THE
ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY.
PUBLISHED
BY THE
GERMAN EVANG. LUTHERAN SYNOD OF MISSOURI, OHIO, AND OTHER STATES.
EDITED BY
C. H. R. LANGE.
“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh- (for the weapons of our
warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) casting
down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and
bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” 2 Cor. 10. 3—5.
1881 & 1882.
ST. LOUIS, MO.:
CONCORDIA. PUBUSHING HOUSE.
(M. C. BARTHEL, AGENT.)
CONTENTS
1881
MAY
Shall we retain our Confessions?
Literature
JUNE & JULY
The Cause of Election
Lord, Keep us steadfast in Thy Word
Election and Faith
Election in the narrow and wide senses
Literature
AUGUST
The Thirteen Theses
What is Calvinism
“New Tract”
Literature
SEPTEMBER
Is Election a Judicial Act?
The personal Assurance and precious Consolation of our gracious Election to Salvation
Calvinism and Synergism versus Lutheranism in the Doctrine concerning Conversion
“New Tract”
General Religious Intelligence
OCTOBER
What does St. Paul Eph. 1, 3-14, teach of the Eternal Election of God?
Election and Persevering Faith
General Religious Intelligence
NOVEMBER
What does St. Paul Rom. 8. 28-30 teach concerning Election
Election and Persevering Faith
Dr. Walther once and now
Duties of a Beneficiary
Reasons for Suspending my Membership in the Joint Synod of Ohio and Other States
That Oath
Ohio’s Standpoint
General Religious Intelligence
DECEMBER
The New Confession of the Ohio Synod
Literature
General Religious Intelligence
1882
JANUARY
A Few Prefatory Remarks
“Full Assurance of Hope”
In Defense of a Brother in the Faith
Review of Comments on our Reasons for suspending Membership in the Ohio Synod
General Religious Intelligence
FEBRUARY
Sermon preached at the meeting of the Protest Conference at Logan, Ohio, and given to the
public by request of the Conference, by F. Kuegele
The Distinction between Foreknowledge (Praescientia) and Predestination in the Formula of
Concord
Review of Comments on our Reasons for suspending Membership, &c.
General Religious Intelligence
MARCH
New Doctrine
“To the Law and to the Testimony”
Review of Comments on our Reasons for suspending Membership, &c.
The Dates of Dr. Martin Luther’s Birth and Death
General Religious Intelligence
APRIL
Sin and Grace
God without His promises of Grace and God the Promiser of Salvation
Review of Comments on our Reasons for suspending Membership, &c.
General Religious Intelligence
MAY
“Perfection”
Those Innovations
Dr. M. Luther on the Christian’s Certainty of Predestination and Salvation
General Religious Intelligence
JUNE
Quenstedt on Synergism
Dr. M. Luther on the Christian’s Certainty of Predestination and Salvation
The Book of Concord; or, the Symbolical Books of the Ev. Luth. Church
Literature – General Religious Intelligence
JULY
Investigation of the Causes producing the Decline of Orthodoxy
General Religious Intelligence
AUGUST
Investigation of the Causes producing the Decline of Orthodoxy
General Religious Intelligence
SEPTEMBER
A Brief Recapitulation
An Answer to the Question whether we teach what Calvinists term “Irresistible Grace”
General Religious Intelligence
OCTOBER & NOVEMBER
An Answer to the Question whether we teach what Calvinists term “Irresistible Grace”
A “Cheap” Tract
General Religious Intelligence
DECEMBER
Wilful Resistance
Original Sin
Notice
[[@VolumePage:1,1]]
THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL
MONTHLY.
Vol. 1. May 1881. No. 1.
Shall we retain our Confessions?
Up to this time the Missouri Synod maintained the character of an infant in the use of the
English language. It contented itself with having its cause supported by friends. Sudden and
violent changes, however, occurring in the American Lutheran Church have destroyed former
relations, and necessitate the Missouri Synod to accustom itself to the use of its own power of
speech in its behalf. The writer, a member of that body, in defending it, will take the liberty to
use the pronoun we for the sake of convenience.
It seems demanded to state at once the occasion of this writing. The editor of “The Lutheran
Standard”, in whose care we had left the interests of our common faith within the bounds of the
English Lutheran Church, has suddenly turned our adversary. In a manner unlooked-for he found
himself bound in conscience to start a new periodical announcing that he must lift up his voice,
to protect the Church against the Missouri Synod. In this periodical, the “Columbus Theological
Magazine”, he makes the serious charges that we had troubled Israel, marred the visions of peace
and prosperity in the Church, propagated an error that revolutionized the whole system of
Christian doctrine, and provoked conscientious indignation. He represents the animus, said to be
revealing itself in our teaching, to be of so wicked and blasphemous a sort, as was never found
among men professing religion, either Christians, or Jews, or Mohammedans, or Pagans. He
makes the accusation against us that we were inculcating a doctrine the first effect of which is to
render a pious man speechless from sorrow; [[@VolumePage:1,2]]that we denied the attribute of
goodness in the Divine Being, and made God really so treat His miserable creatures, that when in
their anguish they look up to Him for some crumb of comfort, He closes the door upon them
with the cold rebuff that He owes them nothing. In making these charges he piously trusts in the
grace of God that his words will not wound but convince.
We do not undertake a defence of our persons beyond what may appear to be subservient to
the cause the support of which is the object of our lives' work. We do not assume a claim upon
the attention of our readers to a specification of the reasons from which our adversary and his
adherents draw their atrocious charges, and to the evidence we are able to present, to show these
charges to be mere imputations. We may rely on the consideration that any innocent person may
be accused, but no one can be proved guilty unless he is so. Those charges will stand unaltered
whether on a careful examination we be found to have made mistakes, or not, in promulgating a
doctrine forming part of our Confessions. Those charges would not be affected in substance,
even if it were clearly demonstrated that we had done nothing else than insisted on believing, and
not merely professing, what Dr. Luther in his Small Catechism has set forth to be Christian
doctrine. Those charges together with all the misstatements, reckless deductions, and delusive
declamations, with which our opponents make head against us, are but a vast nebula surrounding
a nucleus which though as yet but indistinctly presented, consists in the rejecting the authority of
our Confessions as the standard of Lutheran doctrine.
What treatment our persons are put to, we do not care. We are accustomed to
misrepresentations of both our character and labors. We deem it an honor to be counted among
those whom the Apostle Paul describes as being made as the filth of the world, and the
offscouring of all things. Let our souls be hunted down with calumnies and imprecations. Let our
hearts be tortured by tearing from us a brotherly love we hold in esteem. Only let the Church be
lighted and led by the Word of God proclaimed in her Confessions. Then, indeed, our dearest
aspirations have obtained their object. As long, however, [[@VolumePage:1,3]]as the cause we
are devoted to, is so mixed with our persons that the defamation of the latter imports the
suppression of the former, we demand proofs to show that in upholding our Confessions we were
walking in craftiness, or handling the Word of God deceitfully.
The doctrine we are accused of having promulgated is set forth in our Confessions as revealed
in the Word of God. Having through God’s grace become members of the Church of the
Reformation, and convinced of her having professed no other than the apostolic doctrine and
divine truths, we strive to be in union with her in all we teach, and to have all dissensions
decided by her Confessions. The blessing with which God’s mercy has crowned the faithfulness
to these Confessions, strongly admonishes all her members to have a regard to what is entrusted
to them to keep and defend. The troubles raised now are but a new phase of the temptation, our
American Church was exposed to repeatedly, which is, to disregard and finally abandon the
Confessions of the Church of the Reformation which she has made her own.
Half a century ago, those in our country who were called Lutherans, formed a sort of
Lazzaroni among the Christian denominations. Having forsaken the majestic structure of
doctrines owned by that Church whose name they bore, they preferred living without a shelter
against the errors pouring upon them. Having nothing of their own to defend or preserve, they
satisfied their little wants by feeding on the crumbs of doctrine falling from the tables of their
neighbors. Though thousands were lying around in distress, they had nothing to divide with
them, no occasion for being disturbed in their sweet idleness. Delighted at the honor of being
graciously admitted to assist, whenever some pageant was instituted to enhance the glory of their
superiors, they strove to imitate all their old or new “measures”. The more to ingratiate
themselves with their benefactors, they abused their own glorious inheritance, the Lutheran
Confessions, with approbrious epithets, exclaiming against them of being a hiding-place of
popish superstitions, stupid nonsense, and remnants of antichristian idolatry. Behaving goodnaturedly toward all, they showed pluck only against those who ventured to remind them of their
degradation. [[@VolumePage:1,4]]The Lutheran Church who, rising from the bondage and
pollution of AntiChrist’s kingdom, had been decked out like a queen by her heavenly King, and
endowed with treasures of divine knowledge and love to enrich the minds and hearts of the
inhabitants of the earth, appeared to have left all her queenly possessions, to have shamed all the
honors of her high descent, and to have become a beggar in mind and condition.
But those very Confessions, through which the Church of the Reformation had sent forth the
everlasting gospel to be preached unto them that dwell on the earth: “Fear God and give glory to
Him”; and had testified of her new and heavenly birth; those very Confessions God’s gracious
love caused to anew assume life and vigor. Their voice was heard in our dear country, and was
gladly, and earnestly, responded to. Within a short period, thousands succeeded in the honor of
proclaiming the truths, once proclaimed by those who had, long since, gone to their triumphant
rest. A new life of faith, and hope, and brotherly kindness, and charity, began. Men immigrating
to improve their earthly prospects, found “the hidden treasure”. Matth. 13.44. Poor as they were,
and, mostly, still are, they willingly set to erecting churches, parochial schools, colleges,
seminaries, homes for the forsaken and distressed; sending and sustaining without cessation
hundreds of young men to aid in spreading the pure gospel truths at home and abroad; studying,
and nourishing their minds with the best literature of our Church when in her prime; and mindful
of the benefits they had received through those Confessions, cause them to be introduced in
constitutions and deeds, to prevent their being neglected by those who were to succeed them.
This young American daughter of the Church of the Reformation was brought up, like her
mother, in perpetual warfare. The men of “the good old times” never failed in finding occasion to
deride, and decry, the “foreigner”. This enmity, though annoying, was not dangerous. At her very
birth, however, she was at the point of being infected with the poison of hierarchical principles,
which, if not resisted in time, would have jeoparded her health, and growth, and honor. Strong
arguments were brought to bear upon the young Church, to [[@VolumePage:1,5]]make her
surrender the rights she held in virtue of the standard of faith she had adopted, in order that they
might be settled upon her clergy: avowals of sincere attachment; the unanimity of the Lutheran
Church as to the clergy being the rightful owners of all ecclesiastical power; assertions, that the
Lutheran Church never had any other doctrine; the duty of understanding the Confessions in
accordance with the interpretation given by her great teachers. Even declamations, such as are at
present put forward, were resorted to. All in vain. The struggle was hard. Through God’s grace
the young American Church faithfully adhered to her Standard.—Our present opponents seem to
have quietly slept in their cradles during the contest with the Buffalo Synod; else they could not,
with a hope of success, venture to again set up an authority, which it was necessary to overcome,
and force to resign its claims for ever, before the Church could enjoy in peace the privileges
granted by her Lord to every believer.
Soon a new trouble arose. The attempt was made to crush out a large portion of the
Confessions at once. The directing principle was the same, as before, but differently unfolded. It
was this. The doctrine of the Church depends on her agreement as exhibited by her teachers.
Those doctrines in her Confessions as to which her teachers are unanimous, must retain their
binding force. Those, however, in regard to which there is no unanimous consent of her teachers,
are “open questions.”—The men who, in this way, undertook to tempt the young Church to
become faithless to her rule of faith,1 and around whom the Iowa Synod collected, were, and still
are, almost entirely dependent on Germany as to men, and means, and doctrine. Ordered, at first,
to exert themselves in holding the American Church, in all her institutions and government, in
dependency on Germany, they were soon thrown upon [[@VolumePage:1,6]]another track, by
the collapse of the hierarchical projects. Their patrons in Germany considering it a piece of
arrogance in the young American Church to rest satisfied with the doctrines as they are laid
down in her Standard, the men of the Iowa Synod strenuously labor to introduce the
improvements on the divine truths made by the learned theologians of Germany, and to defame
an honest, and faithful, adherence to the Confessions. The Church, however, in spite of these
disturbances, has continued to be nourished, and strengthened, by the old, and pure, doctrines,
she had learned to prize in their true worth, and to grow, and prosper, far beyond the limits of the
Missouri Synod.
And now, the quiet of the young American Church has again been suddenly disturbed by a
movement that warns her, again to take care of her rule of faith. The directing principle of this
movement, as far as unfolded up to the present time, is this. The doctrine of the Church is
exhibited in the teaching of her great teachers. The Confessions must be interpreted in the sense
agreed on' by her teachers subsequent to their establishment as rules of faith.—This principle,
alike preposterous and dangerous, the Church, if not minded to abandon her standard, is now
called forth to combat. It is preposterous. For that which is to rule, and that which is to be subject
to it, are made to interchange their functions while retaining their offices; the judge is arraigned
before the bar of those on whose conduct he is still to decide; the government is subjected to
those who swore loyalty to it, and bound themselves to uphold its decisions as those of their own
government, in order to have these decisions supplanted by their own decisions in the capacity of
being that government’s subjects. It revolutionizes the state and constitution of the rights of the
Church, and makes away with the Confessions as Standards of faith. If they need interpretation
as to their true sense, those whose faith was originally set forth in them, must be consulted; not
those who were entirely foreign to, and ignorant of, that faith at the time when its statement was
framed. If the latter are to be judges of the sense of our rule of faith, the whole matter depends on
our belief, that not we, but only they, were able to correctly understand it. The loyalty of the
Church to her [[@VolumePage:1,7]]Confessions, in that case, is based, principally, on the
opinion we have formed of the state and condition of the mind and heart of some eminent
1
To prevent misrepresentations, we desire it to be distinctly understood, that in speaking of our Confessions as
the rule, or standard of faith, we take these terms only in their common acceptation when applied to our
Confessions, that they are norma normata, “a definite form of doctrine approved by universal consent, which all our
evangelical churches at once may recognize and adopt, and by which, as having been itself taken from the Word of
God, all other writings may be tried or proved, which are set forth for our approbation and adoption.” (Form. Cone.
Declar. Pref.)
teachers; it ceases to be founded on the truths as exhibited in them. But our Confessions need no
interpretation; as it ought to be the case with statements of the faith of a Church for times present
and subsequent. The need of an interpretation is felt only by those who, having conceived a
notion of the matter beforehand, have an interest in reading them with the determination of
having the same notion presented in them.—The principle is dangerous, too. For, if agreed on to
be correct, it will apply to other doctrines as well, as to the one now in controversy. To mention
but one instance; eminent teachers, subsequent to the publication of our Confessions, all agreed
on explaining our standard of faith in respect to ecclesiastical power in a way, that their
agreement resulted in permanently settling the rights of the Church on king and consistory.
The origin of the present trouble is peculiar. One man, nurtured and honored by the Missouri
Synod, thinking he owed that body a grudge, as he himself explained, found an object suiting
him. The Western District of the Missouri Synod had for a number of years, at its regular
sessions, been occupied in discussing the chief articles of the Christian religion, for the purpose
of proving that, in each of them, the Lutheran Church gave all the honor to God alone; that,
consequently, this Church must be the true visible Church; since the chief end of all religion
consists in giving honor to God. In the years 1877 and 1879 the article of Predestination was
discussed to the same end. That doctrine had experienced a change in its presentation, soon after
its promulgation in the collection of our Confessions. Hard pressed by the Calvinists, the
Lutheran theologians began to present it in a form, in which its substance was, as it were,
spirited, and stowed out of sight. Satisfied with not having lost its component parts, but having
preserved them separately, scattered in other doctrines, they presented the doctrine of
Predestination reduced to a syllogism framed in God’s mind, which on account of its apparent
correctness as to both, the premises and conclusion, was incapable of being abused. It was held
forth so as to make Predestination appear [[@VolumePage:1,8]]to be an act of God’s justice, the
so-called consequent will of God.2 This form was totally unfit to show that the Lutheran Church
in this article, as in all others, gave all the honor to God alone; since justice, when applied, not to
condemnation only, but to salvation likewise, implies desert in man, as well when he is saved, as
when he is condemned. Justice is not mercy. To mercy solely, as given us in Christ, the Lutheran
Church in her Confessions refers salvation as to its cause. That form of the doctrine of
Predestination, as represented by those theologians, in which mercy was shown hiding rather
than appearing, hovering around Predestination, not entering into it, was let alone; in its stead the
presentation given in our Confessions, in which Predestination appears clad with all the majesty
of the gospel, humbling both the thoughts and works of men, but raising the humbled to
imperishable joy and honor, was held forth, and meditated on, by our Synod.—This was the
occasion seized upon, to publicly accuse the Missouri Synod of being engaged in secretly
poisoning the Church with Calvinistic heresy. The effect was, as could be expected. Derision,
invectives, and imprecations, were poured upon us from all sides. A term was found, to briefly
denote those alleged wicked practices of ours. They are called “the new departure of the
Missouri Synod”. Our adversaries, of every kind and color, instantly showed that they were still
alive; and set to laying on blows lustily.
Voluntas consequens justitiae est. Quenst. de benev. I, 6, 2. “The will of God consequent to His gracious will to
save all men, is that of justice.” — Causa efficiens nostrae electionis est voluntas consequens, non antecedens. De
Praed. 1, 2, 2. “The cause effecting our election is the consequent will, not the antecedent.”
2
That we are sincere in our adherence to the Standard of faith, that in teaching the doctrine of
Predestination, too, we desire nothing, but to walk in the old paths of the Church of the
Reformation, and to be judged by her Confessions, knowing that they exhibit the divine truth:
facts must prove. During months, while the storm that has broken upon us, was brewing, in the
still nights succeeding the long, and fatiguing, labor of the day, a few men—not of the party of
the accusers, but the accused, among them an aged man of almost threescore
[[@VolumePage:1,9]]and ten years, the one most active, and most accused, on whose account
alone the fact is mentioned—were consulting and collating the oldest and best editions of an
authoritative work, in order to have it reprinted in a form that might win for it a ready entrance
into every house, in which it was still a stranger heard of, yet unknown. It was to be sent forth to
be read, and studied, and obtain a power in the reader’s mind, so as to put to shame every “new
departure”, “new theory”, “new doctrine”, that dared to assume the Lutheran name. This book
was the Book of Concord, our Confessions, printed last year in St. Louis. The weary labor was
amply repaid by the joy we felt, on hearing that, within a few months, the whole edition had been
exhausted, and a second one was in print.
Our new adversaries declare that they are defending against us the doctrine of Predestination
as it is set forth in our Confessions. The Columbus Theological Magazine states that “its aim will
be the exposition and defense of the doctrines of the Church as confessed in the Book of
Concord.” At the same time they are defending the doctrine of Predestination as it is presented in
the works of the later Lutheran theologians; asserting the identity of the two, and ridiculing our
denial of their identity. They have selected a slippery foot-hold for their assault on us. The little
trouble of attending to the statements made by their own authorities as to the identity, or nonidentity, of the two doctrines, will suffice to perceive the pitiable situation, their rashness was so
unfortunate as to push them to. Nor is the consulting those authorities needed to be convinced of
their plight. The simple reference to our Confession will evince the emptiness of their assertions.
The omission of an express statement of “foreseen persevering faith” is equal to the annihilation
of the whole structure which presents Predestination as it is taught by those theologians. This
omission the authors of our Confession stand convicted of. In composing a full and complete
exposition of Predestination they never were occasioned to speak of “foreseen persevering faith”.
Our opponents, in sustaining their assertions, cite Quenstedt as one of their chief authorities. This
great theologian, immediately on his first mentioning our Confession in his treatise
[[@VolumePage:1,10]]on Predestination,3 adds that the sense in which he took the term
predestination, was better, preferable, more useful (potior), than that, in which it was taken by
the authors of our Confession. Our opponents will please allow us in our “new departure”, still to
cling to the old notion, that the comparative degree of an adjective implies the result of having
noticed some difference. In separately expounding those parts of the doctrine of Predestination
that had been contested, Quenstedt regularly cites those theologians that were oil his side, and
defending his position. In maintaining that election and predestination are synonymous terms,
referring only to the elect, he cites our Confession as being on his side so far. The same he does
in maintaining against Huber, that few only are elected. So he does in maintaining that the elect
cannot finally fall from faith. But whenever he maintains, and defends, “the foreseen persevering
faith” in explaining Predestination, he invariably does not cite our Confession as being on his
3
De Praed. 1, 6.
side. He neither rejected our Confession as Calvinistic, because he, too, maintained that the
cause, that some believe, was not in men, but in God who bestows faith on them according to His
good pleasure;4 nor did he represent our Confession as affirming with him that “foreseen
persevering faith” preceded predestination. The high character of our theologians seems to us to
be rather tarnished, than set off, when their powers of discriminating and representing things are
lauded for the purpose of sustaining assertions that make them inconsistent in their statements;
that represent them as expounding one doctrine, while they were expounding another which they
must have thought to have sufficiently explained as being one they preferred to the other. Should
our opponents but once prove that they are able to set forth their whole doctrine of
Predestination, without ever mentioning “foreseen persevering faith”, [[@VolumePage:1,11]]as
our Confession did, then, and only then, we should have some reason for believing that their
doctrine was the doctrine of the Church as confessed in the Book of Concord.
We do not dishonor those great theologians, nor do we think ourselves wiser than they, as our
opponents tauntingly suggest, in not accepting their presentation of Predestination. If there were
any justice in that charge, it would recoil with greater force on those that make it. In following
the teaching of some, we are compelled to reject the teaching of others. The theologians of the
first and second ranks made a presentation of Predestination which the theologians of the third
rank, and downward, considered to be inferior to their own. Our opponents cannot boast of
finding themselves “in better company”, when embracing the tenets of the theologians of inferior
rank, without insulting the theologians in rank their superiors. Though we sincerely believe that
this insult only proceeds from their not knowing the real state of things, we could not imitate
their example shielded by the same excuse. The Missouri Synod can never be shown to have
disrespected those later theologians, or their work. History has proved again and again, that the
cry “The Fathers, the Fathers must be heard! Their consent is the voice of the Church!” was
raised by such as had less studied the Fathers, than those against whom the appeal was pointed.
We need not hesitate to ask, Who did most to introduce into our American Church those
theologians to be known, and honored, as they deserve; and the rich harvest of their labors to be
assimilated by her as nourishing food? Was it our opponents? Or was it he whose fair reputation
his adversaries exert themselves to spoil, and murder? But why did he trouble them in their
walking old paths, as they say? It is easily explained. He knew that the Church was not her
teachers only, but all the believers, men and women, even the baptized babes in the cradles. He
knew of God’s great love to her. He knew that all the treasures of divine knowledge and love,
revealed in the gospel, were her property. He knew that there was a jewel belonging to her,
whose brilliancy had been somewhat impaired in the course of time. Is he to be blamed for
having endeavored to show it forth to her in its original luster? Must the Church upbraid him for
being [[@VolumePage:1,12]]attached to her, as Luther was, who sung, “Her do I love, the
worthy Maid, I never can forget her.”?
4
Quod dicitur (by the Calvinists), causam, quod quidam credunt, non esse in hominibus, sed in Deo, fidem pro
beneplacito suo iis largiente, id Verbo est consentaneum Eph. 2. 8. Phil. 2. 13. De Praedest. II. Quaest. 4, F. S. 9.
“When the Calvinists say, that the cause, that some men believe, is not in the men, but in God, He bestowing faith
on them according to His good pleasure, they say what is in accordance with the Word Eph. 2. 8. Phil. 2.13.”
The Church of the Reformation is founded neither on the Fathers prior, nor on those
subsequent to her establishment. She is founded on the Scriptures. The establishing on her
foundation is fixed and embodied in her Confessions, which were brought about by special
providential acts of God. So far as a person joins in these Confessions, he is to be recognized as a
member of the Church. The consent of her teachers is not the voice of the Church, unless it be a
consent in her Confessions. They cannot be corrected by the teachers, the teachers must be
corrected by them. By them we earnestly desire to be tried for our part. If it be proved, that we
taught anything not authorized by our Confessions, or contrary to any sentence of theirs, we are
ready to renounce it. But it is our own teaching that must be adjudicated upon, not the forgeries
put in its stead by our adversaries. We recognize the right, sustained by the Scriptures, of
drawing inferences from our assertions, if they are presented as such, and not as assertions of our
own. We recognize the command, given by our Lord, to know false prophets by their fruits. But
our Lord means their own fruits, not the products of the ingenuity of others, which may be
presented even as the outcome of the teaching of true disciples. Nor can we be exempt from the
consequences of misrepresentations that are clearly referable to the point of view, from which
they proceed without denying their origin. But when worthless fabrics are labeled with the name
of another firm, to break it down; when assertions we abhor, when inferences which we consider
to be the result of bungling, both in theology and logic, are stated as our own teaching, we must
protest against such liberties, for the sake of the divine truths we preach and defend. May our
opponents become sensible of their wrong by remembering that, if we did not fear God, we could
easily dishonor them in the same way. Suppose, e.g., we should tell the Church, our opponents
were teaching this sort of doctrine. God’s mercy, offered to all men, reveals in them a difference
of conduct toward it, resulting in either salvation, or damnation. Since in the latter case
damnation does not exceed desert, or God were unjust, the difference in favor
[[@VolumePage:1,13]]of the former must exceed the desert of damnation, or God were biased.
