Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church Part 29

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 _Stra.s.sburg Formula of Concord_ of 1563, outside theologians partic.i.p.ating 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 doc.u.ment 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 Stra.s.sburg, 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 Stra.s.sburg, 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 Stra.s.sburg adopted the _Formula of Concord_.

228. The Stra.s.sburg Formula.

The _Stra.s.sburg 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 a.s.surance 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 _Stra.s.sburg 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 _Stra.s.sburg 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d alone, which human reason cannot fathom; that the will of G.o.d 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 G.o.d. (Loescher, _Hist Mot_. 2, 229; Frank 4, 126. 262; Tschackert, 560.)

Particularly with respect to the "mystery," the _Stra.s.sburg Formula_ says: "The fact that this grace or this gift of faith is not given by G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d! 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 G.o.d revealed in Christ, who calls all sinners to Himself." This was also the teaching of the contemporary theologians.

Moerlin wrote: "G.o.d has revealed to us that He will save only those who believe in Christ, and that unbelief is chargeable to us. Hidden, however, are G.o.d'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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d the Lord the willing and real cause of the reprobation or d.a.m.nation 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 G.o.d's grace is the only cause of man's salvation, and man's evil will the sole cause of his d.a.m.nation, the Lutheran Church holds that eternal election is an election of grace, _i.e._, a predestination to salvation only. G.o.d's eternal election, says the _Formula of Concord_, "does not extend at once over the G.o.dly and the wicked, but only over the children of G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 h.e.l.l 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 G.o.d and the most holy merit of Christ but also in us there is a cause of G.o.d's election on account of which G.o.d 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 G.o.d to eternal life, we should accustom ourselves not to speculate concerning the bare, secret, concealed, inscrutable foreknowledge of G.o.d, but how the counsel, purpose, and ordination of G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 d.a.m.nation, of both of which G.o.d is not the cause and author. According to the _Formula_ the vessels of mercy are prepared by G.o.d alone, but the vessels of dishonor are prepared for d.a.m.nation, not by G.o.d, but by themselves. Moreover, G.o.d 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 G.o.d, who does not wish that any man be d.a.m.ned; how, then, should He Himself prepare any man for condemnation? For as G.o.d is not a cause of sins, so, too, He is no cause of punishment, of d.a.m.nation; but the only cause of d.a.m.nation is sin; for the wages of sin is death. Rom. 6, 23. And as G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d'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 d.a.m.ned, who themselves, and not G.o.d, have prepared themselves as vessels of d.a.m.nation." (1089, 81f.) "Hence the apostle distinguishes with special care the work of G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, has made himself a vessel of dishonor. For thus it is written, Rom. 9, 22f.: 'G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d." (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 G.o.d] believe and are therefore condemned the more deeply, is not because G.o.d 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 G.o.d's foreknowledge [or predestination], but the perverse will of man, which rejects or perverts the means and instrument of the Holy Ghost, which G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, which is made through the Word, had the meaning as though G.o.d 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 d.a.m.ned, 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 a.s.sign contradictory wills to G.o.d. That is, in this way it would be taught that G.o.d, who surely is Eternal Truth, would be contrary to Himself [or say one thing, but revolve another in His heart], while, on the contrary, G.o.d [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 G.o.d's predestination when sinners are hardened; nor does such hardening signify that it never was G.o.d's good pleasure to save them. "Moreover,"

says the _Formula_, "it is to be diligently considered that when G.o.d 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 G.o.d's good pleasure that such persons should come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved. For both these facts are G.o.d's revealed will: first, that G.o.d 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 G.o.d, Heb. 10, 29, and that they shall be hardened, blinded, and eternally condemned if they persist therein." (1091, 83.)

"But that G.o.d ... 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 G.o.d 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, G.o.d withdrew His hand from him and thus his heart became hardened and obdurate, and G.o.d executed His judgment upon him; for he was guilty of nothing else than h.e.l.l-fire. Accordingly, the holy apostle also introduces the example of Pharaoh for no other reason than to prove by it the justice of G.o.d which He exercises towards the impenitent and despisers of His Word; by no means, however, has he intended or understood it to mean that G.o.d begrudged salvation to him or any person, but had so ordained him to eternal d.a.m.nation 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 G.o.d 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 d.a.m.nation. 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 a.s.sertions, 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d. On the other hand if G.o.d 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 att.i.tude 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 a.s.sertions in the pa.s.sage 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 a.s.saults 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 a.s.sured 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, His own glory is entirely and fully given to G.o.d, 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 G.o.d and the most holy merit of Christ, but that also in us there is a cause of G.o.d's predestination on account of which G.o.d 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 d.a.m.nation; 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 G.o.d's grace, its anti-Calvinistic att.i.tude is nevertheless everywhere apparent.

Article II plainly teaches that "it is not G.o.d's will that anyone should be d.a.m.ned, 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d's Word are the instruments of the Holy Ghost, by, with, and through which He desires to work efficaciously, and to convert men to G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 a.s.serts that men who refuse to hear the Word of G.o.d are not converted because they despised the instrument of the Holy Spirit and would not hear (903, 58); that G.o.d does not force men to become G.o.dly; 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 pa.s.sages of Holy Scripture, that human reason ought not in any point to criticize and lord it over the infallible Word of G.o.d; 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 G.o.d, and hence of G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d are contained in the Gospel, revealed in the Bible.

The things still hidden from us include the unsearchable judgments of G.o.d, His wonderful ways with men, and, in particular, the question why some are saved while others are lost. G.o.d has not seen fit to reveal these mysteries. And since reason cannot search or fathom G.o.d, 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 G.o.d is not in real conflict with G.o.d as revealed in the Bible, and that the secret will of G.o.d does not in the least invalidate the gracious will of the Gospel. According to the _Formula of Concord_ there are no real contradictions in G.o.d; in Him everything is yea and amen; His very being is pure reality and truth.

Hence, when relying on G.o.d 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 a.s.sured that there is absolutely nothing in the unknown G.o.d, _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 G.o.d depicted in the Gospel is the true face of G.o.d. Whoever has seen Christ has seen the Father as He is in reality.

Indeed, also the hidden G.o.d, together with His secret counsels, unsearchable judgments, and ways past finding out, even the majestic G.o.d, in whom we live and move and have our being, the G.o.d 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 h.e.l.l cannot prevail against it.'" (1065, 8.) As for us, therefore, it remains our joyous privilege not to investigate what G.o.d has withheld from us or to climb into the adyton of G.o.d'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 G.o.d alone for it, while whoever is d.a.m.ned 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 G.o.d'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, G.o.d 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 G.o.d has revealed to us concerning this in His Word, because we cannot harmonize it [cannot by the ac.u.men 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d alone is the cause of man's salvation and man alone is the cause of his d.a.m.nation, 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 G.o.d?'" (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 G.o.d'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 st.u.r.dily 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 a.s.sures us that G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 a.n.a.lysis, 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 G.o.d, 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.