, 12. 118. 128; 4,

262.) Similar contentions were made in America by Schaff, Hodge, Shedd,

and other Reformed theologians.

As a matter of fact, however, also in the doctrine of predestination

Zwingli and Calvin were just as far and as fundamentally apart from

Luther as their entire rationalistic theology differed from the simple

and implicit Scripturalism of Luther. Frank truly says that the

agreement between Luther's doctrine and that of Zwingli and Calvin is

"only specious, _nur scheinbar_." (1, 118.) Tschackert remarks: "Whoever

[among the theologians before the _Formula of Concord_] was acquainted

with the facts could not but see that in this doctrine [of

predestination] there was a far-reaching difference between the Lutheran

and the Calvinistic theology." (559.) F. Pieper declares that Luther and

Calvin agree only in certain expressions, but differ entirely as to

substance. (_Dogm_. 3, 554.)

The _Visitation Articles_, adopted 1592 as a norm of doctrine for

Electoral Saxony, enumerate the following propositions on

"Predestination and the Eternal Providence of God" which must be upheld

over against the Calvinists as "the pure and true doctrine of our

[Lutheran] churches": "1. That Christ has died for all men, and as the

Lamb of God has borne the sins of the whole world. 2. That God created

no one for condemnation, but will have all men to be saved, and to come

to the knowledge of the truth. He commands all to hear His Son Christ in

the Gospel, and promises by it the power and working of the Holy Ghost

for conversion and salvation. 3. That many men are condemned by their

own guilt who are either unwilling to hear the Gospel of Christ, or

again fall from grace, by error against the foundation or by sins

against conscience. 4. That all sinners who repent are received into

grace and no one is excluded, even though his sins were as scarlet,

since God's mercy is much greater than the sins of all the world, and

God has compassion on all His works." (CONC. TRIGL. 1153.) Not one of

these propositions, which have always been regarded as a summary of the

Lutheran teaching in contradistinction from Calvinism, was ever denied

by Luther.