This difference, therefore, renders their damnation impossible; it is the only and sufficient cause
of their salvation. God, foreknowing all things, knew that He could never condemn them. No
respect to Christ was necessary for them to be safe from damnation from eternity. Christ’s work,
therefore, is only a secondary cause, having no other purport than leading those whom God’s
justice was obliged to elect, to glory, etc. Suppose we should continue imitating our opponents
by devoting pages to an enlargement of this outgrowth of their philosophical speculation,
affirming under their persons what they deny, denying what they affirm, quoting passages from
the Scriptures and the Confessions against it, insisting upon the Bible having lost none of its
importance since Luther’s day, etc. etc. They should then, perhaps, reach some perception of
such procedure not being just or pious, as they suppose it to be when carried on against us, the
most hateful features of which in their handling it we even, for disgust, omitted to allude to.
We are solemnly accused of having troubled Israel. On what grounds is the rebuke rendered?
We have endeavored, as we did before, to lead wanderers in paths not shown them by the Lord,
back to the original covenant made with the Church when He rid her out of the bondage of false
doctrines. The rebuke bids us meditate on the Scripture passage from which it is taken, to learn
God’s holy will from the sacred history it holds forth. This history implies a gracious
exhortation, not to be afraid, nor dismayed, in our nothingness. “And it came to pass, when Ahab
saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel? And he answered, I have
not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments
of the Lord.” 1 Kings 18. 17-18. The Church of the Old Testament had the commandments given
on Mount Sinai as an assurance of the election of grace, Exod. 19. 5-6. The Church of the New
Testament has the glorious gospel as an assurance of the election of grace. So the gospel was
understood by the Apostles, who addressed those that received it as the elect of God. They did
so, not because they had been admitted to the secret [[@VolumePage:1,14]]counsels of God. On
the contrary, they declared them to be unsearchable. They did not present the assurance of the
election of grace as depending on one’s faith having been foreseen as persevering; else they had
virtually withheld it from all. They held forth the divine decree which in, and through, the gospel
brings eternal salvation to every one that believeth. Those who received the gospel, received the
privilege of being the sons, and heirs, of God. In it they were to recognize the sublime truth, that
they had not elected Him, but that He had elected them; and that, in the continual danger of their
falling off, they should be more than conquerors through Him that loved them. So the Church of
the Reformation understood the gospel. She represented the election of grace not as depending
on anything foreseen in man, be it faith or works; not as depending on a condition not yet
rendered. She represented it as having for its cause the mercy of God alone, and the most holy
merit of Christ; as “affording the eminent and precious consolation, that God took so deep an
interest in the conversion, righteousness, and salvation of each Christian, and so faithfully
provided for these, that before the foundation of the world, in His counsel and purpose, He
ordained the manner in which He would bring me to salvation, and preserve me there; again, that
He wished to secure my salvation so truly and firmly, that in His eternal purpose, which cannot
fail or be overthrown, He decreed it; and to secure it, placed it in the omnipotent hands of our
Saviour, Jesus Christ, out of which none shall pluck us, John 10. 28.” ([[Form. Conc. Declar. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:46]]) That we exhorted the believers to acknowledge, and praise
this grace, was the occasion of the rebuke, and charge of our having troubled Israel.
We trust in the mercy of God that He will leave Him men to guard the apostolic doctrine
proclaimed in this, as in other articles, by our Confessions. To all such within or without the
Missouri Synod, we humbly offer our Monthly to give and take encouragement; this periodical
being no official organ. We, for our part, are steadfastly minded to walk according to the rule,
that nothing availeth in Christ Jesus, but a NEW CREATURE, the work of His grace solely who
knows of no helpmates in creating. The troubles of this walk we shall continue to deem sweet,
since the Holy Spirit has deigned to say: “As many as walk according to this rule, peace be on
them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” Gal. 6.15-16. The God of all grace strengthen His
servants in casting down imaginations, and in bringing into captivity every thought to the
obedience of Christ.
Literature.
ANTI-CALVINISM. By Dr. A. Pfeiffer. Translated from the German by Edw. Pfeiffer. With an
Introduction by Prof. M. Loy, A. M. Columbus, O. Printing House of the Joint Synod of Ohio.
1881. Sent post paid on receipt of $1.50. E. Pfeiffer, 444 East Rich Street. Columbus, O.
St. Paul writes, that once there were some who preached Christ, supposing to add affliction to
his bonds; but he adds, “Notwithstanding, everyway, Whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is
preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.” (Phil. 1. 15—19.) Of these words of the
holy Apostle we were reminded, immediately on seeing brave A. Pfeiffer’s Anti-Calvinism in a
new garb, we mean, in an English translation. Under present circumstances we at once surmised
that this book owed its re-appearance principally to the wish, it might serve as a weapon against
us in the controversy on Predestination, which has lately arisen. We were not, indeed, deceived.
The new introduction confirms, distinctly enough, what we conjectured. Nevertheless, we gladly
welcome the book. We are confident, that many of those who will peruse it for the very reason of
its being intended to add affliction to us, will in this way get a relish for the old Lutheran
theology. Dr. Pfeiffer in this book has thoroughly and victoriously refuted the errors which are
characteristically Calvinistic. In his presentation of the Lutheran doctrine of Predestination he
follows, indeed, the form of doctrine introduced into our Church by Aegidius Hunnius, and
which represents God’s eternal election as having been made intuitu fidei. But in this work of his
he himself offers sufficient aid for the attentive reader who holds fast to our Confession, to easily
correct him in this point by his own words. We, therefore, embrace this opportunity of
recommending the book to the English reading public.
W.
THE CONTROVERSY CONCERNING PREDESTINATION, that is, A plain, trustworthy advice for
pious Christians that would like to know whose doctrine in the present controversy concerning
Predestination is Lutheran, and whose is not. Published by Rev. Prof. C. F. W. Walther, D. D.
Translated by Aug. Crull. St. Louis, Mo. Concordia Publishing House (M. C. Barthel, Agent).
1881. Price 10 cts.
This little treatise is intended to assist those who desire to get an insight into the present
controversy, so as to know what it is which either party strives to uphold, and defend, against the
other. The movement that has [[@VolumePage:1,16]]been forming recently, and which is
supplanting the doctrine of predestination laid down in our Confessions, has by its peculiar mode
of procedure caused perplexity in many minds. There are persons, sincerely attached to our
Church, who have become so doubtful of the import of that doctrine, that they are at a loss, what
to think of the Confession, which they were accustomed to regard as a plain declaration of the
faith of the Lutheran Church. Others, though earnestly minded not to dissent from the
Confession, have been pushed into a position virtually against it. This state of things was brought
about by the following maneuver, whether intentional, or how far intentional, we cannot tell. The
party united in that movement positively deny any intention on their part to make away with the
old doctrine of the Formula of Concord. But having embraced another view of predestination,
they attempt to force it upon our Formula, so as to make this Formula present a doctrine contrary
to its own. The Formula, however, not showing even a trace of what constitutes the new view,
the “intuitu fidei”, they break the resistance it offers to the attempt, by destroying the unity, and
harmony, in the structure of its doctrine, and dissolving the connection of its parts. Adding to the
disconnected parts, by way of giving explanations, whatever may be requisite to bring forth the
new view, they open the way for its being acknowledged as the doctrine of the Formula. The
latter, accordingly, is represented as exhibiting two predestinations at the same time, a
predestination of all men, which they call predestination in a wider sense, and a predestination of
those only whose persevering faith God has foreseen, which they call predestination in the strict
sense. These two ideas are said to be found mixed in the Formula. By applying the process of
separating these two incongruous ideas, the materials appear ready to act upon. There cannot be
any doubt, that the effect of this maneuver is destructive of the esteem, in which our Confessions
are held. The intelligent reader of the Formula finds that it never mentions two predestinations;
that, on the contrary, it declares to speak of one only, the exposition of which apparently needs
neither naming foreseen persevering faith, nor any mention made of a predestination in a wider
sense, in order to have it fully and clearly stated. When prevailed upon to believe that it really
was the intention of the authors, to present two predestinations, and that they executed their
intention in that article, he must feel indignant at their incapacity or dishonesty, which could
select such a method of saying what it was the intention to say. He must feel inclined to pity the
intellectual or moral condition of a Church that had this document, before it was sanctioned,
examined by her best intellects, and, after its sanction, regarded as a standard of her faith. And as
to the members of the Lutheran Church, if they yield to the delusion that by applying some little
ingenuity, one article of her faith is shown to be presented in her Confessions in so pitiful a
condition as to require a process of unmingling, and additional ideas, before that article is
capable of being correctly understood; what will hinder them in suspecting other articles to be in
a similar condition? It is, therefore, of vital importance to the Church, to have the true sense of
the Formula preserved by resisting the attempt, to insert that figment of what they call
predestination in a wider sense, into our Symbol. Our tract gives a sound advice to those desirous
of framing a judgment of their own concerning this matter, without being influenced by the
misguiding interpretations of others. We earnestly recommend it to a thoughtful perusal.
[[@VolumePage:1,17]]
THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL
MONTHLY.
Vol. 1. June & July 1881. Nos. 2 & 3.
The Cause of Election.
We are confident that this Monthly, now issued by order of the Missouri Synod, will find men
among its readers, who are willing to examine our testimony as defendants against the reports
spread abroad concerning our doctrine of predestination. We, therefore, consider it our duty to
make a plain and full statement of those positions of ours which are now so vehemently opposed
by our former friends. In honestly performing this duty we shall, besides, endeavor to show why
we can not, in conscience, yield and retract.
One circumstance requires a preliminary remark. In addition to the charge of false doctrine we
are accused of conceding the worst parts of our doctrines. To those of our readers who suspect
our statements to proceed from so reproachful a condition of our mind and heart as is implied in
the latter charge, we will here simply say that they wrong us. The examination of our testimony
will, we hope, leave them in no doubt as to the real source of that accusation.
To obviate misconceptions that occurred in consequence of positive declarations we made of
the faith, doctrine and confession, to which through the grace of God we firmly adhere, we shall
begin with making statements in a negative form. In accordance with the Formula of Concord
([[Epitome, XI. Art p, 586. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:16-21]])5 “we reject the
following errors:
1. When it is taught, that God is not willing that all persons should come to repentance, and
believe the Gospel. [[@VolumePage:1,18]]
2. Again, that when God calls us, it is not his earnest desire that all men should come to him.
3. Again, that God is not willing that all men should be saved, but without regard to their sins,
solely through the bare counsel, purpose, and will of God, some are destined to damnation, so
that they cannot be saved.
4. Again, that the mercy of God, and the most holy merit of Christ, are not the only cause of
the election of God, but that in us also there is a cause, on account of which God has elected us
to eternal life.
All these doctrines are false, odious, and blasphemous, by which all the consolation, which
Christians have in the holy Gospel and in the use of the holy sacraments, is taken away from
them.; and for this reason these doctrines should not be tolerated in the church of God.”
These words of the Confession of our Church exhibit our positions concerning election or
predestination. All the terms in the above quotation we use according to their usual acceptation.
In this respect we differ from our opponents, and a notice of this difference is indispensable to
him who desires to obtain a clear insight into the present controversy. It is this circumstance
which demands an explicit statement of the sense in which we take those terms to which our
opponents apply an unusual interpretation which will be examined after the presentation of our
own positions. 1. Cause we understand to be “that without which another thing called the effect
can not be; that which is the occasion of an action; that by reason of, or on account of, which
anything is done.” (Webster’s Dictionary.)—2. Election we understand to be “Divine choice;
predetermination of individuals as objects of mercy and salvation.” (Webst. Dict.) Accordingly,
when we speak of the cause of election, we speak of that on account of which God chose, or
predetermined, individuals as objects of mercy and salvation.—3. In our Confession, quoted
above, we understand the terms “all persons, all men” occurring in the first, second, and third
sentences, to be of greater extension, than the pronouns in the first person plural occurring in the
phrases “We reject, when God calls us, that in us also, God has elected us.” This pronoun we
understand to apply to the Christians only, named in the last sentence, [[@VolumePage:1,19]]to
Christians who have consolation in the holy Gospel and in the use of the holy sacraments, which
consolation is taken away from them by the doctrines we reject as errors. For the doctrine of
election also “affords the eminent and precious consolation, that God took so deep an interest in
the conversion, righteousness, and salvation of each Christian, and so faithfully provided for
these, that before the foundation of the world, in his counsel and purpose, he ordained the
manner, in which he would bring me to salvation, and preserve me there; again, that he wished to
secure my salvation so truly and firmly, that in his eternal purpose, which cannot fail or be
5
We quote from the second Newmarket edition of the Book of Concord. 1854.
overthrown, he decreed it, and to secure it, placed it in the omnipotent hands of our Savior, Jesus
Christ, out of which none shall pluck us, John 10. 28. For, if our salvation were committed unto
us, it might easily be lost through the weakness and wickedness of our flesh, or be taken and
plucked out of our hands, by the fraud and power of the devil and of the world. Hence Paul,
Rom. 8. 28, 35, 39. says: Since we are called according to the purpose of God, who shall
separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord.”
According to the explanations given, we believe and teach “that the eternal election or
predestination of God, that is, the ordaining of God unto salvation, doeth not pertain both to the
good and to the bad, but only to the children of God, who were elected and ordained to eternal
life, before the foundation of the world, as Paul, Eph. 1. 4-5. declares: ‘He hath chosen us in
Christ Jesus, and predestinated us unto the adoption of children.’ . . The eternal election of God
not only foresees and foreknows the salvation of the elect, but through his gracious will and good
pleasure in Christ Jesus, is also the cause which procures, works, facilitates, and promotes our
salvation and whatever pertains to it; and upon this our salvation is so firmly grounded that 'the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ Matth. 16. 18. For it is written: ‘Neither shall any pluck
my sheep out of my hand,’ John 10. 28. And again, Acts 13. 48.: ‘And as many as were ordained
to eternal life believed.’” ([[F. C. pp. 711. 712. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:5-8]])
The Christians, accordingly, ought to believe, that the sole cause of the eternal election of God
is the mercy of God and [[@VolumePage:1,20]]the merit of Christ, and the sole cause of their
salvation is the eternal election of God. In other words, the elect are saved because they were
elected, and they were elected because of God’s mercy and Christ’s merit solely. The way in
which a Christian is to learn that he is among the elect, we here pass by, it being another point in
the controversy on election, not identical with the cause of election, which we are now
considering.
That we are not erring in the doctrine we have set forth above as our own, but that it is thus
revealed in the Word of God, we can show from the Scriptures in the same way our Church did.
“By this doctrine and explanation of the eternal and saving election of the elect children of God,
the honor of God is wholly and fully attributed unto him, namely, that through pure mercy in
Christ, without any of our merits or good works, he saves us according to the purpose of his will;
as it is written: ‘Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children, by Jesus Christ, to
himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace wherein
he hath made us accepted in the Beloved,’ Eph. 1.5-6. The following doctrine, is, therefore, false
and erroneous, namely, that not the mercy of God alone, and the most holy merit of Christ are
the cause, but that in us also there is a cause of the election of God, on account of which God has
elected us to everlasting life. For, not only before we had done any good, but also before we
were born, yea, before the foundation of the world, he elected us in Christ; ‘That the purpose of
God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her,
The elder shall serve the younger: As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated,’
Rom. 9. 11, 12, 13.; Gen. 25.23.; Mal. 1. 2-3.”
According to the Scriptures quoted, there is evidently nothing in us a cause on account of
which God has elected us to everlasting life. The sole cause is in God, it is in His pure mercy in
Christ, not in His justice. We are not saved by justice, but by mercy which waives justice. What
made us accepted was nothing but He alone, who Himself made us accepted in the Beloved.
There is not the least occasion left for [[@VolumePage:1,21]]praising anything else than the
glory of His grace. The favor which He shows to the elect is occasioned by nothing that God
foreknew of their doing or being, and He foreknew all they should once be or do. To this truth
which shows election to be depending solely on Him that calleth, our minds are directed by
Paul’s introducing the case of the future history of the two nations that separated from Rebekah’s
bowels; since that case incontestably proves that election is not a consequence of history, but that
history is a consequence of election.
We acknowledged our duty of making a plain and full statement of our positions in regard to
the cause of election. We trust that we neglected nothing in performing this duty. Could we think
of having omitted anything required or desirable, we should willingly make up the deficiency.
We are fully aware, however, that the present state of the controversy demands another plain and
full statement to be made by us, in addition to what is presented above as the doctrine we hold
and defend. We are ready to do anything that may be of service to the cause of truth. What
appears to be demanded of us is an answer to the question, how it is possible for us to honestly
believe all that we present as divine truths. It appears that this question is caused by both the
moral and the logical aspects of our doctrine. We do not in the least hesitate as to giving any
questioner all the information he may require of us. We answer
1. in regard to its moral feature. Human reason finds unrighteousness with God involved in
this doctrine. This is the first objection made to it when it is presented to man. So it appears in
the presentation of this doctrine made by the Apostle Paul, Rom. 9. We, teaching the doctrine of
the Holy Ghost, and being led by the same Spirit with the Apostle, cannot but do what the
Apostle did. We first recognize the fact that this doctrine, indeed, occasions the question, “Is
there unrighteousness with God?” In the second place, we answer with the Apostle, “God
forbid.” In the third place we follow the Apostle in directing the questioner to the evidently
scriptural truth, that in election God showeth mercy and not justice. The opposition which
necessarily appears to human reason when God’s justice and mercy are compared, disappears
when either of them is viewed singly. The latter is the province allotted to man, in which he is to
exert his mental powers for the purpose of learning what those divine attributes are. “Paul
instructs us to consider the judgment of God to be just, in the case of those who perish. For it is
the well-merited punishment of sin, when, in the case of any country or people, God so inflicts
punishment on account of the contempt of his Word, that it extends also to succeeding
generations, as we perceive to be the case with the Jews; thus, in the case of some countries or
individuals, God exhibits his severity, or the penalties which we had deserved, and of which we
were worthy, since we, too, did not walk in a manner worthy of God’s Word, but often deeply
grieved the Holy Spirit; so that, being thus admonished, we might live in the fear of God, and
acknowledge and praise the goodness of God, shown to us and in us, without or contrary to our
merit, to whom he gives his Word, whom he allows to retain it, and whom he does not harden
and reject. For, since our nature is corrupted by sin, and worthy of and exposed to divine wrath
and everlasting condemnation, God is not under any obligation to bestow upon us his Word, his
Spirit, or his grace. Even when he graciously grants us his gifts, we often reject them, and render
ourselves unworthy of everlasting life, Acts 13. 46. He, therefore, proposes his righteous
judgment, which men deserve, for our contemplation, in the case of some countries, nations, and
individuals, in order that, by comparing ourselves with them, and by discovering our great
similarity to them, we may see and praise with so much the greater diligence, the pure, unmerited
grace of God, manifested to the vessels of mercy, Rom. 9. 23. For those who suffer punishment
and receive the wages of their sins, are not dealt with unjustly. But in the case of those to whom
God gives and preserves his Word, by which men are enlightened, converted, and saved, the
Lord commends his boundless grace and unmerited mercy. When we proceed thus far in this
article, we remain in the right path, as it is written: ‘O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself, but in
me is thine help’, Hos. 13. 9.” ([[F. C. pp. 720. 721. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:5762]]). None of the divine attributes are revealed to man for the purpose of being modified by his
logical powers in determining, or limiting, the [[@VolumePage:1,23]]one by the other; for they
all surpass our comprehension, and reveal themselves to man as such. God is to be worshipped,
not constructed by man. Should we yield to the objection mentioned, it would lead us directly to
the rejection of the whole gospel. For we could not then withstand the arguments of the infidels
who e. g. point to the fact that they find unrighteousness with God in the preaching of the
redemption through Christ, and that they find this doctrine to be contrary to the Scriptures,
saying, Prov. 17.15.: “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they
both are abomination to the Lord.” We keep our logic down to correcting human thoughts only,
we shrink in the fear of the Lord from carrying the corrective powers of human reason into the
glory of the gospel.—We hope that these remarks will be found sufficient in rendering our
position, in respect to the moral feature of our doctrine, intelligible. We proceed to explain our
position
2. in regard to the logical inconsistencies in our doctrine. In the present controversy two cases
are distinguishable; the one may be briefly stated as Reason versus Faith, the other as Freewill
versus Mercy. Since in this article our purpose is merely to give such information as may be
necessary to a clear and full understanding of our positions, we will confine ourselves to
presenting a few remarks in connection with the first case. In opposition to our doctrine it has
been asserted, that the mercy of God and the merit of Christ can lead to no election of
individuals, for as a cause considered independently of any circumstances in the objects it would
lead to the acceptance of all, not the selection of a few. Hence election as an effect can not be,
unless some circumstance in the objects is added to the cause named. The cause of the
particularity of the election lies not in God, but in man. Election, therefore, as presented in our
doctrine, is an impossibility, an absurdity. The idea of election must be brought into harmony
with reason, before it can be accepted as a divine truth, or a revelation of God. This is done by
rendering the term election ambiguous, and attributing to it two meanings. There is an election,
in which the term must be taken in a wide sense, and in this election all men are had in view; and
there is an [[@VolumePage:1,24]]election, in which the term must be taken in a strict sense, and
this election embraces only the few that are saved.—We, for our part, must reject both the
endeavor to conform articles of faith to reason, and the ambiguity of the term election. We must
reject the two meanings attributed to it as they are explained by our opponents. We must reject
election in two senses, whether the two be regarded as one election in two different states or
stages, so that the same election which at first was universal, including all men, was
subsequently by man’s conduct rendered particular, embracing only a few; or whether they be
regarded as two, the one made before the foreseen faith of man, the other afterwards.
In opposition to our doctrine it has been asserted, that by reason of election being presented as
the cause of the actual salvation of the elect, our doctrine establishes the absolute decree of the
Calvinists, according to which God predestinated those that are lost to eternal death; which
absolute decree, as Quenstedt says (de Vocat. II, Observ. 1.), puts an end to four classes of
arguments, 1. the beneficent will of God who desires the salvation of all men; 2. the creation in
the image of God, of all men in Adam; 3. the redemption of the whole human race through
Christ; 4. the universal call of the Holy Spirit through the gospel.—We, for our part, reject the
absolute decree of the Calvinists as a false, odious, and blasphemous doctrine, which should not
be tolerated in the church of God. We declare, when such inferences are made from our doctrine
and set forth as contained in it, “that this doctrine is set forth, not according to the Word and will
of God, but according to mere human reason and the suggestions of the devil.” ([[B. of C. p. 727.
>> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:91]])—It is asserted, that in the nature of things glaring
inconsistencies must sooner or later give way. We maintain, that excepting the fallacies which
are peculiar to our opponents, there have remained, and will remain unto the last day, what
human reason calls inconsistencies, glaring or not glaring according to the mental eye that is
directed to the revealed doctrine of election.
We regard our doctrine as a divine revelation set forth in the gospel. We learn from revelation
that there is an essential difference between the gospel and the wisdom of the world.
[[@VolumePage:1,25]]It consists in the gospel being foolishness to the wise. There is not one
article of the Christian faith, to which the charge of absurdity had not been, or could not be,
made by corrupt human reason according to its established laws. This is known both to the
believers, and the unbelievers. We cannot wonder, then, if the same charge is made in regard to
the revealed doctrine of election. It is no proof against its divine origin. Believers, when
concerned about the truth, are instructed to say: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak
not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isa. 8. 20. Revelation tells us,
that the gospel is designed by God to appear absurd to human reason. “For after that in the
wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of
preaching to save them that believe.” 1 Cor. 1. 21. Human wisdom and understanding, in things
offered to men for belief, are exerted in showing logical consistency in what must be considered
truth in opposition to error. Finding logical inconsistencies and absurdities in the gospel, they
reject it for this very reason. But “it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will
bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” 1 Cor. 1. 19. Our Lord says, “Except ye be
converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Matth.
18. 3. He even thanked the Father, the Lord of heaven and earth, because He hid these things
from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes; even so, for so it seemed good in His
sight. Matth. 11. 25-26. Babes are not in the habit of rejecting doctrines on account of logical
inconsistencies having been found in them. The grace of God has made us such babes. This fact
fully explains our position over against our opponents, and shows why the arguments, framed
against us, are ineffective. We knew of those inconsistencies before they were brought to bear
upon our position. Our faith is the victory that overcometh such wisdom. Our own reason is not
barren of that sort of fruit, but we consider it to be fruit unto death.
We must add one more remark, however, to show the full assurance of faith we have in our
doctrine. The Apostle not only characterizes the gospel as being foolishness to the
[[@VolumePage:1,26]]wise, he also adds, that “the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and
the weakness of God is stronger than men.” 1 Cor. 1. 25. We were, indeed, mistaken in thinking
our doctrine of election to be the revealed one, if the latter characteristic named by the Apostle
should be found wanting. But we find, indeed, that in the foolish form of our doctrine God
reveals a wisdom which is wiser than men. How could Christians, in truth, say what the Holy
Spirit teaches them to say (Eph. 1. 4ff.), that God hath chosen them in Christ, having
predestinated them unto the adoption of children, by Jesus Christ, to Himself, according to the
good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us
accepted in the Beloved: unless they knew that the only cause of this election and predestination
was God’s mercy and Christ’s merit, which must assuredly embrace them, since no one is
excluded? And when they are harassed with the thought that in spite of the universality of God’s
mercy in Christ, many perish: how could they hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought
unto them at the revelation of Jesus Christ, unless they were assured that this grace had elected
them to salvation? This election being both the effect of God’s mercy in Christ, and the cause of
the salvation of the elect, the Christians are led to refer their salvation to nothing but this mercy,
not to anything in themselves. Thus they are saved, and both the wisdom and the power of God
are made manifest through this doctrine. For if our salvation was revealed as depending on us,
we could not but consider ourselves lost. For we are taught by the Scriptures to say: “We are
nothing but flesh and blood, which can do nothing but sin;” and we know that sin is the cause of
damnation. God’s wisdom, therefore, has revealed the doctrine of election in a way best suited to
poor sinners whose little faith needs strengthening, not to wise men who decline accepting a
truth, unless it be free from inconsistencies, which their reason may possibly find in it. At the
same time this doctrine gives no one occasion to lead a dissolute and wicked life. For “the reason
that all who hear the Word of God, do not believe, and therefore meet with a deeper
condemnation, is not found in God’s unwillingness to bestow salvation; but they themselves are
in fault, because they so hear the Word, not to learn, but [[@VolumePage:1,27]]only to scorn, to
blaspheme, and to profane it, and because they resisted the Holy Spirit, who desires to operate in
them through the Word.” ([[B. of C. p. 724. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:78]])—To this
simple, perspicuous, and profitable doctrine we adhere, and we shun and avoid all refined,
curious, and useless speculations, questions, and difficulties started in behalf of harmonizing
revelation with reason.
We do not reject all logical reasoning in spiritual things. We only make the necessary
distinction between revealed truths and human thoughts. We are not babes over against man to
sacrifice our power of reasoning in his honor. The honor which is due to God, we give to Him
alone. And in His service we have ample opportunities to make use of the precious gift of logical
thinking. But we do so only as servants, not as masters. We apply reasoning, e. g., in making it
appear that the assurance of our whole Christian faith is implied in the truths, that the Father is
God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet there are not three Gods, but one God.
But the contradictions that may be deduced from this doctrine we abhor and reject. So there is
sufficient occasion for the exercise of our rational faculty to show the assurance of our salvation
to be implied in that very composition of the doctrine of election which is to others only an
object fit for framing contradictions, in order to undo it. Our opponents think that the
contradiction they deduce from our doctrine is the unfathomable mystery we adore. They are
strangely mistaken. We are no worshippers of human thoughts. What they call contradiction, is
their thought only. If we are unable to reconcile revealed things in our minds, we remember that
we are not commanded to do so. It is faith only which renders a man a Christian. But faith clings
to the Word of God, and can not find contradictions in its statements. They are contradictory
only to human reason. We find no contradiction when we do not hinder this doctrine “to direct
us to the Word of God, Eph. 1. 13. 1 Cor. 1. 7-8.; to admonish us to repentance, 2 Tim. 3. 16.; to
encourage us to godliness, Eph. 1. 4, 13. John 15. 3.; to strengthen our faith, and to assure us of
our salvation, Eph. 1. 4, 13.; John 10. 28.; 2 Thess. 2. 13.” ([[B. of C. p. 713. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:12]]) [[@VolumePage:1,28]]
(For the “Theological Monthly.”)
Lord, keep us steadfast in Thy Word.
Our latest opponents, having once equipped themselves in their coat of mail, continue
vehemently to wage war against us, although, by this time, they might have convinced
themselves of the dire fact, that they are fighting against the very public formularies of the
Lutheran Church, of which they claim to be faithful members. Because we adhere to the plain
declaration of the XI. Art. of the Formula of Concord; because we firmly object to having a
single syllable added to our Confessions, by which a different sense would be conveyed, we are
decried, attacked, and assaulted as heretics and placed upon the same level with Calvin! If some
of our opponents, at the commencement of the present controversy, really did not know what is
the difference between Calvinism and the pure doctrine of our Church, they might, since then,
have had more than sufficient time and means to instruct themselves thoroughly in this important
matter; they would have, indeed, been benefited, had they availed themselves of the opportunity.
For, if by means of the publications of the Missouri Synod anything has been set forth in plain,
convincing terms, it is precisely the contrary to what we are falsely accused of in the present
contest. And if anything is strange and incomprehensible, creating surprise in no small a degree,
it is this, that our adversaries, with a tenacity worthy of a good cause only, cling to their
unfounded and often refuted assertions, as though we embraced the offensive tenets of
Calvinism, which are derogatory to the perfections of God, a charge which, indeed, implies
something very shocking. We can not refrain from giving utterance to our conviction that a
sincere regard for truth surely does not lead to such accusations. Or shall we suppose that our
assailants really can not distinguish between the characteristics of sectarianism and such
doctrines of the true visible Church, which necessarily contain the same words, though they do
not express the same meaning maintained by false churches? Most certainly do they know that
not everything taught by the sects, is in itself sectarian, and that there are some points which are
rendered heterogeneal, by that special sense which [[@VolumePage:1,29]]errorists combine with
their wordings, and by the expressions connected with otherwise correct sentences in the same
writing. We do by no means make an apology for heterodoxy, nevertheless we shall always bear
in mind, that a doctrine is not peculiar to a sect simply for the reason that a sect contends for it.
Truth is not to be rejected when error resembles it. Sectarianism is specified by such phrases as
stand in contradiction to the plain teaching of the Bible. Thus Calvinism is specified not by the
proposition that the election of certain persons to eternal life was made from eternity, and that
God in the act of election did not proceed upon the ground of their foreseen faith or qualities. For
this is exactly what the Bible teaches. But those sentiments which Calvin, being led astray by
complying with his own speculations, has advanced contrary to the revelation of God’s Word—
absolute predestination and absolute reprobation—are the characteristics of Calvinism, and
these, through God’s grace, we condemn no less than did our “Fathers.”
The fact that, to a certain extent, Calvin and the Synod of Dort employed certain phrases, in
themselves correct, can never serve as an argument in support of the opinion that the respective
terms are characteristically Calvinistic in their import. If such a manner of argumentation is to be
observed in order to convince one’s mind and to settle a controversy, the result inevitably must
prove disastrous. Why, by such reasoning we at once may arrive at the conclusion that our
opponents and we ourselves are reformed Jews (“Crypto-Jews!”) inasmuch as we believe that
there is but One God.—That predestination is a cause, which procures, works, aids and promotes
our salvation and whatever pertains to it—that God in His election did not take into
consideration anything good in man, is a doctrine set forth in our glorious confessions, and the
“modus loquendi” is so distinct, so precise,, so impressive, that the unbiased reader, at the first
glance, is enabled to understand what he reads; the words can not so be construed as to convey
discordant ideas, except terms be introduced which are impertinent. Of that eternal election,
which pertains only to the children of God, the XI. Art. F. C. affirms that it is also a cause of
their salvation and whatever pertains to it. If [[@VolumePage:1,30]]this be Calvinism, the
Lutheran Church embodied sectarianism in her public writings! Furthermore, not the slightest
intimation, much less a single utterance can be found in the entire XI. Art., from which it might
be inferred that election took place in view, or in consequence, of faith. The pious and faithful
framers of this confession well knew what they were about, when they penned down the
respective paragraphs; they were well aware of the good reason, why they would neither teach
themselves nor transmit to posterity the opinions so strenuously advocated by our adversaries.
Had they entertained such or similar views, they would not have passed them in silence in their
lengthy dissertation concerning the controverted point, but would have confessed them freely in
accordance with the most important object expressly indicated by themselves, viz.: “that a public
and positive testimony might be furnished, showing what the unaninious opinion and judgment
of our churches were and perpetually ought to be.” They discarded all sentiments which are at
variance with the gospel-truth, and by which the pure doctrine of God’s grace in Christ Jesus
would be impaired, and man’s free will glorified. And hence in the article referred to, nothing is
to be found in favor of an “election in view of faith.” If God’s chosen people are predestinated in
consequence of their foreseen faith, they are elected because they believed; if they are elected
because they believed, then election took place not by the mercy of God and on account of
Christ’s most holy merits only, but a cause was also in them. If actual and final faith must
precede predestination, then God’s purpose is dependent on, and conditioned by, our believing,
and, in the end, man’s salvation rests on his own conduct, on his compliance with certain
conditions—an opinion peculiar to Romanism and Arminianism and repugnant to the gospel.
The zealous espousers of the “intuitu-fidei” doctrine, whatever they may say to the contrary, are
in a dilemma, and all their rhetorical powers combined will prove futile in their effort to extricate
themselves.
Faith is a gift of God. In this proposition we are agreed. Faith is by the operation of the Holy
Ghost through the means of grace. In this, too, we agree. Likewise in this. From amongst those
who have the same means of grace, some [[@VolumePage:1,31]]believe, whilst others either
never believe, or backslide, and are lost forever.. But now, why do not the latter receive faith, i.e.
persevering faith and salvation?
“Because they obstinately resist grace offered them by the means of grace.”
True, but why do they obstinately resist? Why is resistance not taken away from their heart?
“It is their own fault.”
Most assuredly. They, then, are not elected because of their own fault. But now as to those that
do believe and are saved? How can they, and why do they, believe?
“It is God’s own gift in them.”
That is true. But God desires to give all men repentance and faith unto life everlasting?
“Yes, but you see, some resist and some don’t, but joyfully accept grace.”
Certainly; but why and how can they accept it?
“Why, it is God’s gracious dealing with them.”
But does He not extend His mercy and His helping hand to all men, even to those who resist?
“Indeed, but they continue willfully, whilst others permit their resistance to be taken away
from them.”
So, then, some are not quite so bad as the rest? Are they better disposed? Is there a difference
with regard to the total corruption of human nature?
“Stop! Here you are touching a mystery which, according to our Confession, we must not
endeavor to solve!”
Very well! If, however, the eternal election is a decree of God, founded upon the foresight of,
and conditioned by, our persevering faith, then there is no longer a mystery, but all is explained,
all is made palpable and splendidly lucid to human reason. You are forced to allow a difference
with reference to the natural faculties of the fallen race—a difference, so great or small, that with
some there is at least something of an inherent inclination or disposition, by their own will and
consent to resolve upon accepting God’s grace and upon being in the number of the elect. And
still you do not see that this is Arminianism, or Synergism, which never had,
[[@VolumePage:1,32]]nor ever shall have room within the pale of the Church of the
Reformation?
“But if election did not take place in consideration of faith, if election rather is a cause of faith,
repentance, conversion &c., then God is partial, unjust, cruel, inasmuch as He does not save
every single soul!”
Not so hasty! It is blind reason that draws this inference. Holy writ tells us that the elect are
chosen according to God’s grace and purpose, for Christ’s sake; but who gives you privilege to
consult your reason as to what might or possibly could be inferred from this truth? Or do the
Scriptures say that God is partial, or unjust, or cruel? Point out a single passage to that effect!
“There is none!”
Then do not listen to your reason, do not rely on your reasoning. By way of such
unwarrantable reasoning Calvin arrived at—Calvinism, and Arminius at—Arminianism. If you
sincerely believe that the depraved condition of mankind is alike with one and all, you can not
but renounce and abandon the “respectu-fidei” theory which—much as you may refuse to
acknowledge the fact—leads to the assumption that there must be at least one reason in man, on
account of which, or in consequence of which, he is, or rather finally shall be, ordained to life
everlasting—in other words to the same effect, that some are better than the rest. Now there is
but one alternative: either you do not believe in the general depravity, or you are without a clear
understanding of your own position.—
The opinions of our opponents are precisely the same with those set forth by an Arminian
writer in the following illustration: “It is reported of Agilmond the second, king of the Lombards,
that, riding by a fish-pond, he saw seven young children sprawling in it, whom their unnatural
mothers had thrown into it not long before. Amazed whereat, he put his hunting spear among
them, and stirred them gently up and down, which one among them laying hold of, was drawn to
the land and was called Lamistus; he then was trained up in the king’s court and finally made
successor in the kingdom. Now granting that Agilmond, being forewarned in a vision, that he
should find such children sprawling for life in the midst of the [[@VolumePage:1,33]]pond,
might therefore take a resolution within himself to put his hunting spear among them, and that
which of them soever should lay hold upon it, should be gently drawn out of the water, adopted
for his son, and made heir of all his kingdom: no human story can afford the like parallel case to
God’s proceeding in the work of predestination.”
The seven infants floating in the pond are to represent Adam’s fallen posterity. The king’s
hunting spear is intended to represent divine grace, and whosoever may happen to lay hold of
that spear, whosoever, being gently stirred, resolves upon being drawn out of the water, in which
he lies sprawling, not “dead in sins,” is in consequence of such lucky conduct, predestinated and
saved!
The recent supporters of an election conditioned by man’s conduct will, perhaps, retort that
their standpoint is quite different from the one expressed in the above simile. Their partisan
efforts, however, aiming at the destruction of what the Formula of Concord sets against their
ideas, serve to show the great similarity of opinion concerning the doctrine of free will, grace,
and election, as represented by out and out Synergists.
According to the modern “intuitu-fidei” doctrine, election is made possible to a certain extent,
whilst the decision is left to rest with the lost sinner, whether he actually shall be elected or not.
Thus at least a part, if not all, of the glory and praise is due to the elect themselves, because they
realized the possibility, having by their willingness made it pass into act. The grand turning
hinge in Synergism and Arminianism is to represent the blessings of salvation to rest at the
option of man to receive the offer, by performing certain duties, whereas the Lutheran Church
gives all glory to God alone, contending not only that God has made salvation possible, but that
He alone “procures, works, aids and promotes our salvation and whatever pertains to it.” The
sum and substance of a conditional election is this: God is willing to do so and so for us,
provided that we are willing to aid Him by our consent. But this is indignity offered to God,
because it makes the Creator’s will dependent on the creatures, and places man’s will foremost in
the business of salvation. It is also exceedingly absurd! [[@VolumePage:1,34]]For, does true
willingness to spiritual things arise from our will itself or from the grace of God? If from His
grace, as it does, God’s decree regarding our salvation cannot be founded upon His foresight of
our conduct. If we say from itself, we rank with Pelagians at once, and plunge into manifest
absurdities, the first of which is, that there are at least two classes of sinful men, the one being
naturally better disposed than others regarding spiritual things; the second, that because God
foresaw faith in the hearts of some men, he purposed to give them faith; the third, that because
He knew their willingness would work together with His grace, He makes them willing to accept
His grace and, therefore, is willing to save them! What a vast difference between the views
advanced by our modern adherents to the “intuitu-fidei,” and the pure doctrine of the Formula of
Concord! God’s eternal election (or predestination, the ordaining of God unto salvation) pertains
only to the children of God, who have been elected to eternal life. And this eternal election not
only foresees and foreknows the salvation of the elect, but is also a cause which procures, works,
aids, and promotes our salvation, and whatever pertains to it. This is what the confession of our
Church teaches, and what it teaches is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And
such is the precious inheritance we have obtained from our fathers, by which we, by the grace of
our God, intend to stand. Our prayer is, and shall continue to be: LORD, KEEP US STEADFAST IN
THY WORD! G. R.
(For the “Theological Monthly.”)
Election and Faith.
Acts 13. 48.
Does, in the sight of God, faith precede the eternal election, as a cause, or prerequisite, or the
like; or does, on the contrary, election go before faith, as a cause precedes its effect? This is the
principal question in the present controversy concerning election. Our adversaries affirm the
former and deny the latter part of this question; while we deny the former, and affirm the latter.
[[@VolumePage:1,35]]
It is not the purpose of the writer to discuss, at present, this question in all its relations, nor
even to adduce all the arguments that prove election to be the cause of faith. May it suffice, at
present, to dwell upon only one scriptural passage, which proves our affirmation. It is found Acts
13. 48.
St. Luke relates, [[Acts 13th, >> Acts 13]] that St. Paul and Barnabas, on their missionary
travels, came to Antioch in Pisidia. Being in a Jewish synagogue on a Sabbath day, St. Paul was
permitted to speak if he had a word of exhortation for the people. Paul arose and preached the
Gospel of Christ’s sufferings, death, and resurrection. Many of the Jews and religious proselytes
followed Paul and Barnabas, when the congregation was broken up, who, speaking to them,
persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. Some Gentiles who had heard the sermon of
Paul, besought him to preach to them on the next Sabbath. Almost the whole city, Jews and
Gentiles, came together on this Sabbath to hear the Word of God. When the Jews saw the
multitude, they were overcome by their ancient hatred of the Gentiles; they were filled with
envy, and instead of listening attentively and joyfully receiving the Gospel of Christ, they spake
against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. Then Paul and
Barnabas said to them: “It was necessary that the Word of God should first have been spoken to
you; but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo we turn
to the Gentiles.” These Jews are an example of all those who are not predestinated, but lost
eternally. They are rejected and lost, not because God would not save them, not because Christ’s
merits and Gospel were not intended for them; but because, if not outwardly, yet in their hearts,
they speak against the Gospel, when it is brought to them, contradicting and blaspheming. “O
Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself.”
Paul and Barnabas turned to the Gentiles, who were glad and glorified the Word of God. How
many of these Gentile hearers became believers, we do not know. Luke says: “And as many as
were ordained to eternal life, believed.” Luke here uses a peculiar expression. He might have
said: many, or: few, or: a number of the Gentile hearers believed; but [[@VolumePage:1,36]]he
does not thus express himself. He says: “As many as we're ordained to eternal life, believed.”
1. What is the intent St. Luke, or rather the Holy Ghost, had, when these words were written?
Even in every day language similar expressions have a peculiar meaning. If one say, for instance:
As many of the pupils as had passed their examination, received a degree, we all understand that
the degree was conferred upon these students, because they had passed the examination. Thus it
is in Holy Writ. The same word which in the passage we are considering, is translated by “as
many as”, is used repeatedly in the Scriptures to introduce clauses stating a reason, or a cause.
Thus [[St. Matthew, chapt. 14, 36. >> Mt 14.36]], says: “And as many as touched” Christ’s
garment, “were made perfectly whole.” Diseased persons were made perfectly whole, as is
related. What was the cause of their becoming whole? This, that they touched Christ’s garment.
Thus in the sentence introduced by the words “as many as” the cause of their recovery is
stated.—Mark 3. 10. we read: “For He had healed many; insomuch that they pressed upon Him
for to touch Him, as many as had plagues.” Why did they press upon Him for to touch Him?
Because they had plagues.—Luke, Acts 5. 36-37., relates that Gamaliel, a Pharisee, said: “Before
these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about
four hundred, joined themselves, who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered
and brought to naught. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and
drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were
dispersed.” Why were certain men scattered, brought to naught, and dispersed? Because they had
followed and obeyed Theudas and Judas.—Rom. 2. 12.: “For as many as have sinned without
law, shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the
law.” Why shall some perish without the law and others be judged by the law? Because the
former have sinned without the law, but the latter, within the law.—Rom. 8. 14.: “For as many as
are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” Why are some declared to be the sons of
God? Because they [[@VolumePage:1,37]]are led by the Spirit of God.—Gal. 3. 10.: “For as
many as are of the works of the law are under the curse.” Why are some people under the curse?
Because they are of the works of the law; “for it is written: Cursed is every one who continueth
not in all things, which are written in the book of the law to do them.”—Gal. 3. 27,: “For as
many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.” Why may it be said that we
have put on Christ? Because we have been baptized into Christ. Compare also Gal. 6. 12, 16.
Phil. 3. 15. Rev. 2. 24.
From all these scriptural passages (and there are, probably, none other in which the words “as
many as” occur) it appears that a cause or reason is stated in clauses introduced by “as many as”.
Now St. Luke in the passage we are considering, says: “As many as were ordained to eternal life,
believed.” We ask: Why did they believe? and the answer is: Because they were ordained to
eternal life, that is: because they were elected. Their ordination to eternal life, that is, their
election, was the cause of their faith.
2. We are well aware that the words “ordained to eternal life” have been and still are
interpreted in such manner, as to exclude the idea of election. It is said: The word “to ordain”
refers to a divine order in which God has decreed to save man, and by which God has appointed
certain means of salvation; hence, those are said to be “ordained to eternal life” who submit
themselves to this order, who, namely, hear the Word, do not close their ears or harden their
hearts against it, do not resist the Holy Ghost who purposes to work through the same. Those are
said to be “ordained to eternal life” who permit themselves to be brought into the divinely
appointed order of salvation.
But no one reading these words without preconceived opinions, would thus interpret these
words. Although the Greek word of which “ordained” in our passage is the translation, implies
the conception of an “order”, just as the word “ordain” does; yet the true meaning is not rendered
by the foregoing interpretation. In all the passages in which the same Greek word occurs, it
denotes an order, an appointment, a decree. Thus it is rendered by “appointed” Matth. 28. 16.:
[[@VolumePage:1,38]] “Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilea into a mountain where
Jesus had appointed them”; Acts 28. 23.: “And when they had appointed him a day”; Acts 22.
10.: “And there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.” While in
these passages the Greek word is rendered “appointed”, it is rendered by “ordained” Rom. 13.1.:
“The powers that be are ordained of God”; by “set” Luke 7.8.: “I am also a man set under
authority”; by “addicted” 1 Cor. 16. 15.: “They have addicted themselves to the ministry of the
saints”; by “determined” Acts 15. 2.: “When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small
dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain other
of them should go up to Jesusalem.” These are all the passages of the new Testament in which
the Greek word is to be found which in our passage is translated by “ordained”.
From these passages we learn that it denotes: to set, to ordain, to appoint, to determine, to
addict oneself. Those, hence, are “ordained to eternal life”, are “appointed” to eternal life,
concerning whom God has determined to bring them to eternal life, whom God has destined for
life, chosen, elected, predestined.
“To appoint to eternal life” is only another term for “to elect” or “to predestinate”. Each of
these terms denotes the same thing, but at the same time has its peculiar meaning. They are
synonymous expressions. Perhaps this interpretation may appear Calvinistic, but it is not
specifically so. We might adduce testimonies of the “Fathers”, but abstain from doing so,
referring the reader only to a number of sentences in our Symbolical Books, which are certainly
not infected by Calvinism.
The Formula of Concord uses the three terms mentioned as synonymous. Thus [[p. 711. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:5]] (New Market Ed.) it says: “But the eternal election or
predestination of God, that is, the ordaining of God unto salvation, does not pertain both to the
good and to the bad, but only to the children of God, who were elected and ordained to eternal
life, before the foundation of the world.” [[Page 712.: >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:9]]
“And yet this eternal election or ordination of God to everlasting life…” [[Page 713.: >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:13]] “If we would reflect and discourse correctly and with
advantage upon the [[@VolumePage:1,39]]eternal election or predestination and ordination of
the children of God, to everlasting life, we should accustom ourselves, not to speculate upon the
bare, hidden, secret, inscrutable foreknowledge of God, but to meditate on it in the manner in
which the counsel, the purpose, and ordination of God, in Christ Jesus, who is the right and true
book of life, are revealed unto us through the Word.” [[P. 715.: >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:27]] “But this is revealed unto us thus, as Paul, Rom. 8. 29-30.,
declares: ‘Whom He did predestinate’ elect and ordain, ‘them He also called’.” In all these
passages the terms “to predestinate”, “to elect”, “to ordain to eternal life” are used as synonyms.
But not only does the Formula of Concord use the terms mentioned as synonymous, but it
also, looking to the peculiar meaning of the word “to ordain”, lays stress upon this, as showing
that predestination and election is not an absolute decree, but such a decree as embraces all the
means also, necessary to obtain the end. Hence it says [[p. 714.: >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:23]] “In this counsel, purpose and ordination, God has not only
prepared salvation in general, but has mercifully considered also all and each person of the elect,
who will ultimately be saved through Christ, has elected them to salvation, and decreed, that in
the manner now mentioned”, in the eight preceding points, “He will, through His grace, gifts,
and operation, bring them to this salvation, assist them in it, promote it, and strengthen and
preserve them. All this, according to the Scripture, is comprehended in the doctrine concerning
the eternal election of God to the adoption of children, and to everlasting salvation, and should
be understood in this article; it ought never to be excluded or omitted, when we discourse of the
purpose, predestination, election and ordination of God to salvation.”
The eternal election of God is an ordination to eternal life, is a decree to bring the elect to
salvation. Because God has decreed to do this in a certain manner, hence this decree is called an
ordination to life. Therefore, furthermore, the elect children of God are described as being
“ordained to eternal life.”
3. This election and ordination is, as we have seen from our scriptural passage, the cause of
faith in the elect. Calvinistic as this may sound, yet it is pure Lutheran doctrine, if what
[[@VolumePage:1,40]]is Lutheran may be learnt from our confessions. Thus says the Formula
of Concord [[p. 712.: >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:8]] “The eternal election of God not
only foresees and foreknows the salvation of the elect, but through His gracious will and good
pleasure in Christ Jesus, is also the cause which procures, works, facilitates, and promotes our
salvation and whatever pertains to it; and upon this our salvation is so firmly grounded that ‘the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it’, Matth. 16. 18. For it is written: ‘Neither shall any pluck
my sheep out of my hand’, John 10. 28. And again Acts 13. 48.: ‘And as many as were ordained
to eternal life, believed’.”
In the foregoing section we have two allegations and two arguments. The allegation: that upon
the eternal election our salvation is so firmly grounded that the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it, is proved by Christ’s words: “Neither shall any pluck my sheep out of my hand.” The
other allegation: that the eternal election is also a cause which procures, works, facilitates, and
promotes our salvation and whatever pertains to it, is proved by our scriptural passage: “And as
many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.” It is evident, that our confessions teach the
same that we have heretofore found: Election is the cause of faith, as it is in general also the
cause which works our salvation and whatever pertains to it.
4. Our adversaries, unwilling to admit that they deviate from our confessions, also confess that
election is a cause of the faith, the perseverance, and the salvation of the elect; but they modify
this confession. They hold that our confessions use the word “election” in a twofold sense. In the
strict sense, they say, it is the ordination of certain persons to eternal life. In the wider sense, they
assert, election or predestination “embraces first the ordination of means for the salvation of all;
secondly, the ordination of those persons to eternal life in whom these means attain their
purpose.” Election in the former sense, they admit to be the cause of the salvation of the elect,
that is, election is a cause, because it is an ordination of means for the salvation of all, but not as
an ordination of the persons to salvation.
Although this distinction is unknown to our confessions as well as to Holy Writ, we will adopt
it for argument’s sake. [[@VolumePage:1,41]]We allege election or the ordination of persons to
be brought to eternal life, is the cause of their salvation and of their faith.
St. Luke says: “As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.” The ordination to eternal
life was the cause of their faith. Now does Luke speak of an ordination of means of salvation, or
does he speak of the ordination of persons? Of persons, certainly. Then the Scriptures teach that
which our adversaries reject as Calvinistic in our doctrine: Election, not of means, but of persons,
God’s ordination of persons to eternal life is the cause of faith in the elect children of God.
And this is also the doctrine of the Formula of Concord. On [[p. 711 >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:5]] it defines election as the ordaining of God unto salvation,
which ordaining pertains only to the children of God; hence it defines “election” as an ordination
not of the means of salvation, but of persons to salvation. And on [[p. 712 >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:8]] it says of this ordaining, pertaining to the children of God,
that it is the cause which procures, works, facilitates, and promotes our salvation and whatever
pertains to it. Thus fully assenting to the word: “In me is thine help.”
(For the “Theological Monthly.”)
Election in the narrow and wide senses.
A distinction fraught with more confusion has never been made. It is said that our fathers and
especially the framers of the Formula of Concord taught well because they distinguished well.
True; and just therefore they never were guilty of distinguishing so badly. We would be sorry to
see any traces of such a blundering distinction in the keystone of our confessions. The eleventh
Article of the Formula of Concord has with the rest always been acknowledged a master-piece of
clearness, of which praise it would be totally unworthy if traces of such a fruitless distinction,
which had to be hunted as it were by the aid of a microscope, existed therein. For the distinction
would thus not only be a blundering one in itself, but very badly made.
But we need not fear for the honor of our confession. This unfortunate distinction is not there
to be found. It [[@VolumePage:1,42]]indeed distinguishes between how we should not
contemplate the mystery of God’s gracious election [[§ 9, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:9]] and how we should [[§§ 13—24, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:13-24]] but it is always the same election and in the same sense
of which it, speaks. It speaks always in the same sense of the same election, of which it says that
“it pertains only to the children of God who were elected and ordained to eternal life before the
foundation of the world.” Those who think they find in it a distinction of any other kind, do
violence to the text and context, and bring disgrace on its authors and on the Church whose
confession it is.
No unprejudiced mind can find the distinction claimed to exist in the confession, and no
prejudice however strong is able to prove its existence. It is not there. But the interest in which
both this distinction and the effort to foist it upon our confession have been made, is as plain as
daylight. Our confession says that election is a cause of our salvation and everything pertaining
thereto. It is the cause of our coming to faith—our conversion—in proof of which it cites Acts
13. 48.: “And as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.” It is the cause of our
perseverance in faith, in proof of which it cites Matth. 16. 18., and John 10. 28.: “Neither shall
any pluck them out of my hand.” Thus our confession teaches that faith and perseverance in faith
flow out of the decree of election, and founds this doctrine on clear passages of Holy Writ. This
is too clearly stated in our confession to be denied, [[§§ 8. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:8]] [[23. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:23]] [[40. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:40]] [[44. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:44]] [[45. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:45]]
That election is a cause of persevering faith is the thing objected to, and in the interest of this
objection the unfortunate distinction of election in the wide and narrow senses has been made.
They insist that faith in the elect grasping the merits of Christ must have been present in God’s
foreknowledge before the election of persons to salvation could take place. Faith is the mark by
which God knew the elect, and which had to be there before He could elect them, and, therefore,
faith can not flow out of the decree of election. But in this our confession is clearly against them.
Its opponents must, however, in some way or other dodge its force, for they would not for the
world have the keystone of Lutheran confessions against them. And here is the shift and dodge
they [[@VolumePage:1,43]]have invented. They, indeed, say with the confession: Election is a
cause of our salvation and of everything necessary to lead us thereto, but, they add, that is
election in the wide sense. They indeed say with the confession: Election pertains only to the
children of God who were elected and ordained to salvation before the foundation of the world,
but, they add, that is election in the narrow sense.
According to this distinction, then, the Formula of Concord teaches an election in the wide
sense, which stands before faith, and an election in the narrow sense, which stands after faith in
the order of cause and effect. From the one of these two little towers to the other, in which the
opponents of our confession seek shelter from its direct statements, they have built a bridge by
means of God’s foreknowledge. When they are in the one and the confession attacks them with
the direct words of Holy Writ: “As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed”, they have
already retreated into the other, exclaiming: “Election in the wide sense.” When they are attacked
by the unequivocal words of the confession: “The election pertains only to the children of God”
etc., they have already absconded and are back in the other tower, exclaiming: “Election in the
narrow sense.” Those who can afford to use such ridiculous tactics, must pay the cost.
Of course they will say: You do us injustice, and for their sake and for the sake of the Church
we wish it were so. But let us hear them. They say: Election in the wide sense, of which the
eleventh article of the Form. Con. speaks, includes election in the narrow sense, as Austria in the
wide sense includes Austria in the narrow sense; and it is only on account of election in the
narrow sense that election in the wide sense is called election, as Austria in the wide sense would
not be Austria but for Austria in the narrow sense. Election in the wide sense, as they call it, they
must in order to agree with our confession place before persevering faith as its cause. But now
comes the confusion. They take out of that election of which the confession speaks as the cause
of persevering faith that on account of which it is called election and without which it is no
election, and place it after faith, denying its causative relation to faith. But what has become of
that election of which the [[@VolumePage:1,44]]confession speaks as the cause of persevering
faith? That without which it is no election at all, is taken away, and it is no more in the place
where the confession put it. The opponents have needed a tower to shield them from the
confession’s direct statement of truth, and that without which the confession has no election, has
gone thither to be used as materials.
But besides thus setting aside the clear intent and meaning of our confession by this bungling
distinction it is also made against the confession’s express warning. In order to make this
distinction, things which the confession says should never be separated are separated, and a thing
which the confession excludes when contemplating the mystery of God’s election, is intruded. In
[[§§ 13—24 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:13-24]] the eleventh article tells us what must
always be taken together when we contemplate the eternal election of God, if we would speak
rightly and fruitfully concerning it. After having said that we should neither contemplate it in the
bare, hidden, and secrect foreknowledge (praescientia) [[§ 9, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:9]] nor in the bare and unsearchable decree of predestination
[[§§ 10.>> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:10]] [[13, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:13]] it
shows in what relations and inseparably connected with what truths it should be contemplated,
namely: just as “the counsel, the purpose and ordination of God in Christ Jesus, who is the right
and true book of life, are revealed unto us through the word. Therefore the whole doctrine
concerning the purpose, the counsel, will and ordination of God belonging to our redemption,
call, justification and salvation should be comprised together”: 1. The universal redemption
through Christ who by His suffering and death merited for us justification before God and
everlasting life; 2. The universal call through the word and sacraments; 3. conversion to God and
the gift of faith through the effectual operation of the Holy Spirit in the means; 4. justification; 5.
sanctification; 6. protection against the devil, the flesh and the world: 7. preservation in faith
unto the end and consolation under all tribulations; 8. beatification and eternal glorification. All
this must be comprised together when we think of the counsel, purpose and ordination of God, in
which God has not only prepared salvation in general, as the counsel of God declares. The
counsel of God is, that the saved shall be saved by pure grace, and the lost shall be lost by their
own fault. In this election is already [[@VolumePage:1,45]]contained, inasmuch as what God by
His grace does in time, He resolved in the eternal election to do. And because on account of the
wickedness of men not all are saved, the elect are by God’s pure grace chosen from the world.
But God has also in mercy considered each and every person of the elect who shall according to
His unfailing purpose be saved through Christ. If God had not taken the conversion and
perseverance in faith of the elect into His own hands, and had not purposed according to His own
will to regenerate them, to give them faith and preserve them therein, not a soul would have been
saved. In this purpose of God election is also contained, inasmuch as the purpose of God is
attained in only a few, and in these not according to their will, but according to God’s will. But
that it is not attained in the rest is not according to God’s will, but according to their own will.
And God has also ordained that in the order now mentioned, or in the manner above stated,
namely, by calling them through the word, by converting them by His Spirit and giving them
faith through the means of universal grace, by justifying them, by sanctifying them, by protecting
them against spiritual danger, by preserving them in faith under all trials and tribulations, and by
glorifying them, He will through His grace, gifts, and operation bring the elect to this salvation,
and do every thing necessary to their obtaining it. He ordained them to eternal life, i. e., decreed
that He would bring them in the order of salvation for all men, and in none other, to eternal life.
It is now easily seen what the opponents of our confession tear asunder. They take election in
the narrow sense without which there is no election, out of the order and means of salvation, and
make it stand aloof, as it were, until in the foreknowledge of God this order has accomplished its
end, then it takes place in the form of a judgment, decreeing those who in the foreknowledge of
God have persevered unto the end to salvation. They separate election from its order, leaving
nothing but the latter stand in a causative relation to faith, and placing the former after faith. And
this separation is made against the express warning of our confession [[§ 24. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:24]]
By this separation they also separate God from the means of grace, leaving them to work as it
were at random. For [[@VolumePage:1,46]]they say: We can not fully explain the fact that some
and not all men believe; but they fully explain the fact that some are elected. Prof. Schuette’s
tract, Quest. 20. We can only say: That some believe is entirely the work of God, that not all men
believe is entirely their own fault, Quest. 21. Now if we believe God to stand in the same relation
to His means of grace in eternity as He does in time, we must say: that some are elected is
entirely the work of God, but that not all are saved is entirely their own fault, and as God in time
did not work faith in foresight of faith, so in eternity He did not elect in foresight of faith. If the
purpose of the work which takes place in time through the means of grace, does not lie in the
eternal election of God, then God is separated from His means, and is nothing but a looker-on to
see how they work, and then judging according to the result. This mystery which in Quest. 21. of
Prof. Schuette’s tract is admitted to exist in time, must also be admitted in the eternal election.
The cause that some are elected is only in God’s will, but that not all are saved is only in man’s
will. Furthermore, leaving this road open back into all eternity, and not trying to bridge it over by
God’s foreknowledge, is the only way to avoid Calvinism on the one hand and synergism on the
other.
In order to make the unhappy distinction of election in the wide and narrow senses they bring
something into their contemplation of the decree of election which our confession expressly
excludes, namely, the bare foreknowledge of God. The confession not only says, we should not
contemplate the election of God in this bare foreknowledge [[§§ 9. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:9]] [[13., >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:13]] but also, that
we should not draw any inferences or conclusions from it in any way affecting our contemplation
of God’s election. [[§ 55. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:55]] In direct opposition to this
warning they make a very liberal use of this bare foreknowledge of God. It is indeed the main
thing in their election. On it they depend to vanquish Calvinism, which they think is raising its
head anew in these latter times. With it in their hands they deem themselves endowed with the
weapons of heroes of other days, and to yield it, they think, would be treasonable. But our
confession says we should not contemplate election in this bare foreknowledge, and they have no
other way of contemplating it, for this is to [[@VolumePage:1,47]]them election in the narrow
sense without which there is no election at all. With this foreknowledge of God they fully
explain how it is that only some are elected. They say God in His foreknowledge saw a mark in
the elect by which they were pleasing to Him, namely, faith. And this is how it came that they
were elected. They insist on this difference, the elect by the possession of faith being
distinguished from the non-elect, and that it was thus present in the mind of God before He
elected. Prof. Stellhorn in his tract: “The rule, according to which God was guided in the
selection of persons, is the merit of Christ apprehended by faith; or, more briefly, but understood
in the same way, the persevering faith in Christ. But this faith is not to be regarded as a good
work, or as a meritorious cause of election, but only as the absolutely necessary hand to become
partaker of the merit of Christ. Him in whom He foresaw this faith He elected; and only him He
did not elect in whom He did not foresee this faith.” God’s election is particular because He
foresaw a mark (persevering faith) in the elect, which was not found in the rest.
The intuitu fidei as it is now held in the bare foreknowledge of God must be abandoned. The
eternal election of God as taught in God’s word, as contained in our confession, which is
particular and pertains only to the persons who are eventually saved—particular not because God
saw anything in the elect, not even persevering faith, according to which He elected them, nor
because God did not want to save all—must be confessed as the cause of the salvation of the
elect and of everything necessary to their obtaining it.
Literature.
THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING ELECTION, presented in Questions and Answers from the
Eleventh Article of the Formula of Concord of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. With a Preface
and Conclusion by C. F. W. Walther. Translated by J. Humberger and published by the Ev.
Lutheran Augustana Conference of Stark and other Counties of Ohio. St. Louis, Mo. Concordia
Publishing House. 1881. Price: 15 cents.
The controversy kept up so vigorously at present has already brought forth a whole literature
of its own. On the side of our opponents especially quite a number of pamphlets have been
published, in which our doctrine of [[@VolumePage:1,48]]predestination is attacked and
stigmatized as Calvinistic leaven. We do not, of course, give public notice of any of them in this
periodical, unless it be to refute them. The divine truth requires that we recommend to our
readers only such writings as commend, promote, and defend this truth. One of the latter
description is the tract named above, the second of Prof. Walther’s pen. It affords us great
pleasure to announce its appearance in the English language. We also give thanks to God, that
the translation has been authorized by a conference consisting of members who do not belong to
our, that is the Missouri, Synod. This is a proof that the truth of the Word of God is
acknowledged and set on a candlestick in other parts of the Church also. May God strengthen
those faithful men to fight the good fight of faith to which they are appointed.
The principal contents of the tract are the Eleventh Article of the Formula of Concord,
analyzed by Prof. Walther in questions and answers. In this way a great help is offered to any
one who desires to attain to a knowledge of the accurate and precise sense of this article. The
unprejudiced reader can not but say, this eleventh article indeed confirms the doctrine of the
Missouri Synod on predestination. Let our opponents but try once to set forth this article in its
consecutive order in a catechetical form. They will not succeed in doing it in a manner showing
the Formula of Concord to be confirmatory of their own doctrine. Should they, e. g., at § 5 put
the question: “Does the eternal election of God pertain to all men, both to the good and to the
bad?” they could not but answer: “It does; in a wider sense, it pertains to all men, but in the
strict sense it pertains only to the children of God.” And when at § 8 the question is put: “Is
election also the cause of the salvation of the elect?” the answer of our opponents can be no
other than this: “It is, if election is taken in the wider sense; in the strict or proper sense,
however, it is not the cause of salvation.” Our opponents, therefore, can not prove their doctrine
by what the words of our confession say: they are forced to introduce diverse distinctions,
paraphrases, accessories and the like, of which the Confession itself knows nothing. We are
firmly convinced, that a simple-hearted Christian reading attentively the eleventh article will find
in it that doctrine only which is really presented in it: the doctrine of the holy Scriptures, that our
conversion, our faith, our Christian life, our final salvation are founded upon the gracious
election of God; that God before the foundation of the world through His pure mercy and on
account of Christ’s merits alone, decreed the salvation in time and eternity of those who are
saved. This and no other is the doctrine which the Missouri Synod maintains and defends.
Prof. Walther has provided his catechetical exposition with a preface and a conclusion. In the
former he states the reasons why he did not present the doctrine of election in his own words; in
the latter he gives some trustworthy advice how a Christian shall read and use the eleventh article
of the Formula of Concord. It is our sincere desire that it should please God to cause many of
those who speak the English language, to read this precious exposition with an ardent love of the
divine truth, and with fervent prayer. They will thus through the grace of God be assisted in
attaining the firm conviction that we are fighting for nothing but the truth of God, and principally
for the great blessed truth that the honor of our salvation from its beginning to its end is all and
only due to the Triune God. God help this truth to gain the victory. E. W. K.
[[@VolumePage:1,49]]
THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL
MONTHLY.
Vol. 1. August 1881. No. 4.
(For the “Theological Monthly”.)
The Thirteen Theses.
Our General Synod in session at Fort Wayne, Ind., from May 11., till 21. a. c., held itself
bound by circumstances to give , forth a distinct declaration, as to the doctrine of election
hitherto taught in the public writings of the Missouri Synod. As is known to every one who cares
for the events in the American Lutheran Church, Prof. Schmidt of Madison, Wis., since the
beginning of the year 1880 publicly charged our Synod, or at least the Western District and the
theological faculty at St. Louis, with Calvinism. The editor of “Altes und Neues” found some
allies not only in the Synodical Conference, but also within the limits of our own Synod. The
Missouri Synod was thus denounced before the whole Christian Church for having fallen away
from the true Lutheran doctrine concerning the article of predestination. Our adversaries outside
of the Synodical Conference united, as was to be expected, in the concert begun, it being so
sweet to them, pointing with illconcealed pleasure at “Missouri” as now finding disharmony
within its own boundaries. Rev. H. C. Schwan, president of General Synod, called attention to
this state of affairs in his presidential report, intimating at the same time to the delegates, whether
they would not deem it their duty to make a public declaration concerning the doctrine of
election as set forth in our publications. Synod discussed the president’s proposal, and soon came
to the conclusion that the declaration suggested by the president should be given. In order to
enable our readers to get an insight into the reasons by which Synod was led we
[[@VolumePage:1,50]]quote some passages from the “Bericht ueber die Verhandlungen der
Allgemeinen deutschen evang. luth. Synode von Missouri,” etc.
“Our General Synod, it seems, cannot avoid explaining at this present session its position as
Synod in respect to the contested doctrine of election; for it has the duty, which it cannot refuse,
to advise the district-synods concerning the attitude they are to assume over against those who
stigmatize and decry the doctrine set forth in our publications as false and heretical, impious and
Calvinistic. Besides, it is high time, indeed, to check and ward off the ruin worked in our midst
by the dissemination of the contrary doctrine. Our doctrine is no other than that of the Scriptures
and our dear Lutheran church at the time of the Reformation and the Formula of Concord. This
doctrine of our church we have professed at all times, and do the same unreservedly at the
present day… We can not, and must not, suffer that even ministers within our own synodical
connexion not only secretly, but publicly point at us as being Calvinistic corrupters of souls. It is
necessary for us to put an end to this condition of affairs. It has become notorious that two
radically different doctrines of predestination are now taught in the midst of us. This was shown
to be the case at the time of the general conference of our ministers at Chicago, and it has not
changed since. It is an unwonted thing with any one to see the like among us. Hence it is the
general expectation that Synod at its present session will as such declare which of the two
doctrines is to have sole authority within it. It is our duty, therefore, for many reasons, to make
known to the Church and to the world without hesitancy, that this doctrine, and only this, is the
doctrine of Synod, that we do not suffer any other among us. He who neither can nor will profess
with us the doctrine professed by us, can not desire to belong to us, nor can we desire to belong
to him… We are indeed to this day, as before, willing to continue conferring with such members
of our Synod as acknowledge that in some part or other of the doctrine they have not as yet
reached that clearness which a consent to all we teach requires, but we are not willing quietly to
suffer being upbraided for Cryptocalvinism, and to be mute spectators when our congregations
[[@VolumePage:1,51]]are disturbed, ruined, and destroyed by our opponents… Besides, this
sort of our opponents ought long ago to have declared that they were no longer in connexion
with our Synod. We are opposed to all and every kind of unionism. As we have at all times
rejected and avoided each and every kind of union, though it were only an external one, with
those who bore the name, but did not teach the doctrine of the Lutheran church, we shall through
the grace of God continue to do so in future. We are not minded to renounce our principle. We
have not sunk so deep as to declare that we are satisfied when our Confession is professed in
general, though its sense in the one or other of its articles be differently understood. We must not
be expected to defer action until our Confession as such be directly rejected, to do which, caution
will prevent. Instead of this we may expect them doing as once the Cryptocalvinists did, who
professing the Confessions of the Lutheran church like true Lutherans, appealing to the
Augsburg Confession, its Apology, Luther’s Small Catechism, and other confessional writings,
yet employed them in another meaning according to their own perverse acceptation of them. But
what did the faithful Lutherans at that time say to such men? They said, Ye are not Lutherans,
but enemies of the Lutheran church… We, too, do not hesitate to tell any one who teaches
another doctrine among us, in spite of his appeal to the Confession of the Lutheran church, We
do not belong the one to the other, we must, therefore, walk separate ways. In saying so we do
not mean to declare our opponents to be heretics, or to condemn them. We abstain from doing
this even over against Unionists or Reformed. The import of such words is only this. ‘We cannot
walk together any longer. We should be unable even to pray one with the other. For we should in
that case pray for your conversion. And you would pray to God to convert us. But such a union
in prayer were, indeed, an abomination. If you cannot in conscience believe as we believe, it is
not in our power to change such a state of things—for the gift of faith is in no man’s power—but
what we can, and will, and must do, is this, that we tell you, Henceforth our ways are divided.’ . .
As to our real and declared adversaries, they themselves ought to say to us, You can not,
[[@VolumePage:1,52]]and must not, suffer us among you; if you do, your zeal for pure doctrine
does not amount to much. Indeed, it were a unionism worse than any found in the unionistic
churches. Though the latter teach doctrines differing greatly from each other, they nevertheless,
truth being no object of earnest concern with them, mutually tolerate each other. They do not
reject each other’s doctrine. They recognize each other as brethren in spite of all this difference.
It is not so with us. As we condemn the doctrine of our opponents as being taught against the
Word of God and our Confession, so they do the same respecting the doctrine we teach. We
willingly suppose that our opponents do so erring in conscience. But this does not change the
matter. A man erring in conscience is without doubt in an awful condition. If he acts according to
conscience, he sins; for the teacher of false doctrine commits a most grievous sin. If he acts
against conscience, he sins likewise: for the very reason that he acts against his own conviction.
But this can and ought not to prevent us from doing what according to God’s Word it is our duty
to do… Since voting had become necessary in this matter, a possible misunderstanding was
obviated, as if it was to be decided among us by vote, which was the true doctrine and which the
false— since this has been established long ago by the Word of God and in harmony with it by
our Confessions. The vote, it was said, was only to be an act of our professing the true and pure
doctrine, and to manifest who belonged to us, and who did not. It will then, besides, be apparent,
whether there is but a small number of those who reject the doctrine presented in our
publications, and who in consequence thereof would leave our house, or whether we who profess
the true doctrine of predestination, are in the minority, in consequence of which we should then
be obliged to remove from our former synodical house. To do this we were ready at once; for the
pure doctrine is dearer to us than the whole property of Synod, and our faith is more precious to
us than all earthly things.”
Synod appointed a committee consisting of the presidents of the districts and the members of
the theological faculties to propose a summary of the doctrine of election as taught in the
publications of Synod. The members of the committee, after [[@VolumePage:1,53]]a thorough
deliberation of the subject, submitted to Synod the 13 theses published in the “Lutheraner”, Vol.
XXXVI, Nos. 2—9, stating at the same time the reasons why they abstained from framing new
theses, viz.: 1st, because, according to their opinion, the 13 theses published in the “Lutheraner”
contained a brief summary of all that had been hitherto publicly taught concerning election, and
2nd, because these theses were known already to all the delegates both from the ministry and
laity. No lengthy discussion, therefore, as to the meaning of the theses would be necessary. The
report of the committee was accepted, and as a discussion of the theses was not demanded by the
lay-delegates it was resolved that the adoption or rejection of the theses should take place after
Synod should have heard them once more in a continuous reading. To the question, how those
would be looked upon that might perhaps not be in the situation to give a definite vote, the
following explanation was given: “Should some members think themselves in conscience bound
to suppose that there was something hidden in these theses which was not in harmony with the
Word of God and the confessions of our Church, we spare such conscience, hoping that by
means of needful information we could give them, and by diligent and prayerful searching on
their part, they will, by the grace of God, soon be led into the right way. Far be it from us to urge
such pious hearts to an immediate decision as long as they are in conflict with themselves. We
are not minded to hurt those who can not conscientiously give their assent to all things. What we
desire is only this, that two different doctrines of predestination be no longer taught among us in
the same Synod. We, therefore, bear those who do not believe and teach the contrary of what we
teach, who do not declare our doctrine to be false and Calvinistic, though they should think they
were as yet unable to speak as we do. We consider no one to be a false teacher, only because he
believes he must retain that presentation of doctrine which we find with the later dogmaticians.
Again, we well may confer with those who say: ‘We sincerely acknowledge these thirteen theses,
but you did not always, in teaching the doctrine of predestination, speak so circumspectly as
here. There are expressions in other writings to which we [[@VolumePage:1,54]]must except.
But we do not on this account call you Calvinists and Cryptocalvinists, nor do we approve of it
that others do so. For it was nothing but the true and pure doctrine of predestination you had in
mind.’ We do not take it ill if a person speaks thus. For we do not deny at all that, especially
when this doctrine was not as yet contested among us, now and then expressions were made use
of that should not have been used. But he who “offend not in word, the same is a perfect man.”
Should any one, therefore, not be able as yet to give his assent to all we teach, he ought not to
fear that we shall either tyrannize him or treat him with disrespect. On the contrary, we shall bear
him in all love and patience, provided, he be free from “unionism.”
When Synod had declared to be ready for vote, the following question was put:
“Is the doctrine of election presented in our publications, as far as it is summarily
comprehended in the thirteen theses now read, recognized by Synod as the doctrine of the holy
Scriptures and the Lutheran confessions?”
To this question Synod almost unanimously answered with “Aye”. Five members only
declared by their “No” against the doctrine set forth in the theses.
These theses read as follows:6
THESIS I.
We believe, teach, and confess, that God loved the whole world from eternity, created all men
unto salvation, no one unto damnation, and wills the salvation of all men; and we, therefore,
reject and condemn the contrary Calvinistic doctrine with all our heart.
THESIS II.
We believe, teach, and confess, that the Son of God came into the world for all men, took
away and atoned for the sins of all men, and perfectly redeemed all men, no one excepted; and
we, therefore, reject and condemn the contrary Calvinistic doctrine with all our heart.
[[@VolumePage:1,55]]
THESIS III.
We believe, teach, and confess, that God calls all men through the means of grace earnestly,
that is, with the intention that through them they should come to repentance and to faith, be
preserved also in faith unto the end and, thus, finally be saved, to which end God offers to them,
through the means of grace, the salvation purchased by Christ’s satisfaction, and the power to
apprehend it in faith; and we, therefore, reject and condemn the contrary Calvinistic doctrine
with all our heart.
THESIS IV.
We believe, teach, and confess, that no man is lost because it was not God’s will to save him,
because God had passed by him with his grace, and had not also offered to him the grace of
constancy, and it was not his will to give this grace to him; but that all men who are lost, are lost
by their own fault, namely, on account of their unbelief and because they pertinaciously resist the
word and grace unto the end, of which “contempt of the word the cause is not God’s
predestination (vel praescientia vel praedestinatio), but man’s perverse will, which rejects or
perverts the means and instrument of the Holy Ghost which God offers to him through the call,
and resists the Holy Ghost who wants to be efficacious and work through the Word; as Christ
says: How often would I have gathered you together, and ye would not, Matth. 23. 37.” ([[Art.
6
They are given in the translation of Rev. C. S. Kleppisch.
XI. of the Formula of Concord, Part II, p. 713. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:41]]) We,
therefore, reject and condemn the contrary Calvinistic doctrine with all our heart.
THESIS V.
We believe, teach, and confess, that the subject of election of grace or of predestination are
only the true believers, who truly believe unto the end of their life or, at least, at their end; we,
therefore, reject and condemn the Huberian error, that election is not particular, but universal
and refers to all men.
THESIS VI.
We believe, teach, and confess, that the divine decree of election is unchangeable and that,
therefore, no elect can become a reprobate and be lost, but that every elect one is surely
[[@VolumePage:1,56]]saved; and we, therefore, reject and condemn the contrary Huberian error
with all our heart.
THESIS VII.
We believe, teach, and confess, that it is foolish and dangerous for the soul, that it leads either
to carnal security or to despair, if one will become, or be, sure of his gracious election or his
future eternal salvation by means of searching the eternal, divine, secret decree, and we reject
and condemn the contrary doctrine as a pernicious, enthusiastic error with all our heart.
THESIS VIII.
We believe, teach, and confess, that a believing Christian shall seek to become certain of his
election out of God’s revealed will; and we, therefore, reject and condemn with all our heart the
contrary papistical, erroneous doctrine, that one can become and be certain of his election or
salvation only by a new immediate revelation.
THESIS IX.
We believe, teach, and confess: 1st, that the election of grace does not consist in a mere divine
foreknowing of which men are saved; 2nd, that election of grace is also not the mere purpose of
God to redeem and save men, so as to be a universal one and to pertain to all men in common;
3d, that election of grace does not concern those believing for a time only (Luke 8. 13.); 4th, that
election of grace is not a mere decree of God to save all those who would believe unto the end.
We, therefore, reject and condemn the contrary erroneous doctrines of the Rationalists,
Huberians and Arminians with all our heart.
THESIS X.
We believe, teach, and confess, that the cause which moved God to elect the elect, is only his
grace and the merit of Jesus Christ, and not anything good foreseen by God in the elect, not even
faith foreseen by God in them; and we, therefore, reject and condemn the contrary erroneous
doctrines of the Pelagians, Semipelagians, and Synergists, as errors which are blasphemous and
horrible, and which subvert the Gospel and, by consequence, the whole Christian religion.
[[@VolumePage:1,57]]
THESIS XI.
We believe, teach, and confess, that election of grace is not the mere divine foresight or
foreknowledge of the salvation of the elect, but even a cause of their salvation and of all that
which pertains to it, and we, therefore, reject and condemn the contrary doctrines of the
Arminians, Socinians, and all Synergists, with all our heart.
THESIS XII.
We believe, teach, and confess, that “God has yet kept secret, and concealed, and reserved to
his wisdom and knowledge alone, much of this mystery” of election, which no man can or shall
search out, and we, therefore, reject it, if any undertake to inquire curiously into what is not
revealed, and to reconcile with their reason what seems contradictory to our reason, whether this
is done by Calvinistic, or by Pelagian-synergistic human doctrines.
THESIS XIII.
We believe, teach, and confess, that it is not useless, or even dangerous, but that it is necessary
and salutary, publicly to set forth to the Christian people, also, the mysterious doctrine
concerning election of grace, as far as it is clearly revealed in God’s Word, and we, therefore, do
not side with those, who hold that this doctrine should either be kept entirely secret, or, at most,
only be discussed among the learned.
The opponents, however, maintained that they could accept the theses also. But, according to
their understanding of the XI. Article of the Formula of Concord, they would take some of them
in a sense different from that in which they were taken by Synod. In answer to this the remark
was made: “We take these 13 theses in no other sense than the words give. Whoever really
accepts these theses as they read agrees with us in faith. We confess that a summary of all we
believe concerning God’s eternal election is laid down in these theses. In saying so we declare at
the same time that we acknowledge nothing as our doctrine which is not in harmony with these
[[@VolumePage:1,58]]theses, though it should be found even in our publications.” What the
opponents meant by their “different sense” in which they would take some theses, is sufficiently
apparent. They would treat some theses in the same way they do our confession. The word
“election” is taken by them in a narrow and wide sense ad libitum. If e. g. our confession says
concerning election [[(§ 5), >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:5]] that it extends only to the
children of God who were elected and ordained to life eternal, before the foundation of the
world: election is taken in the “narrow sense”. But if a few clauses later [[(§8) >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:8]] eternal election is called a cause of our salvation and
everything pertaining to it, the word election is, according to our opponents, used at once in a
“wider sense”. We are convinced—and so are all that read our confession without being
prejudiced by the misinterpretation now afloat—that our confession speaks of election always in
the same sense, viz., of that election which “does not pertain both to the good and to the bad, but
only to the children of God” ([[§ 5 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:5]]). If the authors of our
confession in the paragraph soon following ([[§8 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:8]]) (where
election is said to be a cause of our salvation) had used the word election in a wider, that is, in an
other sense, they undoubtedly would have said so. But as we find not the least indications for a
change in the meaning of the word, we always take it in the same sense, in our confession, and—
in the 13 theses.
F. P.
(For the “Theological Monthly.”)
What is Calvinism?
This is a question at the present time of the greatest importance in our dear Lutheran Church.
For out of confusion as to the spirit and essence of this heresy has arisen the imputation that the
doctrine of our honored Formula of Concord is Calvinistic, and that those who defend the clear
and unadulterated meaning of our confession teach doctrines which are specifically Calvinistic.
Men have come to think that if election in foresight of faith is not allowed as the doctrine of our
confession, or if it cannot be brought into harmony with it, then our confession inevitably teaches
Calvinism. If intuitu fidei [[@VolumePage:1,59]]is not allowed as the key not to open, but to
close, the XI. Art. of the Form, of Con., then Calvinism is the result, and whoever will not permit
the precious truths of our confession to be thus locked up and stored away from use, is now
decried as a Calvinist, for the simple reason that he will not admit this philosophical key of
intuitu fidei. This infatuation is most clearly apparent in Prof. Stellhorn’s tract on Predestination.
In the following passage his great trouble is easily seen to be this and nothing more, namely, that
we will not admit his intuitu fidei:
“But the reason that God now in reality ordained or elected just this and that one, and not
others, can be Christ’s merit only then if God took into consideration whether this merit was
apprehended and retained in faith or not. He who does not believe and teach this, as the St. Louis
men certainly do not, cannot truthfully say that God in the selection of persons or in
predestination in the narrow sense was guided by the merit of Christ. For if God would or could
have been guided by the merit of Christ without taking into consideration whether this merit had
been apprehended and retained in faith or not, then He could have elected all men without
exception; and if He had not done so, then the cause thereof would have to be found in His will
alone. For then He would have failed to elect all men only because He would not, although He
could. Then, notwithstanding all His sweet promises that He would gladly save all men, He
would have arranged it so through His predestination that only the smallest number could be
saved. And this He would have done although He could have easily done otherwise, if He had
only wished. The ultimate and real reason that the majority of men are not saved, would
accordingly then after all be found in God alone, who could just as easily have saved them as the
others if He had but so desired. Thus the Calvinists teach openly.” From this it is clear what the
Professor is fighting for, namely, his key of intuitu fidei, and also in what infatuation he is thus
fighting, namely, the fear of Calvinism. This alone, not to say anything of other signs of most
fatal confusion, as e. g. to speak of the merit of Christ as the guide of predestination, is an
obtuseness unworthy a professor of theology. [[@VolumePage:1,60]]
What is Calvinism as to its essence and spirit? It is a cold philosophical speculation, and
contains two phases: 1st, God foreknows all things; 2nd, God foreknows all things because He
has foreordained or predestinated all things, the good and the bad, together with their results.
Hence the double decree of election and reprobation, which Calvin himself calls decretum
horrendum. Hence also the figment that Christ was sent and died only for the elect, and that the
call is meant in good earnest only to the elect, and the figments of irresistible grace and of the
difference between the faith of the elect and of those who believe for a time only. It is a horrible
pillar of darkness erected by human speculation, which is not even rendered tolerable to look
upon by the divine words of promise, which its advocates have attached to and suspended about
its outer surface. These, casting their light upon it, only make it appear more horrible.
What was the weapon with which our confession opposed this wicked heresy? If intuitu fidei,
as it is now taught, is the only weapon wherewith it is possible to overcome Calvinism, if
Calvinism, according to Prof. Stellhorn’s infatuation, is the inevitable result as soon as this
intuitu fidei is not taught, then our confession is either vanquished or a coward; for it makes no
use at all of this only slayer of Calvinism. Is it possible that so important a weapon cannot be
plainly seen in the hands of our confession? No; if it were there it could be seen. For it is not the
manner of our confession to make so cowardly a use of a weapon so important as this is now
represented to be. Its weapons are all bright and glaring in the light of divine truth. They reflect
the light and bear the force of divine inspiration, and for this reason the confession had no use for
such an idle speculation.
Prof. Stellhorn, in his tract, makes a desperate effort to foist his favorite intuitu fidei upon our
confession. But how distressing it is to see our beloved confession under the abuse of his ruthless
hands! Why is he not honest enough to say with Quenstedt, that he has a better way to speak of
the eternal election of God? It would save him a great deal of useless trouble; for our confession
is a document that will not be so abused. Because he is not so frank as the fathers who
[[@VolumePage:1,61]]admitted the divergence of this doctrine from the confession, who never
once quoted the confession in defense of it, and because his heroic boldness has led him into
independent hardihood, he has undertaken to prove an impossibility, namely, that the doctrine of
election in foresight of persevering faith is contained in the XI. Art. of our honored Form. of
Con.
Let us see how he endeavors to do this. He first sets up the proposition he intends to prove,
and after he is through with the argument he adds his favorite intuitu fidei to his proposition by a
most glaring petitio principii. At the bottom of page 19 of his tract we find the proposition he
intends to prove: “Or do they (the confessions) on the contrary teach with us and our fathers, that
it is the fault of men alone that all have not been elected? Hear them yourself!” Then he proceeds
to prove this proposition which none of the defenders of our confession have ever denied, but
which they have even positively asserted. (See Dr. Walther in Chicago, Prot. p. 61 f.) He draws
his arguments from [[§§ 13—24 of Art. XI, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:13-24]] and then
sums up what he thinks he has proven: first, that election must be taken in a narrow and wide
sense; secondly, that the lost are lost by their own fault, which we will permit him to take in the
sense of his original proposition, namely, that it is the fault of men alone that not all have been
elected. On the first, to wit, the distinction of election in the narrow and wide sense, he evidently
thinks, the second, which is his main proposition, must stand. And thirdly, he comes in a kind of
clandestine manner with his pet to hide it under the wings of his original proposition, and says,
as though this were the proposition he was all along proving: “The sense here is manifestly again
(?) the following: In the selection of persons God has been guided by faith or unbelief foreseen
by Him.” Here is confusion worse confounded, in which our confession is torn into shreds, and
man’s work and God’s work are placed side by side. Faith and unbelief are contemplated as
having the same cause. If unbelief is the result of man’s choice, then faith must also be the same;
or if faith is the result of God’s election, God’s choice, then unbelief must also be the same, or
else how could he dream of the conclusion that, since the lost are lost by their own fault,
therefore God has elected, according [[@VolumePage:1,62]]to persevering faith foreseen in the
elect?—How could he take the position that if this is not admitted, if we make election the cause
of faith, then we also make God the cause of the unbelief of the lost?
Of course our confession teaches that it is God’s earnest will to save all men, and that those
who are lost are lost by their own fault. No person ever denied this. It is this doctrine so clearly
revealed in God’s Word which our confession opposed to Calvinism, and on account of which it
made the distinction between God’s foreknowledge (praescientia) and God’s eternal election, or
predestination. God foreknows all men and all things, the good and the evil, but He does not
cause or will the evil. With the good it is different, for that must proceed from Him. ([[§79. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:79]]) So He does not only foresee the salvation of the elect, but
His election and eternal purpose “is the cause which procures, works, facilitates, and promotes
our salvation and whatever pertains to it; and upon this our salvation is so firmly grounded that
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. For it is written: ‘Neither shall any pluck my sheep
out of my hand.’ And again: ‘As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.’” Election is
represented as the eternal purpose of God to do that which, by the grace of God and ordinary
means, really takes place in the case of the elect. Instead, therefore, of standing aloof until in the
foreknowledge of God the means of grace have of themselves wrought out a result, and then
judging according to this result, it begins before faith, being the will of God, working faith
through the means. For the election is an act of God’s gracious will and not of judgment, and it is
God’s gracious will and not man’s will, God’s gracious choice and not man’s choice, that works
faith in those who are saved, although unbelief is a work of man’s own perverted will and
choice. For God in His counsel, purpose, and ordination has, indeed, not only prepared salvation
in general, including also the means, and then left men to choose for themselves. In this way not
a soul would have been saved. But He has also mercifully considered each and every person of
the elect who will ultimately be saved through Christ, has elected them to salvation, and has
decreed that in the manner now mentioned, to wit, by calling them
[[@VolumePage:1,63]]through the Word (point 2), by converting them by His spirit and giving
them faith through the means of universal grace (point 3), by justifying them through faith (point
4), by sanctifying them (point 5), by protecting them against spiritual danger (point 6), by
preserving them in the faith under all trials and tribulations (point 7), and by glorifying them
(point 8), He will through His grace, gifts and operation bring them to this salvation, assist them
in it, promote it, and strengthen and preserve them. This is the doctrine of election which our
confession opposed to Calvinism, and it is a doctrine with which intuitu fidei cannot stand in
harmony. Say that election took place in foresight of faith, and thus deny its causative relation to
faith, and you must immediately strike from our confession [[§§ 8, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:8]] [[23, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:23]] [[45, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:45]] [[48, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:48]] [[75, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:75]] [[76, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:76]] [[87, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:87]] [[88, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:88]] in short, the
whole doctrine of our confession. It is a key whereby the doctrine of our confession would be
locked up and stored away from use. This desire and persistent effort to shove into the back
ground the doctrine of our confession concerning the eternal election of God—is it not a sign that
the real meaning of our confession is considered Calvinistic? This sentence, that the eternal
election of God is the cause of persevering faith, which is so often repeated and always implied
in our confession, without which our confession is as meaningless, we might almost say, as the
Bible would be without Christ, is the Calvinism feared by the opponents of the confession, and
simply because it will not take their newly invented Calvinism slayer into its hand.
It, indeed, belongs to Calvinism to teach that God does not earnestly desire to save all men,
that it is His fault that not all are saved. But how did the Calvinists arrive at this doctrine, from
the decree of election or that of reprobation? Undoubtedly from the latter. Because God had
created and predestinated the greater number of men to damnation, therefore He could not desire
to save them. How do the opponents of our confession arrive at the Calvinism which they impute
to us? Alone from the decree of election, for we, or our confession, never even so much as
intimated a decree of reprobation any more than that all wickedness of men lies under the just
judgment of God. It is a rationalistic conclusion drawn [[@VolumePage:1,64]]from our doctrine,
that men are brought to and preserved in faith according to God’s will and election alone, and not
in any degree whatever according to their own will or choice. From this they conclude: Then the
cause lies in God if not all are saved. The same way they might rationalize against the doctrine of
the Trinity. We teach that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Our
reason says, then there are three Gods. No, but you answer, the Word of God teaches us that God
is one. And so do we answer to the conclusion drawn from the scriptural and confessional
doctrine of election, the Word of God teaches us that the lost are lost by their own fault, and not
because God does not earnestly desire to save them. Thus we take captive our reason to the
obedience of faith.
And what is gained by the human speculation of intuitu fideif Is it really such an effectual
Calvinism slayer as it is now represented to be? Let us see what it does in avoiding the result
which the opponents of our confession fear so much. They insist in all their writings and
persistent efforts to defend their theory, that God foresaw a mark of distinction (persevering
faith) in the elect, and this is how it came that only they and not all were elected. They also
teach, must teach, in order to avoid synergism, that God’s grace alone is the cause of persevering
faith (this mark of distinction); from this it follows God’s grace is the cause that only a few and
not all are elected. But this is the Calvinism so much dreaded by them. If any one thinks that this
result is avoided by the fact that God’s grace does not work irresistibly in producing faith, he
simply reveals his synergism by expressing it. For he must then think that the resistibility of
grace in producing faith means that faith is dependent on man’s choice. No other meaning of the
word will help him. Thus this Calvinism slayer falls shattered and dangling to the ground, and,
what is worse, they are on the ground of the enemy and must retreat unto the ground of the Word
of God and our confession. They have advanced, thinking they had something better, as
Quenstedt said, but now, when the effort is made to put that better way into the place of our
confession, they must learn that it was a mere delusion. They have advanced with human
speculation against human [[@VolumePage:1,65]]speculation unto the ground of human
speculation, from which they must retreat into the impregnable fort of our confession and the
Word of God, and lay aside their intuitu fidei for the sword of the Spirit:
[[“O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself, >> Hos 13.9]]
But in me is thy help.”
C. J. O.
(For the “Theological Monthly.”)
“New Tract.”
Under this heading the “Lutheran Standard” of June 18th announced to its readers the issue of
a small pamphlet in German and English on predestination by Prof. Schuette, of Columbus, O.
The body of the tract which is prefaced and followed by an epilogue, consists of forty two
questions and answers. “Scriptural passages are added to nearly all the answers.”
The announcement signed by Dr. Schodde, stated that “the work is not polemical, but simply
an objective statement of the two positions.” We have no doubt, however, that all who have read
the little tract, will agree with us when we say, that both the preface and the epilogue contained
in the tract, breathe a warlike spirit against us Missourians, that, in fact, all three, the preface, the
body of the tract, and the epilogue, work together with all their might to wage war against us.
The Lutheran “doctrine of predestination” which “has been promulgated within the Synod of
Missouri,” is called a “new doctrine,” and we, “its advocates,” are said to “have made diligent
use of every means at our disposal to secure for it a permanent place, if possible, throughout the
Lutheran church.” We are accused of having “assured” the writer of the pamphlet that “the great
Dogmaticians of our Church” “and the people of the Church have taught a false and very
dangerous doctrine,” and of being of the opinion that the fathers’ doctrine stands in need of
correction. When we see what Prof. Schuette is not able to see, it is termed a “new gift of special
sight.” It is maintained that “at the Joint Synod of Missouri, convening in May last, at Fort
Wayne, Ind.,” “the doctrine of [[@VolumePage:1,66]]the fathers and of the Church” was
“assigned to the lowest abyss in hell.” God’s mercy is even invoked upon us in this manner: “But
may God have mercy upon people who deem themselves no longer in need of the apostolic
admonition: Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall! 1 Cor. 10. 12.” The
Lutheran doctrine, hitherto held by us and all faithful Lutherans, “that a Christian can and shall
become infallibly certain that he belongs to” the number of the elect, is rejected “as contrary to
all Scripture and as godless.” We must declare that these facts force us to stop thinking.
The announcement also stated that in the pamphlet “especial attention is drawn to the
difference between the doctrine as taught by our church to this day and the theory that is now
seeking to supplant it.” By the help of God we shall now endeavor to show that a good deal of
what is designated by Dr. Schodde as the doctrine taught by our church to this day, is, in reality,
not the doctrine of our church, but a theory without any foundation in the Scriptures or the
confessions of our church, and what is stigmatized by him as a “theory,” is nothing else but the
pure doctrine of God’s 'Word and the confessions of our dear Ev. Lutheran church.
1. Prof. Schuette accuses us, in the epilogue, of rejecting the truth that faith is “of no particular
grace, but of grace universal the work and gift of God;” of “maintaining,” “in opposition” to this
doctrine, that “faith flows from election;” of having the “notion” that “the reason why the elect
come to faith is not because God will have all men to be saved and to that end has given the
means of grace, but because God is to have especially ordained them unto faith so that they shall
and must believe as sure as God is God.” We challenge Prof. Schuette to produce the words (not
his ratiocinations) in which we have ever said or written in our publications that faith is “of
particular grace,” or not “of universal grace, the work and gift of God,” or in which we have ever
maintained that faith flows from election “in opposition” to the doctrine that faith is of universal
grace, not of particular grace the work and gift of God, or in which we have ever said that “the
reason why the elect come to faith is not because God will have all men to be saved and to that
end has given the means [[@VolumePage:1,67]]of grace.” Those words will be looked for by
Prof. Schuette in vain, because they are nowhere to be found.
At the meeting of the Missouri Western District Synod, in the year 1877, predestination was
the main subject for discussion; but in the report of that meeting we read the following: “The
doctrine of our church concerning the universality of God’s grace is founded on bright and clear
passages of the Holy Scriptures, which shine in them like suns. These passages every Christian
ought to know by heart and know where they stand, in order that he may be enabled forthwith to
hold them up to himself in the hours of affliction, and also to oppose them to those who deny the
universality of God’s grace and still maintain that they in so doing follow the Bible.” Then
eleven passages of Scripture follow with their orthodox explanations. Among these passages we
find 1 Tim. 2. 4—6.: “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the
truth.” [This verse is quoted against us by Prof. Schuette under answer to question No. 10, to
prove that faith is of universal grace the work and gift of God, and, according to the epilogue,
that God gives the means of grace to save all men.] “For there is one God, and one Mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified
in due time.” Synod’s explanation attached to this, is as follows: “Hence God will not only have
all men to be saved, but He will also have them all to come unto the knowledge of the truth. He,
accordingly, wills not only the object (in view), but also the means. There are Reformed who
concede that God in eternity had, so to say, nothing against all men being saved and so far accept
this passage, but assert that He has not given the means of salvation to all men. But here it
expressly stands: ‘and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.’… Then the words also follow:
‘to be testified in due time.’ Hence, God will also call all through the Gospel. This passage alone
overthrows at once the doctrine of the Calvinists, that the grace of God does not extend to all
men, but only to the elect.” (Pp. 87. 88.)
Among those Scripture passages, on the universality of God’s grace, which the synodical
report says “every Christian ought to know by heart and know where they stand,” we also
[[@VolumePage:1,68]]find Rom. 11. 32.: “For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that He
might have mercy upon all.” Synod’s explanation runs thus: “This is also a passage which, as
Luther says, is a real cardial for all poor sinners. When God looked down upon humanity after
the fall, He, according to this passage, found all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all.
O unspeakable comfort! For thus it is said: As certain as thou art that thou hast heretofore been
unbelieving, so certain thou canst now also be that God will have mercy upon thee; for as far as
the number of unbelievers extends according to our passage, so far also the number of those
extends upon whom He will have mercy. Thus no man needs to despair of his salvation; for a
man cannot get any further than to say: I do not believe. Well, saith God to such a one, if thou
acknowledgest with terror that thou art yet unbelieving, thou art just the right person for me; for
then thou knowest that I will save thee. Therefore believe and thou art helped.” (Pp. 88. 89.)
Prof. Schuette says, we maintain that faith flows from election, in opposition to the doctrine
that faith is of grace universal the work and gift of God. As far as we are able to see, the only
meaning these words can convey, is that because the Missourians say faith flows from election
they must necessarily maintain that it flows from particular grace.—But we ask: Is election,
according to the Scriptures, as much as particular grace? Would Prof. Schuette who says he
believes in election, according to question No. 1, ever admit that he therefore believes in
particular grace? We dare say No. Then, he himself teaches that “God has elected to faith” “upon
a certain supposition” and “upon a certain condition.” From this we might conclude, although we
ourselves do not admit the premises, that the professor himself believes faith to flow from
election and therefore to be of particular grace the work and gift of God upon a certain
supposition and upon a certain condition. Thus he has badly confounded the ideas of “election”
and “particular grace.”
We Missourians do, however, teach that the faith of the elect flows from election. We do this
in accordance with the Formula of Concord, which says: “God’s eternal election is
[[@VolumePage:1,69]]a cause which procures, works, facilitates, and promotes our salvation
and whatever pertains to it.” It will be admitted that faith pertains to our salvation. Hence we
conclude that election is a cause of our faith also. And this we, again, do in accordance with the
Formula of Concord which, as a direct proof of this conclusion, quotes the divine Word: “Acts
13. 48.: ‘And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.’” Faith, then, being the effect of
election, it flows from it as from its cause, as it also flows from universal grace and God’s Word.
Lassenius writes: “It is not contrary to the analogy of faith to say that it flows from election to
salvation that the elect believe.” (82 Trostreden, p. 158. 159,)
We firmly believe and solemnly declare that the only reasons and causes of the whole decree
of election are the mercy of God which extends to all men, and the most holy merit of Christ
which was acquired for all men, as the Formula of Concord says, thas God’s election of grace is
a cause of our salvation and what pertains thereto, “through God’s gracious will and good
pleasure in Christ.”
When Prof. Schuette says that “according to our notion the reason why the elect come to faith
is because God is to have especially ordained them unto faith, so that they shall and must believe
as sure as God is God,” we say, this ought not to be called a notion of ours. It is the Holy Spirit’s
most consolatory doctrine which our fathers have laid down in the Lutheran confession. The
elect are really brought to faith by God, in consequence of His especial eternal decree. What God
has decreed will surely take place, as sure as God is God. Or, where did the professor get his
notion from that God is ordaining something and then not carrying it into effect? What God does
in time He in eternity decreed to do in time. This is an axiom. He brings the elect to faith in time,
hence, He in eternity decreed to bring them to faith in time. We, therefore, read in the Formula of
Concord: “Before the world began, God decreed and ordained in His counsel, that He Himself by
the power of His Holy Spirit through the Word would effect and work in us (the elect) all that
belongs to our conversion. Thus this doctrine also affords the eminent and
[[@VolumePage:1,70]]precious consolation, that God took so deep an interest in the conversion,
righteousness, and salvation of each Christian, and so faithfully provided for these, that before
the foundation of the world, in His counsel and purpose, He ordained the manner in which He
would bring me to salvation and preserve me therein.” ([[11th Article, Declaration. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:44-45]])
How glaring, therefore, the contradiction when Professor Schuette declares in the pamphlet:
“Surely a doctrine without scriptural foundation and void of all comfort.” Poor man, he does not
know the Scriptures nor the Lutheran confession on this point. Though a Christian be ever so
comfortless, though he be ever so highly afflicted as to feel himself in the pit of hell, just show
him how wonderfully God has dealt with him all his life time, how God has powerfully called
him, enlightened him, justified and sanctified him, and thus far preserved him from all evil under
the cross; show him that he is therefore a child of God, his heavenly Father, and an heir of
eternal life; show him that he consequently belongs to the number of the elect whom God will
surely save eternally, and he will be highly comforted. As soon as a person becomes certain of
his election, no cross is too great for him; for he knows from God’s Word by faith that God will
once glorify him, according to Rom. 8. 28—39.
Thus, on these points, we Missourians possess the pure doctrine of God’s Word and the
Lutheran confession, and Prof. Schuette’s charge is without foundation.
2. Prof. Schuette accuses us, in the epilogue, of rejecting the doctrine that “faith in Christ Jesus
directed God in His selection of the persons to be ordained unto salvation.” This accusation is,
thanks be to God, not without foundation. We do reject that abominable doctrine. We teach
instead that the “rule”, according to which God elected, is nothing else but “the mercy of God
and the most holy merit of Christ,” in accordance with the Formula of Concord, which says:
“The following doctrine is, therefore, false and erroneous” (the [[Epitome >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:20-21]] says: “blasphemous and horrible”), “namely, that not
only the mercy of God and the most holy merit of Christ are the cause, but that in us also” (the
Latin copy has: “something in us”) “there is a cause of God’s election, on
[[@VolumePage:1,71]]account of which God elected us to eternal life.” ([[11th Article,
Declaration. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:88]]) At the Chicago Conference Dr. Walther
said to Prof. Stellhorn: “You declare: ‘It was said to us that what we call an election is no
election at all,’ and then you want to prove that it is an election nevertheless, by saying: ‘It
belongs to election that God was directed by a rule.’ To this I make this remark: No one can
deny that God acted according to a rule. God does not act arbitrarily. But in His word He has
revealed nothing to us but that He was directed by His mercy and the most holy merit of Christ.
Whoever, therefore, foists in another rule besides, him we show from us. For then it is a rule
which a creature would prescribe for Him, and that no creature shall venture to do. Hence, what
you say does not hit the mark at all; it is no decision; nor is it a proof against the arguments
which have been set against you.” (Verhandlungen &c., p. 66.)
Prof. Schuette says: “They (the Missourians) say instead that the rule according to which God
is to have selected a few sinners from among others to ordain them to faith and salvation is ‘a
godly and blessed mystery’! Though there is nothing said of such a mystery in the divine word
yet are we asked to receive and adore it. This we cannot do.” Where the words referred to by the
tract are to be found in the Missouri publications the writer of this article does not know. As the
literature on the predestination question is at present greatly increasing, we think it but fair for
our opponents to cite book and page for what they accuse us of, as we are in the habit of doing
over against them. If they cannot or will not tell us in future where our words can be found, they
need not wonder if we take no notice of their accusations. Perhaps the professor means
something like the following. Dr. Walther said at the Chicago Conference: “The mystery of
election is moreover this, as the theologians named (namely Chemnitz, Andreae, Kirchner, the
authors of the Apology of the Formula of Concord) always say: When the question is why God
does not work equally in all men, why God gave repentance and faith to Peter, but not to Judas,
why so few come to faith, and millions not, whilst God is able to give faith to all: there it must be
said: ‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom [[@VolumePage:1,72]]and knowledge of
God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out’! But our dear
Brethren will not admit that; for Prof. Stellhorn says expressly: Faith is the explanatory ground.”
(Verhandlungen &c., p. 93.) Of course, all this is no mystery to Prof. Schuette; for in his opinion
God gives faith to all those who are so far better than others as to be able to suffer themselves to
be brought to faith, as will be seen in No. 3. This, indeed, solves the mystery, but in a manner
detrimental and pernicious to the salvation of the soul. Cf. [[Form, of Conc., § 57—60. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:57-60]]
Prof. Schuette adds: “We simply hold fast to the Word written: He that believeth, shall be
saved; he that believeth not, shall be damned.” By so saying he sufficiently proves that he has no
election at all, as the idea of an election is lacking altogether in that Word. God has indeed
decreed and promised to save those who believe, but is that an election? “He that believeth, shall
be saved,” this divine Word Professor Schuette simply changes into his own assertion: He that
believeth, shall be elected. Whence did he obtain the right to put “shall be elected” in the place of
“shall be saved”? If he is allowed to exchange one word for any other he chooses, we are
allowed to do the same thing. We may, then, instead of “shall be saved” put in, e. g., “shall be
called,” or “shall be converted.” We thus obtain the doctrine, that in all cases the call and
conversion of men are depending on the foresight of persevering faith; that he that believeth not,
shall neither be called, nor converted; or that those who do not persevere in faith had never
obtained true faith. From whence it would follow, either that God does not will at all to call and
convert any one of those whom He foresaw that they would not permit Him to bring them to
faith, or that all those who believe for a time only do not truly believe. Thus we should in both
cases have reached Calvinism directly on the very way pointed out to us by the theory of our
opponents. Indeed, such must be the results of forsaking the old hermeneutical rule, that the
articles of faith must be taken from, and judged by, those passages in which they are presented as
revealed truths. He also says: “We maintain” (without proof) “that as God is in time so He was
already governed by this His own Word in [[@VolumePage:1,73]]eternity.” But we can only
infer from this, since God in time saves by faith only, He decreed from eternity that the elect
should be saved by faith only.
Thus Prof. Schuette with his “theory” is outside of the word and outside of the Lutheran
confession, and we who believe that God was moved to election solely by His mercy and the
merit of Christ, stand on the word and on the Lutheran confession. That cannot be gainsaid.
3. Prof. Schuette accuses us of rejecting the words: “whom He has foreseen” and “of whom he
foreknows,” when it is said that God “has ordained to sonship and salvation all those persons of
whom He has foreseen that they will finally believe in Christ Jesus,” or, that God “has resolved
to give faith and, by faith, salvation to all those sinners of whom He foreknows that they will not
maliciously and persistently oppose His gracious will.” We reply: The phrases “whom He has
foreseen” and “of whom He foreknows,” in the above sentences, are in themselves orthodox, and
we let them pass as such. We hope, Prof. Schuette does not believe that we think God elected
men without foreknowing; and foreseeing them. Yet, when those phrases are used in a
synergistic sense, we reject them. And in that sense they are here used in the tract. Therefore we
reject them here.
But what is synergism? Synergism is when it is taught that man is able, negatively or
positively, to co-operate with God in being converted or brought to faith, for instance, when it is
taught that man can allow, permit, or suffer himself to be brought to faith. This power is ascribed
to man before his conversion in question No. 20 of the “work” before us. It is there asked: “How,
then, do you explain the fact that some, and not all men, believe? Ans.: I cannot fully explain
this. I can only say that while the few suffer themselves to be brought to faith, the most of men
wickedly refuse to accept the gift of faith.” 7 The passages added are Acts 13. 46. and
[[@VolumePage:1,74]][[48.: >> Acts 13.48]] “Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It
was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing you put it
from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles… And
when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord; and as many as
were ordained to eternal life believed.” The first part of the answer is by no means proved by the
Scripture passages; but the second passage proves that the elect, as we maintain, are brought to
faith by God, in consequence of their being ordained thereto from eternity. The Holy Ghost here
ascribes the fault of the Jews’ not believing to themselves, but the Gentiles believe because they
were ordained or elected. Not a word is said in those passages about the Gentiles suffering
themselves to be brought to faith.
It is very important what the Formula of Concord says on this matter. “The one party held and
taught … that he (man) still retains so much natural power, prior to regeneration, that he can in
some measure prepare himself for grace and give his consent (das Jawort), though weakly… In
opposition to both these parties” (the “Synergists” and “Enthusiasts”), “the pure teachers of the
This answer of Prof. Schuette’s admits of an orthodox explanation. The words, “I cannot fully explain this,”
may be understood to mean, The reason why not all men, but only a few, believe, is a mystery to human reason,
since faith is purely the gift of God. The words following, “I can only say that, &c,” could also be understood in an
orthodox sense as being merely a description of those who are brought to faith, and those who are not. Thus Prof.
Sch. could be understood to say, I cannot fully explain to human reason why part of men suffer themselves to be
brought to faith, while the other part wickedly refuse to accept the gift of faith. But Prof. Sch. himself forbids
explaining his words in this way. According to his theory God elected in respect to faith, was directed by the faith
which He foresaw. Should Prof. Sch. really find anything mysterious to human reason in the fact that only part of
men are brought to faith, he could not avoid acknowledging something mysterious to human reason in election also,
which, according to his theory, is ruled and directed by faith. But since he, at the close of his tract, sneers at the idea
of there being any mystery in election, a different sense of his answer to question 20 is forced upon our view, a
sense which demands a synergistic acceptation of the phrase, to suffer oneself to be brought to faith. For only in that
case “the godly and blessed mystery” he sneers at, is expunged.—Ed.
7
Augsburg Confession have taught and contended, that… he (man) does not approach God of
himself, but remains an enemy to Him until he is converted, is made a believer, is regenerated,
and renewed by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the preaching and hearing
[[@VolumePage:1,75]]of the word, out of pure grace, without any co-operation on his part… If
then in holy Paul and other regenerated persons the natural or carnal free will, even after
regeneration, resists the law of God, much more will it, previous to regeneration, be rebellious
and inimical to the law and will of God. From this it is manifest (as we have more fully shown in
the article concerning original sin, to which for the sake of brevity we refer) that free will by its
own natural powers not only cannot effect or co-operate in effecting anything in respect to its
own conversion, righteousness, and salvation, or obey the Holy Spirit who offers to it the grace
of God and salvation through the Gospel, believe or give assent (das Jawort dazu geben, that is,
say Yes); but in consequence of its connate, evil, contumacious nature, it also, in a hostile
manner, resists God and His will, unless it is enlightened and governed by God’s Spirit.
Wherefore the Holy Scriptures compare the heart of unregenerate man to a hard stone which
yields not to him who touches it, but resists, and to a rude block, and to a wild, untamed animal,
not in the sense that man after the fall is no longer a rational creature, or is converted to God
without hearing and meditating upon the divine word, or is unable to understand or voluntarily to
do or omit good or evil in external, civil matters. For, as Dr. Luther says in the 91st Psalm, in
civil and external affairs which pertain to our support and physical wants, man is ingenious,
rational, and very active, but in spiritual and divine matters which concern the salvation of the
soul, man is like a pillar of salt” (Query: Is in one pillar of salt before others the power of
suffering itself to be made alive?), “like Lot’s wife, yea, like a log of wood and like stone, like a
dead statue which makes no use of eyes, mouth, senses, or heart; since man neither sees nor
acknowledges the severe, fierce wrath of God against sin and death, but continually keeps on in
his security knowingly and willingly, and thus comes into a thousand dangers, and, finally, into
eternal death and damnation. No beseeching, no entreating, no admonishing, not even
threatening or chiding, is of any avail, yea, all teaching and preaching is lost on him before he is
enlightened, converted and regenerated by the Holy Spirit.” ([[Art. II., Declaration. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:20]]) Thus, man is spiritually powerless as
[[@VolumePage:1,76]]well as an enemy of God before he is enlightened or brought to faith. The
Holy Spirit alone enlightens him, that is, brings, him to faith, by the word of the Gospel. In
opposition to the Lutheran confession, Prof. Schuette maintains that, before faith, a few suffer
themselves to be brought to faith, and thus, though weakly, say: Yes, we are ready to believe.
Hence, he ascribes a power to the natural, unenlightened, unconverted man which he has not.
Our confession, in speaking of “mere passive se habere,” (to be in a state of mere passiveness),
or “voluntas nihil confert sed patitur, ut Deus in ipsa operetur,” (will contributes nothing, but
suffers God’s working in it), only denotes the absence of all powers man may exert in favor of
his conversion. God’s Word expressly says, 1 Cor. 2. 14.: “The natural man receiveth not the
things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because
they are spiritually discerned.”
“A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” The one synergistic error has badly infected the
whole pamphlet before us. The separate questions and answers are, in fact, in such a manner
modified by question No. 20 and its answer, as to leave no real election for the pamphlet to speak
about. While we do not solve the mystery of election at all, because God has not solved it for us
in His Word, the tract endeavors to solve it synergistically by ascribing to natural man the
exertion of a small strength in view of which God elects him. The professor’s doctrine obviously
is that God was directed in His selection of the few by the foreknown and foreseen fact that they
would have so much freewill, before conversion is wrought in them, as not to “maliciously
oppose God’s gracious will,” but to “suffer themselves to be brought to faith.” Whatever he
therefore says of an election to sonship or to faith in his tract, it is all ambiguity. The Formula of
Concord says: “Not only, before we had done anything good, but also before we were born, He
elected us in Christ, yea, before the foundation of the world and that the purpose of God
according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth it was said unto him, The
elder shall serve the younger, as it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Rom 9,
11. &c. Gen. 25. Mal. 1.” ([[11th Art., Decl. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:88]])
[[@VolumePage:1,77]]
Where, then, is “the theory that is now seeking to supplant the true doctrine of our Lutheran
Church in this point?” It is evidently and manifestly contained in Prof. Schuette’s tract itself.
And on whose side is the old loyalty to God’s Word and the Lutheran confession to be found in
these latter times? It is on our side; for we know and have proved above that we are loyal to
those standards of truth. We refrain here from saying to Prof. Schuette, as he did to Rev. Kaehler
in the “Columbus Theological Magazine”: “O, for shame! Tell me, my poor friend,” &c. (To be
concluded.)
Literature.
CHURCH LITURGY for Evangelical Lutheran Congregations of the Unaltered Augsburg
Confession. Published by the German Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio and other
States. Translated from the German. St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House. 1881. Price
$1.25.
It affords us great pleasure to inform our readers that part of our Agenda translated into
English has left the press, and is now ready for distribution. The many inquiries and orders we
received respecting this translation have shown the great need that is felt for such a work. It was
at first intended to translate only our small pocket-agenda. But we were soon led to consider it
preferable to publish our entire liturgy in English. Our ministers find the occasions for holding
service in English constantly increasing. The extract contained in that small work is insufficient
in such cases. Besides, it appears to be our duty to aid in spreading a knowledge of the rich
treasures of our Lutheran church among those in our country who are unacquainted with the
German. We ought not to hold these treasures for our own benefit only. We must make provision
for those of our children who are losing the German language, no less than for those who retain
it. A good liturgy, the beautiful Lutheran service form part of those treasures. Church usages,
excepting the case when confession of a divine truth is required, are indeed adiaphora. But they
are nevertheless not without an import of their own. Congregations that adopt the church usages
of the sects that surround them, will be apt to conform to their doctrines also, more easily and
quickly than those that retain their Lutheran ceremonies. We should in Lutheran services, also
when held in the English language, as much as possible use the old Lutheran forms, though they
be said to be antiquated and not suiting this country. We will mention here the words of a pious
Lutheran duchess, Elisabeth Magdalena of Bruuswick-Luneburg. Her court-chaplain Prunner
relates as follows: “Although her ladyship well knew that the ceremonies and purposes of this
chapter (at which Prunner officiated) must have the appearance and repute of popery with some
people, she still remembered the instructions which that dear and venerable man, Luther, had
once given to her father concerning such ceremonies. I remember in particular that her ladyship
several times [[@VolumePage:1,78]]told me that she did not desire at these present times to
commence discontinuing any of those church usages, since she hoped that so long as such
ceremonies continued, Calvinistic temerity would be held back from the public office of the
church.”
The book now published embraces the smaller of the two parts of which the German liturgy
consists. It contains, however, all that may be regarded as least dispensable. It is published
separately, because it was thought advisable not to hold those any longer in suspense who have
been anxiously waiting for such a work.
The contents of this part are as follows: A. Sacred Ministerial Acts: Baptism of Infants,
Attestation of Baptism etc., Baptism of Adults, Confirmation, Solemnization of Marriage, The
Communion of the Sick. B. Order of Divine Service: Morning Service, Afternoon and Week Day
Service, Catechetical Instruction, Short Service without Preaching, Service for Confession, Early
Communion, Burial, Day of Prayer and Repentance. C. Appendix. Antiphonies and Collects.
The second part will contain all the Antiphonies, Collects, Prayers, and the Formula for
Ordination.
G.
SERMONS ON PREDESTINATION, with a Few Remarks on the “Eight Points” appended. By F.
Kuegele, Pastor of the Coiner Ev. Luth. Congregation, Virginia. Baltimore: H. Stuerken,
Bookseller, No. 282 N. Gay Str. 1881. pp. 32. To be had at the “Concordia Publishing House”
also.
In these sermons a gift of great intrinsic value is offered to the Church. A grateful
acknowledgment of the satisfaction afforded by these sermons will be the consequence of their
perusal. Everything presented in them is seen to be the fruit of a thorough and earnest meditation,
and is set forth in plain, clear, and concise language. To give them to the public the author says,
he was influenced in the first place by the reason “that thereby a fair opportunity might be given
to the author’s own congregation to try them by the Confessions of the Church”. There can be no
doubt that any one still uncertain as to the correct understanding of the doctrine treated in them
will derive no small benefit from his subjecting these sermons to the trial recommended. The
author’s second reason was “that in this time of perplexity and uncertainty they might be a public
testimony of the author’s faith. They contain the doctrine which the author was taught when a
student, and which, when it came into controversy, he again thoroughly proved by the Scriptures
and the Confessions”. This testimony of faith cannot but strengthen and increase in faith and
knowledge all those who stand on the same foundation of the divine revelations, and induce them
to give joyful thanks unto God who graciously continues to raise faithful and able witnesses to
the glory of His grace in order to confute and put down those pernicious errors which are
undermining the eminent and precious consolation revealed uuto us in the gospel of Christ our
only Savior. The pamphlet contains four sermons. In the first the text of which is Hos. 13. 9.: “O
Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in Me is thy help”, the Calvinistic and the Lutheran
doctrine as to the cause of salvation, and the cause of damnation, are clearly and distinctly set
forth and judged by the Scriptures. In the second, which is founded on Rom. 9.16.; “So then, it is
not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy”, the Lutheran
and the Synergist doctrine on the question [[@VolumePage:1,79]]whether the cause of salvation
is in God or in man, are presented and led before the tribunal of the Scriptures. The third sermon,
on Eph. 1. 3—12., presents 1, the foundation, 2, the nature, 3, the object of the eternal election
and predestination of God. The fourth, founded on Rom. 8. 28—32., shows the wrong and the
right application of the doctrine of election. The Remarks on the eight points stated in [[§§ 15—
22 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:15-22]] of the Formula of Concord, which are appended
to the sermons, show the relation those points have to the doctrine which is set forth as the
Confession of the Lutheran church. We are convinced that no reader of this pamphlet who is
earnestly minded to give his assent only to what is evidently true and correct, will repent of
having been induced to examine this witness.
General Religious Intelligence.
THE ROMAN CATHOLICS have a church on the site of old Carthage.
IN THIRTY-SEVEN YEARS the Church of England has erected 2581 churches and expended on
church buildings $200,000,000.
THE COMMISSION appointed to prepare a new creed for the Congregational churches will meet
at Syracuse, N. Y., September 27.
THE FRENCH METHODIST CONFERENCE has 166 chapels, 29 ministers and 1775 members.
OF THE 129 Yale graduates of this year only five think of entering the ministry.
THE AVERAGE SALARY OF MINISTERS laboring with home missionary churches in
Massachusetts is $680, with the help of the Massachusetts Home Missionary Society; without
that help it is only $412.59.
MAKRAKIS, the leader of a new sect already numbering thousands of adherents in Greece, has
been condemned to a long term of imprisonment, apparently because dangerous to the State, but
really because dangerous to the established church.
THE FRIENDS appear to be still slowly decreasing. In 1871 the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting
had 6000 members; now it has 5650. In 1871 the New England Yearly Meeting had 95 ministers,
and 4403 members; there has been in ten years a gain of 17 ministers, 12 elders, and a loss of 4
members.
KING JOHN of Abyssinia told Rohlfs he was anxious to have artisans come to his country to
introduce the advantages of European civilization, but he wanted no missionaries of any kind. In
the first place because Protestants and Catholics are opposed to each other elsewhere, and would
cause division in Abyssinia. Besides, his people were Christians already. “Why should
missionaries come to us? Why don’t they convert the Egyptians and the Turks before they come
to us?”
AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY.—At the stated meeting of the board of managers of the American
Bible Society, July 8th, appropriations to the amount of $6000 were made, including $3000 of
the Russian Bible Society for work in Sibiria; $500 to the Valparaiso Society, and $1000 to the
Waldensian church, Italy. Grants of books to the value of $13,400 were made to auxiliaries,
churches and societies. These benevolent grants are made for work in 28 different states or
territories. The receipts for June were $33,391; scriptures issued, 107,285 volumes.
ALPH. [[@VolumePage:1,80]]
AMERICAN CHURCH MUSIC.—It is universally acknowledged that as far as the composition
and execution of good first class musical composition is concerned, Americans do not stand at
the head of the profession. The other day, the celebrated musical director Wagner, of Bayreuth,
Germany, on selling an inferior composition to an American, for a very high price, made the
remark, “Well, never mind, it’s good enough for the Americans”. This remark, very little
flattering the musical taste of our countrymen in general, would have been still more appropriate
with reference to American church music. In this line, excepting some Lutheran churches, and
such of the Episcopal churches where the “hymns of Luther”, as they are termed in Bishop
McIlvayne’s Parish and Family Sermons, are still in favor, almost everything seems to be “good
enough for the Americans”. Occasionally visiting such churches where specifically American
church music is employed, you can not fail to notice how monotonous it is. In many instances
the musical sentences repeat themselves much oftener than those of the text. If you know one of
those “beautiful river”, “golden lyre”, “golden gate”, “Come to Jesus” songs, all the rest will
soon be so familiar to your ear, as if they had been your lullabies. Moreover the character of that
class of music we now have reference to, is by no means so dignified and sublime as to deserve
to be called good church music. On the contrary, the majority of American church tunes
resemble, or, to say the least, put us in mind of the musical outpourings of a merry schoolboy,
they being almost wholly destitute of that dignity and sublimity, duly sought for in tunes which
are to express Christian peace and joy, as wrought by God, the Holy Spirit. In a word, the greater
part of American church tunes are trivial in the extreme. And then just visit a fashionable church
where such music prevails. Generally the choir will first arise and not sing, but rather “perform”
some difficult opera tune, with some vague dramatic-operatic would-be religious poetry for a
text. Next comes a prelude, very often not selected from Bach or Händel, but from some operatic
work, which may just then chance to be “all the go”. After that the choir, very often consisting of
paid opera artists, will sing one of those aforesaid tunes, and the congregation will get up and —
listen, or, to use an every-day phrase, “take in the performance”, with the same ease, indifference
and non-chalance, as if they were attending a concert. The more fashionable the church, the
more unfashionable it is considered to join in the singing. Perhaps some few will take their
hymn-books, believing themselves to be doing some extra opus operatum by reading the hymn,
while still fewer will make a faint attempt at joining in the praises of the Lord, “singing so feebly
that the people at their elbows do not know they are singing”! —What a contrast to that
“sonorous and resonant congregational singing” which St. John gives us an idea of when he says:
“I heard a great voice, as the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as
the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Hallelujah! for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.”
That this part of divine service, as generally held in our country, is not what it ought to be, is
acknowledged, at least now and then, even by men of great fame and high authority. AUGUSTUS.
Corrigenda:
On page 47 add the initials C. J. O. at the end of th article. [[@VolumePage:1,81]]
THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL
MONTHLY.
Vol. 1. September 1881. No. 5.
(For the “Theological Monthly.”)
Is Election a Judicial Act?
Those who hold to the “intuitu fidei” in the sense of the new departure as advocated by the
“Columbus Theological Magazine,” which follows in the wake of “Altes und Neues,” which has
the honor of bringing upon us this present controversy, filling hearts which once beat with glad
hopes at the prospects of our American Lutheran Zion with sorrow and sadness, have involved
themselves in the piteous predicament of casting up all kinds of wrotten wood, hay, and stubble,
consisting of the refuse rejected and condemned by our Evangelical Lutheran Church in her
confessions, and by her orthodox teachers during and since the glorious Reformation. In their
efforts to right themselves in this dilemma, they find themselves immediately confronted at every
point by the vital doctrine of Christianity, which they cannot harmonize with their false theory.
Either human speculation and syllogistic reasoning, or the plain doctrine of the clear Word of
God must be abandoned. Preferring the former, they can no longer hold consistently to the old
Lutheran fundamental doctrine, that the cause of the eternal election of God’s children to
everlasting life, is alone the mercy of God and the merits of Christ. The introduction of another
cause in addition to this, overthrows this foundation of our salvation, as it does not permit the
mercy of God and the merits of Christ to stand as the only cause of election.
Their theory cannot, if correctly and sincerely examined, but resolve itself into a judicial act of
God’s will; which some [[@VolumePage:1,82]]of them already have the boldness to proclaim,
as though they were anxious for the laurels to be plucked on their new voyage of speculation. By
this judicial act, it is held, God judges certain ones worthy of eternal life, and by thus judging the
individual, He elects them on account of their own worthiness.8 To make this worthiness in man
8
It is a sad confusion of divine truths to declare election to be a judicial act of God because justification is
undoubtedly such. The judicial act in justification occurs in the sinner’s apprehending and appropriating his own
justification contained in the justification of all men earned by, and presented in Christ their representative. The
working of that faith, however, through which this justification is bestowed and appropriated, is an act of pure grace
and mercy, and not of justice. If election is taught to be a judicial act, it must be either nothing else than another
name for justification, or a repetition of justification, or it proceeds on something other than Christ’s merits solely.
(Ed.)
the original cause and source of election, entirely does away with the mercy of God and the
merits of Christ, according to Rom. 11. 5-6.: “Even so then at this present time also there is a
remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no more of works;
otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more of grace.” So the
mercy of God and the merits of Christ as the only original moving cause of election, is not only
not required in their theory, but is directly opposed to it.
Their utterances continually ring with ideas hovering around and based upon this worthiness
in man, as the grand criterion which is to determine his fate under the vindictive justice of an
offended God. Thus we read in the “Columbus Theol. Magazine,” p. 145: “This election was
made indeed before the foundation of the world, BECAUSE God from eternity foreknew who
would believe in Christ and who would not, and in this view, the decree of predestination is also
executed in Christ at the proper time.” This “Col. Theol. Magazine” makes election a judicial act
of God’s will, because it teaches that “faith is the cause of election,” that “the divine
foreknowledge is the proximate and immediate directing principle and norm of election,” p. 7, “a
man’s election depends upon his faith; faith is a normative factor in the decree of election;
election takes place intuitu fidei, in consequence of, or on the [[@VolumePage:1,83]]ground of,
foreseen faith, or of the foreseen conduct of man,” p. 190. The whole force of this teaching is,
that after God offers to the poor sinner the faith once delivered to the saints, He does not elect
them until they accept this faith and hold it fast to the end of life. This acceptance and faith they
also pretend to teach, are the gifts of God. Indeed, they pretend to concede that God alone takes
us out of this evil world and brings us to our everlasting rest in heaven. But they do not allow all
this as constituting the gracious act of His eternal election. Yet what is election and what
becomes of it, if it is not to choose men out of this ungodly world in order to clothe them with
the glorious garments of the just made perfect in the church triumphant? We shall see.
Election is to them a word of thunder. It rumbles with the mutterings of the mount which is
wrapt with clouds of thickest darkness, pregnant with flames of lire and vomiting forth lightning.
There is no grace in it, no mercy. It is the sentence of a judge who looks for the good and the
worthy to reward them for their works. They teach that God elects those only who are already
really the elect, namely, those who accept the faith which God offers and conduct themselves
properly unto the end of this life; that God does not elect them until they have continued faithful
through life. To say that these were already elected of God this side of the grave, is to them the
folly of self-security and presumption. Therefore they teach that the doctrine is both erroneous
and dangerous, that a man can be infallibly certain while here in the flesh that he is elected unto
eternal life. To say that a person is elected before he is born from the foundation of the world, is
the language of the Scriptures, and on this account must be employed, while they reject the only
and simple sense these words convey. Election is to them really a judicial act, to be completed on
the day of the final judgment. All this forcibly implies that the source and cause of election must
be sought in unregenerate man. To deny this ever so often does not mend the matter, so long as
they continue to teach and defend this very doctrine under the cover of the above declarations.
And all their clang and clatter of words, their glittering rhetoric and pedantic boasting with which
they have adorned [[@VolumePage:1,84]]these utterances, are but a sure sign of the most
dangerous delusion.
They have the very same old forms of expression made use of by the old Synergists in
defending their false doctrine that man co-operated in his conversion and salvation: against
which doctrine and forms of expression our orthodox theologians always protested. But as the
“Columbus Theol. Magazine” has been so very boastful in flirting these old rags of Synergism
and Pelagianism, and capping them with the bold and extravagant assertion, that this was the
unanimous doctrine of the Lutheran Church and her greatest theologians for three hundred years,
it will be well for us to see what these great theologians do say in regard to these very same
expressions. In 1596, A. Hunnius, L. Hutter and the entire Theol. Faculty of Wittenberg write
thus: “When in the treatment and article of election faith is considered, it is not meant that God
has elected us on account of faith as on account of merit, or that we are elected by God on this
account, because He foresaw from eternity that we would believe in Christ, and thus show
ourselves worthy of the grace and election of God; but this is the true meaning of the sound
doctrine of faith, that God from eternity ordained true faith in Christ as the only saving means
and instrument, through which we should grasp and appropriate to ourselves the precious merits
of Christ the Lord.” (Concil. Wit. I. f. 569.) Again the same write: “Afterwards he (Huber)
accuses us as though we interpreted the words of St. Paul (2 Thess. 2.) so that when the Apostle
says: ‘God hath chosen you through belief of the truth,’ that this must have this sense, that God
has elected us on account of faith. This again is a manufactured, false accusation; as it is
impossible for Dr. Huber to show, that we ever, in our books or otherwise, should have said, that
God elected us ON ACCOUNT OF FAITH.”—”(Our) Book of Visitation rejects the doctrine, when
it is taught, that we are elected on account of faith, as of a virtue or merit, which we at the same
time condemn as a Pelagian fanaticism.” 589. 609. Again the same: “Even faith itself originally
proceeds from the eternal election of God, and not from us, but is wrought in us alone by the
power of God.” 616. [[@VolumePage:1,85]]
John Gerhard also writes: “We do not say that faith is a meritorious or effective cause of
election, or that God has elected us on account of faith. (Loc. de elect. § 170.) Again: “We do not
say that predestination has its origin from the foresight of faith, but that the foresight of faith
belongs to the decree of election; between these propositions there is a vast difference; the first
expresses the meritorious or moving cause; the latter only denotes the order.” (Loc. de elect. §
175.) Again: “We confess with loud voice, that we hold, that God found nothing good in man to
elect him to eternal life, that he had regard neither to good works nor to the freedom of the will,
yea, not even to faith itself, so that He was moved thereby, or on account of it elected any one.”
(Loc. de elect. § 161.)
Quenstedt writes: “It agrees with the Word, that the cause why some believe, is not in man but
in God, who grants them faith according to His good pleasure.” (III. c. 2. q. 4. p. 40.) Again he
says: “We are not elected on account of faith, but through faith and in the same.” (III. c. 2. q. 4.
p. 30.)
L. Hutter: “We willingly concede, that neither faith, nor the foreknowledge of faith is a cause
of our election. And surely not faith, because it in itself and through itself, so far as it is a virtue,
a habitus or a quality, adds nothing to our election or to our justification, and in this case it is
entirely of the same nature as the works or merits of men. But we likewise concede, that also the
foresight of faith, properly speaking, is no cause of our election, in as much as it has already in
general been proven above in the treatment of the matter, that the foresight, as also the
foreknowledge, is not the cause of any thing previously seen or previously known, but merely
includes in it the knowledge of all things previously known.” (Lib. Concord, explic. Ed. 3. p.
101.)
Calov: “For we are not called the elect on account of faith, but through faith in Christ.” (Sys.
1. th. Tom. 628. sqq.)
Seb. Schmidt: “In the predestinated man there is just as little a cause of predestination, as in
the reprobated; it comes rather from the mere divine order, which is based upon the
[[@VolumePage:1,86]]general grace and merits of Christ, in as much as in accordance with its
very nature it excludes every cause on the part of man.” (Aphorismi th. p. 295.) Again:
“Undoubtedly this predestination of God has taken place out of pure grace; without any merit of
works, it matters not whether they have been performed by natural or supernatural powers; also
without any regard to these works, yea, even without any regard to faith.” (Aph. th. Disp. 34. §
14. 17. p. 294.)
Gerhard, quoting Augustin approvingly, says: “That God has elected believers, but in order
that they may be, not because they were already such, and that men do not believe in order to be
elected, but rather were elected that they may believe,” and ch. 19: “Not because we have
believed, but in order that we may believe, He elects us, so that it be not said of us, that we first
elected him.” (Loc. elect. § 166.)
Selneccer: “Therefore, foreseen faith can not be the cause of eternal election, faith being, as it
were, the consequence and effect of election, born in us in time, and in time it shall also cease,
when we die. If foreseen faith would be called the cause of election, the false delusion of our
foreseen worthiness and merit not only of faith, as of our nature, but also of our other good
works could captivate our minds.” (In omnes ep. D. Pauli ap. Commentarius, fol. 213.)
These are certainly among the greatest theologians and dogmaticians of our Church since the
Reformation, not to quote extensively from Luther, who says in his [[preface to the Epistle of
Paul to the Romans: >> logosres:lw35;ref=VolumePage.V_35,_p_378;off=-447]]”In the 9th,
10th, and 11th chapters he (Paul) teaches concerning the eternal election of God, from whence it
originally flows, who shall believe or who shall not believe, who can be delivered from sin or
not; so that it be entirely taken out of our hands and placed in the hands of God alone, that we
become pious. And this is also necessary in the highest degree. For we are so weak and
uncertain, that if it would rest with us, of course not a single man would be saved, the devil
would certainly overpower them all. But now as God is certain that His election shall not fail,
nor be prevented by any one, we still have hope against sin;” and from Urbanus Rhegius, who
remarks in his work, “Formulae caute et citra scandalum loquendi,” 1710. p. 36:
[[@VolumePage:1,87]]”Hence it is certain, whoever is elected does not always what he pleases,
but is converted, and afterwards also does what God desires; whoever does evil can and shall be
condemned, if he perseveres in wickedness. Just as God has elected Peter, Paul, and us other
Christians to salvation, so He has also before ordained and predestinated their conversion, their
Christian walk, repentance, and good works, in which they must walk and prove their call and
faith, Eph. 2.;” and from Chemnitz in his Enchiridion: “For the election of God does not follow
our faith and justification, but precedes it as the effective cause.” In fact, find one who has clung
to the intuitu fidei in the sense of its present advocates, and it can be shown that his orthodoxy
has been questioned, and was never looked upon as authority in our Church.
From these quotations we can easily learn what confidence the editor of the “Col. Theol. M.”
deserves, when he sets up the following sweeping assertions which he has frequently been
requested to prove, but has never made the attempt; and from which any one can see that his
assertions are proven to be nothing else but pure fabrications. They read thus: “For three hundred
years there has, by the admission of all parties, been in the Lutheran Church an established
doctrine, which the Missouri Synod is now striving to displace. It is taught with one consent by
all the prominent writers of the Church throughout that period. There was no other in vogue that
claimed the Lutheran name. That is the doctrine which we maintain and defend.” (Col. Theol. M.
No. I, p. 3.) On same page: “Before we can be expected to believe that the Lutheran Church ever
had any other doctrine than that which her great teachers set forth since the time of the Formula
of Concord, it must be shown from the works of her representative men in that earlier period
what that doctrine was and that there was some unanimity in teaching it. Not only has this not
been done, but it will hardly be claimed that it can be done.” Et caetera.
If they meant by their expressions nothing more than that faith is a part pertaining to the
decree of election, and consequently belongs to the carrying out of this decree, there could be no
objection. But they mean vastly more than this. They [[@VolumePage:1,88]]mean just what, as
we have shown in the above quotations, our greatest theologians have rejected and condemned as
Synergism. They believe that God elects man “on account of, on the ground of, in consequence
of, in reference to the conduct of man.” For so they interpret the phrase, “in view of faith
foreseen,” and make faith the moving and original cause of election. Human language can not
more plainly express it. And as a result of this doctrine we find them trailing in the footsteps of
their notorious leader, the editor of “Altes und Neues,” making election a judicial act. For they
follow him so implicitly and are so taken up with his leadership, as though this doctrine was
already made out as an article of faith, binding the consciences of men, that they have already
circulated it among our congregations in his theses as given in the “Lutheran Standard” of July
the 9th, as the official organ of Joint Synod, which very plainly advocates and defends his
position in its communications. We there read in the second thesis given at the late session of the
Norwegian Synod at Spring Grove, Minn., that: “Election is an action of the consequent or
judicial will of God, according to which He will bring to life eternal only those individual
persons that remain steadfast unto death, and no others.” So we read also in the March number of
“Altes und Neues,” p. 78: “The act of the last judgment is consequently no action of God’s grace,
and election to eternal life on the last day is therefore no election of grace. This election to
eternal life is no election of grace, but a sentence of judgment.” The theory that God elects us on
account of our faith necessarily resolves itself finally into the doctrine that election is a judicial
act, to be consummated not even at the end of this life, but on the last judgment. We simply ask:
What has judgment to do with the elect? The Scriptures say that election is of grace, and not of
justice. “Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but
according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world
began.” 2 Tim. 1. 9. “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to
Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace,
wherein He hath made us accepted in the beloved.” [[@VolumePage:1,89]]Eph. 1. 5-6. Where is
here or anywhere else in holy Scripture a word said of election being a judicial act, or of justice
being the norm of election?
According to this rank Synergism, it is not the mercy of God which is the original source of
election, which moved God’s will to the act of election, but it was His righteousness or justice
that did this, which demands a certain worthiness in man before God can elect him. Thus the
worthiness of man, his faith, conduct, and good works, moved and influenced divine
righteousness, which in its turn caused the will to act judicially, in electing certain ones to eternal
life. This, however, is not “damaging to the revealed doctrine of God and His attributes!” No, not
in the least! That is, when a man appeals to his conscience, and then don’t care a whit what he
says. Their sweet harmony of the divine attributes demands that election must be a judicial act.
The mercy of God is no longer the eternal fountain out of which alone election and salvation
flows. According to their theory correctly and consistently set forth, there is, in short, no mercy
in God. It is a mere name. Or if there is any such a thing as mercy, it is nothing but a servant,
tyrannized over by righteousness. It seems that according to their notion of righteousness it can
be as inconsistent as anything can be, and the divine harmony still goes on all right. It was
righteousness influenced by man’s “good works”—”we mean no sarcasm; but in the interest of
truth we must state things as they are, though they look like daggers,”—which moved, dictated,
tyranized and set mercy to the work she was to perform on man’s behalf! It was righteousness
which dictated the means she was to employ. And all this because one man’s conduct was better
than another’s. With their hay and stubble with which they beat the air, they can never extricate
themselves from this dilemma. Flirting the dirty rags of Pelagianism, will not do it. Nor will the
presumption be of any relief, that the omniscience or foreknowledge of God is of such a nature
that a professor of mental and moral science can understand it so thoroughly (St. Paul to the
contrary notwithstanding, Rom. 11. 33—36.) that he is able to measure its depth, to lay down the
principles and rules for its direction, that it is a mere norm (“normative
[[@VolumePage:1,90]]Factor”) or rule by which God was directed in His judicial will (not His
merciful will, that was in bondage), when He elected His children to eternal life.
Now this never was the doctrine of the Lutheran Church, nor of her great teachers, nor of our
Synod, nor of our seminary at Columbus, at least in former years. The foreknowledge of God
pertains to both the good and the evil, but is not in the least the cause of the one or of the other. It
does not necessarily determine the fate of men, as they would have it; for as foreknowledge is
not an act of the divine will, the future is not determined by it. For thus we read in Schmid’s
Dogmatics, which formed the basis of Prof. Lehmann’s lectures in the seminary at Columbus,
Part III, Ch. I, Obs. II: “The fact, whether past or future, does not depend upon knowledge, but
knowledge upon the fact, and it was rightly said by Origen, yet we judge by common consent
concerning foreknowledge, not that anything will happen because God knows that it will, but
that, because it will happen, God already knows it.” Chemnitz, L. c. I. 162. “That same divine
foreknowledge or foresight does not depend upon any divine decree (it does not consist in such
decree), nor does it of itself impose any necessity upon things foreseen, nor remove their
contingency, although in itself it is certain and infallible.” Quen. I, 539. Hence it is absolutely
false when it is stated that this is the old doctrine of our Synod and Seminary, as at present
inculcated by the above mentioned periodicals, that election is a judicial act brought about by the
directing, normative factor of foreknowledge pointing to faith and good works, or the conduct of
man. We never heard of any other doctrine while at Columbus, than that the foreknowledge of
God determines nothing in regard to election one way or the other, and that the mercy of God
and the merits of Christ were the only cause of election. True, we do not deny, but hold at all
times that God foresaw the faith He would give to the elect, as well as the unbelief of the
reprobate, but this foresight did not determine Him to elect any one. This new addition to
foreknowledge we reject.
In as much as the mercy of God cannot transgress beyond the bounds of righteousness, it
satisfied the demands of [[@VolumePage:1,91]]righteousness, according to God’s eternal
decree, in order to reach us; and it did reach us in Christ, who put away sin for us and offered to
the whole world a valid righteousness. Hence we say that the only source or cause of eternal
election is the love or mercy of God and the merits of Christ. So far forth as divine righteousness
had anything to do in influencing the divine will to elect man to salvation, we find that just the
opposite is the nature of this attribute. For how can righteousness be pleased with
unrighteousness? And none are righteous, not one. Righteousness is like a piercing flame of light
and burns like a consuming fire. It sounds dolefully inharmonious to the guilty. It demands that
which is right, is just, and comes to inflict a penalty and to demand the life and blood of the rebel
man. For guilt will stain the throne of glory until vengeance is taken on the traitor. At the
demands of righteousness, omnipotence comes forth like a lion from the swellings of Jordan,
raises his thundering arm, wields aloft his iron rod and advances toward the rebel. Righteousness
cries out: “Strike! Strike the rebel dead, and remove the reproach from the throne of heaven.”
And no conduct of man or any effort on his part, in or outside of the state of grace, will ever
suffice to ward off the dreadful strokes of omnipotence. For by this doctrine you rob Christ of all
His glory, who bore these strokes in the sinner’s stead, and said to divine omnipotence: “Strike,
yet not the sinner, but the Surety!” Righteousness and holiness repel their opposite in full consent
and harmony with all the other attributes of God. God cannot be against Himself. Mercy,
therefore, elects men to righteousness and holiness, reaching us in the satisfaction of Christ, and
now Christ is our righteousness in whom from eternity we were elected to everlasting life.
Election is, therefore, nothing else but an act of God’s merciful will alone, reaching from
eternity, associating with Himself that only which harmonizes with His essence; it is an act by
which God lovingly draws us to Himself.
The mercy of God, in which inhered the merits of Christ from eternity, was the norm, the rule,
the cause that influenced His will from eternity to elect those only, whom from the very nature of
things He only could elect. For mercy cannot [[@VolumePage:1,92]]choose unrighteousness; it
therefore elects us unto righteousness and holiness. Nor does God withdraw His grace until it is
rejected, and they consider themselves unworthy of eternal life. But because they reject, does not
make grace any more special for the elect, than it was for them. For it is all the same grace which
God Himself offers, directs, gives, and controls in every contingency. The resistance of grace
against the part of unbelievers, does not therefore make it special or particular for the elect, as
these opponents of the holy Scriptures dream. For if a king grants all his rebels the privilege of
living in his kingdom, because only one or two accept the offer and remain in the kingdom,
taking the oath of allegiance, while the majority of the rebels resist and reject the offer of
citizenship, this their rejection does not make the privilege of citizenship any more special or
peculiar to the few than it was for them. It is a figment of the devil, that final unbelief is the
cause of a special or particular grace enjoyed alone by the elect, in such a sense that the same
grace was not intended for every unbeliever. God is the Author of grace, and the conduct of
unbelievers has no influence upon its nature whatever. These are dangerous and misleading
principles, with which these blind guides would patch up a theory which has been hatched out of
the wild soil of Synergism and Pelagianism. Physician, heal thyself. OHIO.
(For the “Theological Monthly.”)
The personal Assurance and precious Consolation of our gracious Election
to Salvation.
The holy Scriptures teach us that [[“many are called but few are chosen.” >> Mt 22.14]] They
teach us further that the chosen shall infallibly be saved, that it is impossible for them to be lost.
The XI. Art. of the Formula of Concord confesses that the gracious election of God to salvation
“pertains only to the children of God, who were elected and ordained to eternal life before the
foundation of the world, as Paul, Eph. 1. 4, 5., declares: ‘He hath chosen us in Christ Jesus, and
predestinated us unto the adoption of children’.” It confesses further, that
[[@VolumePage:1,93]]on the gracious election our salvation “is so firmly grounded that the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it, Matth. 16.18.; for it is written: ‘Neither shall any pluck
them out of my hand,’ John 10. 28.; and again: ‘And as many as were ordained to eternal life,
believed’.” It is therefore the doctrine of our confession and of God’s word, that in the eternal
election God has taken into His own hands the salvation of each and every one who shall be
saved, and has purposed to bring them despite the opposition of the devil, the world, and their
own sinful flesh on the narrow way to eternal glory; as Paul, Rom. 8., says: “Since we are called
according to the purpose of God, who shall separate us from the love of God which is in Christ
Jesus, our Lord.” ([[F. C. §§ 45. 46. 47. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:45-48]])
It is also clear to every believing heart that this doctrine of election affords an “eminent and
precious consolation.” It bridges over the span—long or short—between us and the end of our
faith, yea, it rather draws the end of our faith so near that the intervening span disappears
altogether, and we are enabled to lay hold on eternal life whereunto we are called, 1 Tim. 6. 12.
But it is also clear that to enjoy this precious consolation it is necessary for the Christian to have
a personal assurance or certainty that he is one of the elect. He must have the assurance of faith
which excludes all doubt and in so far is the infallible certainty, that before the foundation of the
world God has ordained him to eternal life, and that therefore he shall infallibly be saved. So also
our confession says [[§ 25: >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:25]] “It belongs to a fuller
explanation of this subject, and to the salutary use of the doctrine concerning the predestination
of God to salvation, that we should know (since only the elect will be saved whose names are
written in the book of life), by what means, and whence we can ascertain who the elect are who
can and should embrace this doctrine to their own consolation.” For as the gracious election
pertains only to the elect who by virtue of their election shall surely be saved, so the consolation
of election pertains only to the elect. Hence to enjoy this consolation is, in fact, nothing more
than to be sure of one’s own election. To the extent that I embrace for myself the eminent and
precious consolation of election, to the same extent I hold myself to be one of the elect to whom
alone [[@VolumePage:1,94]]that consolation pertains. And as the gracious election of God is
revealed unto us in the Word, it was, according to the rule laid down by our confession, revealed
for our consolation which God desires us to fully and freely apply to ourselves. Hence also it is
the will of God that we should in no wise doubt, but fully and freely believe that we are His elect
in the sense in which the Scriptures may be shown to use that word. Glorious things are spoken
of the elect. They shall infallibly be saved and receive the end of their faith, 1 Pet. 1.9. All things
must work together for their good, and nothing shall be able to separate them from the love of
God which is in Christ Jesus, the Lord, Rom. 8. They are in the hands of Christ, out of which
nothing or no one shall be able to pluck them. Are these things said simply to taunt the
Christian? or is he to comfort himself with them? If the latter, then he must also have the
infallible assurance that he is one of the elect, for as long as he doubts this and to the extent that
he doubts it just so long and to that extent all these glorious things will elude his grasp as indeed
very desirable treasures but which, alas, are not for him.
It is not the object of this article to show how the Christian arrives at such certainty of his
election; this has been sufficiently done by other and more able writers. We need but refer to the
excellent article on this subject by the Norwegian pastor, Rev. V. Koren, as we find it translated
into German in Nos. 15 and 16 of the Lutheraner of this year. The object of the present article is
simply to make the application of what has been said above to the doctrine of our opponents. The
full assurance of our election and the consolation of election go together. Whoever denies the
former robs the Christian of the latter, and teaches a doctrine of election which is without
comfort and which, therefore, cannot be contained in the Scriptures. The application is easy. The
opponents of our confessional doctrine of election have, indeed, themselves already made the
application. They openly and persistently object to our teaching that a Christian can and should
be sure of his election, that he can and should with the strongest kind of certainty, with the
certainty of faith, hold himself to be one of the elect, and thus fully and freely apply
[[@VolumePage:1,95]]to himself all the glorious things that are spoken of them. They object to
our teaching such a certainty which is so infallible that it excludes all doubt or fear that we might
yet be put to shame, that we might yet be deceiving ourselves. Our opponents have repeatedly
touched this point, sometimes even with sarcasm (Prof. Loy in his Introductory), and always
with the denial of such an infallible certainty of one’s election to salvation. Here is just one
instance. Prof. Stellhorn,9 in the Chicago Prot. p. 21, declares: “There is indeed no infallible
certainty of election at all. Whether I am elected in the strict sense of the word I do not know.
This I should believe and hope.” Alas, what believing and hoping! It is a shame that these
precious words came into the mind of a Lutheran in such a connection! “Do not know, but
believe and hope.” Do not know whether it will rain soon, but I believe and hope it will. I shall
only infallibly know it after it has come to pass. Is that believing and hoping in the sense of the
Scriptures? What the Christian believes he also knows, infallibly knows, even more so than if he
had obtained it through the medium of one of his senses. He knows it with an infallible certainty
that excludes all doubt or fear of it failing him on the day when his faith shall be changed into
sight. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.” Heb.
11.1. With such uncertainty, as is preached in the above declaration of Prof. Stellhorn, where is
the consolation of election? It is really surprising how our opponents thus rob their own doctrine
of every claim to a scriptural character by denying the certainty of election.
Prof. Stellhorn will likely think that the “professor’s bee” which he imagines in my bonnet is at him again. If so,
we will leave him amuse his spectators by fighting it off, while we continue the confession of our heart’s faith for
the glory of God and for the welfare of our beloved Ohio Synod and her institutions, which in his characteristic
confusion he thinks we are assailing. See Kirchenzeitung, No. 520, p. 316.
9
It is, however, not probable that they would have thus deprived themselves of scriptural
ground, if the very substance of their doctrine of election had not forced them to do so. By their
doctrine they make election depend on the foreseen persevering faith of the elect. If we thus
place election into [[@VolumePage:1,96]]God’s foreknowledge, making it an act of His judicial
will passed on those in whom He foresaw their persevering faith, and thus making it dependent
on the fulfillment of the conditions of salvation before decreeing to salvation, of course, we
cannot know whether we are elected or not, for the simple reason that we do not know anything
about God’s foreknowledge (praescientia). We cannot know whether God foreknew those
conditions to be fulfilled in our own case or not, and so the certainty, and with it the consolation
of election, falls to the ground. For God has not revealed unto us the secrets of His
foreknowledge. ([[F. C. § 55. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:55]]) The uncertainty of
election belongs therefore to the very nature of the doctrine of our opponents, which also
deprives their doctrine of all consolation and at the same time of all scriptural ground. And
because we cannot know whether we belong to those whose names are written in the book of
life, because, according to this theory, as long as we live we must live in uncertainty as to
whether we are elected or not, therefore the eminent and precious consolation of election is not
only locked up and stored away from use until we shall have no more use for it, but still shines in
the Scriptures as a distressingly precious jewel which no one can and should embrace and apply
unto himself with the infallible certainty of its belonging unto him as unto an elect of God.
C. J. O.
(For the “Theological Monthly”.)
Calvinism and Synergism versus Lutheranism in the Doctrine concerning
Conversion.
The July number of “Lehre und Wehre” contains a very important article under the following
heading: “Some remarks, chiefly in regard to the fundamental difference in the present
controversy.” These remarks are for the greater part directed against an anonymous writer in the
“Columbus Theological Magazine,” who had endeavored to hide his personality, together with
his animosity, against Missouri and its spokesmen under the fair name of “Old Lutheran.” The
writer of the “remarks” in question is Prof. F. Pieper, the [[@VolumePage:1,97]]”mere
stripling,” as the “Magazine” had been pleased to style him; and indeed, in these “remarks” the
“mere stripling” succeeds most admirably in stripping his adversary of his vaunted theological
greatness, and in showing him up to the Church in all the nakedness of his Rationalistic and
Synergistic folly.
But apart from the polemical value of these “remarks,” they are also of importance, inasmuch
as they contain a very clear, although short, exposition of the characteristic difference in the
Calvinistic, Synergistic, and Lutheran doctrines concerning Conversion. For the sake of such
readers of our “Monthly,” as do not read the “Lehre und Wehre,” we reprint this passage from
Prof. Pieper’s article in as accurate and literal a translation as possible.
Prof. Pieper writes: “Neither Calvinism, nor Synergism know of a mystery here” (i. e. in the
doctrine concerning Conversion). “For Calvinism fabricates an unequal will of God: God is not
willing to convert a part of those that hear the Word. There is no longer a mystery for human
reason, why not all men are converted. We, however, teach that God, in equal earnest, desires to
convert all that hear the Word. Nevertheless not all are converted. This is a mystery to us. Also
Synergism has no mystery in the doctrine concerning Conversion. It assumes a difference, a
disparity among men. By making use of their natural powers, the ones conduct themselves better
than the others. Or, to mention a particular species: the ones forbear resisting wilfully, while the
others do not restrain themselves so well. For this reason the former are converted. Here also
everything is clear to human reason. Both, Calvinism as well as Synergism, are based on
Rationalism. The Calvinist wishes to retain the equal total depravity of all men. But in order to
EXPLAIN the fact that not all men are converted, he assumes an unequal will of God, who is
willing to convert the ones, but not the others. The Synergist wishes to retain the equal, earnest
gracious will of God towards all men. But, in order to EXPLAIN why not all men are converted,
he assumes a disparity among men as they are by nature, and as they act or ‘forbear acting’ by
natural powers. The Lutheran, however, in obedience to the Holy Scriptures, retains
[[@VolumePage:1,98]]not only the equal, earnest gracious will of God towards all men, but also
the equal total depravity of mankind, and forbears explaining in any way to human reason the
mystery which here exists for human reason. He does not go beyond the proposition: If a man is
not converted, it is his own fault; if he is converted, it is the effect of divine grace only.
“Here faith alone can go the right way, faith that retains without wavering a proposition
clearly revealed in the Word of God, even if it seems to human reason that something erroneous
is the CONSEQUENCE of that proposition. We repeat it once more. If human reason endeavors to
judge of this doctrine, the necessary consequence of the proposition that in the work of
Conversion God does everything, that He also either prevents or takes away wilful resistance,
seems to be, 1st, that with those who are not converted, God does not do everything, that He is
not willing either to prevent wilful resistance, or to take it away, if it has taken place already;
2nd, that God converts by an irresistible grace those whom He converts. For human reason
argues thus: If God must take away, or keep down the ‘natural’ resistance as well as the ‘wilful’
resistance, then there seems to be no room whatever for successful resistance against converting
grace. The Lutheran, however, says: ‘Although these inferences of human reason seem to be
correct, I nevertheless reject them as entirely false, because they disagree with the clear Word of
God. Human reason is not authorized to teach in the Christian Church.’ For this reason also he
does not alter a proposition, if it is clearly revealed in the Word of God, on account of the
inferences which human reason seems to be obliged to make from such proposition. He does not
alter the proposition that in the work of Conversion God does everything, nor does the
correctness of this proposition become doubtful to him, because, according to the judgment of
human reason, the particular and irresistible grace seems to result from this proposition. His faith
is wholly based upon the Word of God, contrary to all judgments and inferences of human
reason, that endeavors to lead him away from the Word, his only light in spiritual things. Thus he
safely walks the narrow path which leads here between Calvinism on one side, and Synergism on
the other. For the fact [[@VolumePage:1,99]]is this: Whosoever acknowledges besides the
correct thesis also the aforesaid inferences of human reason as being correct and stating the truth,
has fallen into Calvinism; but whosoever endeavors to get rid of these inferences by altering the
thesis of which they seem to human reason to be the necessary consequence, for instance, by
attributing to man the omission of wilful resistance, has drifted into Synergistic spheres.”
A. C.
(For the “Theological Monthly”.)
“New Tract.”
(Concluded.)
4. Prof. Schuette accuses us of “emphatically affirming question No. 39.” This question reads:
“Can you infallibly know and be certain that you will finally believe in Christ and that you were
from eternity among the few elected to salvation? Ans.: Infallibly I can not know this; but I
firmly believe and hope that I shall continue in faith to the end and thus be forever saved.” We
concede that we do affirm the question. For, the Missouri synodical report referred to above, of
the year 1879, pp. 64 and 84, has the following: “I can be quite, yea, infallibly, and yet not
absolutely certain… Quenstedt writes: ‘Of their election to salvation the pious and believers can
and shall be certain by faith, but not carnally secure. For as election is certain and immutable, the
pious can and shall by all means also be certain of it. But this certainty of faith shall be combined
with & filial fear and not degenerate into a carnal security. Hither belongs the comfort of the
inscription in heaven, Luke 10. 20. To this certainty Paul also points Rom. 8. 38, 39., where he
says that neither things present nor things to come are able to separate us from the love of God
which is in Christ Jesus. But on the part of man that certainty is not absolute, but ordinate, that
is, it depends not on an absolute decree of God, but has respect to the order of the means
ordained of God. Whoever well observes the order instituted by God, shall most firmly conclude
that he is preordained to salvation. The certainty of election [[@VolumePage:1,100]]is therefore
not absolute, but nevertheless immovable on account of the immovable truth of the divine
promises.’ (Loc. de praed., fol. 21.) It should be well observed that Quenstedt says: The certainty
is an ordinate one, that is, God has made a certain order in which He will save. Hence, only he
can be certain of his election who stands in this order.”
But we ask: What kind of a firm faith and hope is that of which Prof. Schuette speaks in the
answer to question No. 39? Whoever really believes and hopes firmly is infallibly certain. The
Christian’s certainty of future salvation is a “certainty of faith” and hope. Heb. 11. 1.: “Now faith
is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Rom. 5. 5.: “Hope maketh
not ashamed, because the love of God is shed in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given
unto us.” Therefore, according to the Scriptures, the answer to question No. 39 should be
something like this: I not only can, but also do infallibly know this; because I firmly believe and
hope that I shall continue in faith to the end and thus be forever saved. Whenever I doubt this I
commit sin against the divine promises given me; for instance, in John 10. 28.: “I give unto them
(my sheep) eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my
hand.” The author of the tract says: “They (the Missourians) say that they do not only believe
that God will preserve them in faith unto the end, but that they infallibly know and are certain
that they will not finally fall from grace; that they infallibly know and are certain that they are of
the few chosen of God to salvation from eternity. Such language we can not employ.” This we
believe. Synergism is a dreadful foe to firm faith and hope. But then the Christians ought not to
be robbed of their infallible certainty which God has given them by His word and Spirit. How
shallow must be the theology and Christianity when Christians are taught to believe that
“believing that God will preserve them in faith until the end” is something altogether different
from “'infallibly knowing and being certain that they will not finally fall from grace” and,
consequently, “infallibly knowing and being infallibly certain that they are of the few chosen of
God to salvation from eternity.” The Christian’s belief, as such, admits of no doubt.
[[@VolumePage:1,101]]By doubt faith is cancelled. Many Christians have, indeed, never heard
anything about election or predestination, but when they truly believe that they will be saved by
God’s mercy and Christ’s merit, they, consequently, believe they are among the number of the
elect. And as to the expression “infallibly certain” we remark that not the Missourians did invent
it but that it was in use already among those of our Lutheran theologians to whom our opponents
continually appeal. Brochmand e. g. puts the question: “May the elect be rendered infallibly
certain of their election and perseverance?” and gives an affirmative answer by an argument
extending over nearly three columns in folio. (Vid. Syst. I, 270 sq.)
It surely testifies of superficial reading when Prof. Schuette yet says: “But may God have
mercy upon people who deem themselves no longer in need of the apostolic admonition: Let him
that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall! 1 Cor. 10. 12.” Let the professor once read with
attention what we say in our Western Districts’ synodical report, pp. 97—110, and he will find
that he has slandered us before his readers. The Formula of Concord says: “This doctrine (of
election) also thus affords the precious, glorious consolation that… He (God) wanted to guard
my salvation so well and establish it so firmly,—because it might easily be lost out of our hands
through the weakness and wickedness of our flesh, or be plucked and taken out of them by the
stratagem and power of the devil and the world—, that He ordained it in His eternal purpose
[eam in aeternum suum propositum tanquam in arcem munitissimam collocaret, that is, placed it
in His eternal purpose as in a very well fortified castle] which cannot fail or be overthrown, and
put it for safe-keeping into the almighty hand of our Savior Jesus Christ, out of which no one
will pluck it, John 10.; wherefore Paul also says Rom. 8. [v. 28. 39.]: As we are called according
to God’s purpose, who shall separate us from the love of God which is in Christ?” ([[11th art.
Decl. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:45-48]])
Thus again the human “theory” is on Prof .Schuette’s and Dr. Schodde’s side, and the pure
doctrine, on ours.
Prof. Schuette would do well not to write any more tracts. Dr. Walther wrote one in which he
analysed the llth [[@VolumePage:1,102]]article of the Formula of Concord in questions and
answers; Prof. Schuette then wrote one, too, in questions and answers, not on the doctrine of our
church, but on a human “theory,” viz., on the theory that man “suffers himself” to be converted.
There are yet other things in the tract which require some ventilation, but this article has
already got to be longer than had been expected, and time is precious. Perhaps other
opportunities will present themselves to us to speak of them.
C. S. K.
General Religious Intelligence.
THE LUTHERAN GENERAL SYNOD has three ordained missionaries, 109 congregations, 2193
communicants and 6483 members in India, and one missionary and 62 communicants at
Muehlenberg Mission in Africa. On a farm of 75 acres connected with the latter mission coffee is
cultivated.
AUG. 4th was the Ninth of Ab, the anniversary of the destruction of the autonomy of the
Jewish nation, and was observed in the usual way by devout Hebrews throughout the world as a
fast or feast of sorrow and sadness. No other people commemorates its defeat.
THE POPE of Rome held a secret consistory Aug. 4th, at which 22 Cardinals were present. The
pope referred to recent disturbances here. The “Osservatore Romano” says: The pope declared
that the disturbances proved that the Vicar of Christ enjoyed neither liberty nor safety in Rome.
He was, however, prepared to confront the dangers of the future.
A NUMBER of Philadelphia Germans have bought 2000 acres of land near Ashville, N. C, on
which to establish a “Teutonic Co-operative Colonization Society”. A town is to be built, with
school-houses, factories, a theater and museum, but “no beer-saloons, churches, ministers or
lawyers will be permitted in the settlement.”
A FREE CONFERENCE representing the various Norwegian Lutheran Synods, has been held in
Ansgar, Iowa, with the view to bringing them together into one General Norwegian Lutheran
Conference or Council. Four Synods were represented by 341 delegates. The doctrine of
redemption and forgiveness of sin were discussed and the points of difference brought out. The
conference adjourned until 1883, without accomplishing anything definite.
POPISH GRATITUDE. Esther Renaud has been expelled from the French convent which she had
endowed with her fortune, simply because she was the victim of a disease which tortured her day
and night and disabled her from all work. The Superior decided that she was a useless mouth,
and expelled her. She appealed to the courts for reinstatement, but they decided that they had no
power in the matter, and the lawyers tell her that she cannot recover her fortune. She is therefore
an invalid, forsaken pauper.
IN ANSWER to a correspondent who is anxious to know how many Baptist adherents there are
in the United States, the “Watchman” says: “It is not easy to ascertain. The church members are
2,296,327, by the latest published [[@VolumePage:1,103]]statistics. It was formerly usual to
number five adherents to one communicant; but this is much too large. Dr. Dorchester, in his
recent work, states the ratio as 3 ½ to 1. This would give a little more than eight millions. We
apprehend that if we could see all our members brought to a higher standard of Christian
character and life it would be of more worth to the world than a further increase in numbers.
‘Bigness is not greatness,’ nor is it always force.” ALPH.
NECROLOGICAL. Dr. Stanley, Dean of Westminster, England, died July 18th. He was born in
Cheshire, England, Dec. 13th, 1815, and educated at Rugby School by Dr. Arnold whom he also
followed in his views of the mutual relation of the church and the state. Dr. Arnold’s theory was
substantially this: “that the church and the state are identical (!?), that they are the same
corporate body, only having different functions, and that, therefore, the Established Church
should comprehend all the forms of the Christian religion of the state.” It is evident that Dean
Stanley, illustrating this theory in practice, could not but foster and act according to unionistic,
latitudinarian principles. He has been the leader, or, at least, one of the leaders of the BroadChurchmen of England ever since 1864, when he was appointed Dean of Westminster. His
funeral was one of the most memorable, Westminster Abbey ever witnessed. Two princes of the
Roman Church, Cardinal Manning and Newman, both of whom were former members of the
Church of England and as such had preached in the Abbey, attended the funeral service. The
Prince of Wales represented the Queen.—On Tuesday, August 2d, Bishop Haven, of the M. E.
Church, died at Salem, Oregon. He was very prominent among the clergy of his denomination.
From 1863 to 1869 he was President of the University of Michigan. After that he was appointed
President of the Northwestern University at Evanston, Ill., which office he held for 3 years. In
1874 he became chancellor of Syracuse University. Finally, he was elected bishop in August
1880.
CAMP-MEETING SEASON is at hand. Everywhere camp-meeting grounds are remodelled and
improved, some of them even to such an extent that “those who visited the grounds last year will
hardly recognize them on account of all the new improvements.” So to the camp-meeting, for
“nature was the first temple of God”, is the watch-word of new-fashioned Methodism. Still we
presume that, if we should go out to the camp-grounds, we would not find to remind us of
“nature”. We suppose we would find ourselves in the midst of a beautiful village of elegant
cottages, some of which very much resembling unique, palatial summer residences. We should
find groceries, book stores, Post-office, telegraph station, news-stand—barber-shops, waterworks
etc. In fact, from what we can gather from descriptions of such camp-grounds, we believe they
must be very nice summer-resorts, — and, in case the grounds should be situated on the beach,
very nice watering-places. Besides it is so wonderfully cheap to get there. All the young folks
will agree that it is a good opportunity to enjoy themselves under the pretext of religion.— Such
are modern camp-meetings. They are a great change from the simplicity of old-fashioned
Methodism. Church history informs us that Mr. Wesley, the founder of Methodism, and his colaborers in all their efforts to impart new life to the Church of England of whom they were and,
for some time, remained members, never worked in such a worldly way, nor would they ever
have adopted such a “summer-resort-plan”, even if the most learned and pious
[[@VolumePage:1,104]]D.D. would have proposed the same. Being intimately associated with
the German “Herrnhutians” who were glorying in their simplicity in dress, fashion and social life
generally, they were averse to all such things as constitute the principal make-up of the campmeeting of the present day, rigorously doing away even with a great many things properly
belonging and never generally conceded to belong to the sphere of christian liberty. Whenever
they held open-air services, it was because the people disgusted with the barrenness of
rationalism that, having traversed the English Church, had taken almost entire possession of the
pulpits of Great Britain, thronged to hear what was, to say the least, infinitely better than
rationalism, so that, even if the churches had been opened to them, the seating capacity of the
most of them would have been too small to accommodate the masses. But we are sure that these
out-door meetings of Wesley’s time were free of that worldly hubbub and business bustle which
is very near becoming an essential part of every “successful” camp-meeting.—In short, though
original primitive Methodism of the times of Wesley was, by no means, without doctrinal errors
and practical mistakes, just as little as the Herrnhutianism and pietism of the same time, still it
greatly excells the camp-meeting Methodism of the present age. We wonder what Mr. Wesley
would say in beholding a camp-meeting as they are now in vogue. He surely would’nt guess
them to be what they are intended for. Perhaps he would take them to be a fair of the same kind
as they were customary in the preceding century. We feel assured that he would shrink from
believing that they were really a fruit of that tree grown out of that seed he had planted a century
ago. —
In the course of the camp-meetings there will be a great deal of nervous excitement and
prostration, and, nevertheless, no physician will be called to attend upon the patients. There will
be faintings, shrieks, convulsions in countless numbers, and still more countless numbers of
would-be-faintings, imitation-shrieks and artificial convulsions. We have an idea that, among the
number of converts, the nervous excitable temperament will greatly prevail. — After campmeeting time has passed away and the cold is about setting in, a great many converts will be
affected by it and become—backsliders, principally because their so-called conversion was due
to the heat and nervous excitement.—In the same time, the “managers” of the camp-meeting will
report a net profit of so and so many times 10 cents. Moreover it will take them several hours to
figure up the number of converts whose names are all put down in ledgers kept with the neatness
and exactness of a bank-account. No use to calling attention to the cures declaring that “the Lord
knoweth the hearts” and “them that are his”—None of those converts are hypocrites. No, those
bank-accounts are correct and—indisputable.—But what is all this to Lutherans? They do not
attend camp-meetings, much less take active part in them.—And do they really decline to take
stock in camp-meetings? All Lutherans? No, not all of them.—But are they really Lutherans,
justly entitled to the Lutheran name?—They think they are. They call themselves Lutheran in the
constitution of their church, and it says so on the cornerstone, and everybody calls them
Lutherans, in spite of their outspoken preference for camp-meetings. Why, would you call them
Methodists? No, it’s an established fact with them, “they are Lutherans and—facts are stubborn
things.” AUGUSTUS. [[@VolumePage:1,105]]
THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL
MONTHLY.
Vol. 1. October 1881. No. 6.
(For the “Theological Monthly”.)
What does St. Paul Eph. 1. 3—14. teach of the Eternal Election of God?
The doctrine of election, as it is presented and defended in this Monthly, is the doctrine of the
Lutheran Confession. The 11th Article of the Formula of Concord, which treats of the election or
predestination of the children of God to eternal life, has been repeatedly mentioned in this
periodical. We Lutherans, however, derive all the doctrines solely from the Holy Scriptures. The
Word of God is with us the norm and the source of doctrine. Now the doctrine of election as held
by us is revealed in the holy Scriptures in words so distinct as not to be liable to be
misunderstood. It is for this reason that in this article of our faith also we are certain, joyful, and
confident. Any Christian who knows to handle the Scriptures and to judge spiritually, is enabled
by the Scriptures to decide whether things are as we teach and confess. We shall, therefore,
successively present to our readers the principal passages of the Scriptures which treat of
election, and we beseech them to make the trial and allow the thoughts of the Apostle, i. e. the
thoughts of the Holy Spirit, to exert their power on their own minds. For the present we direct
their attention to that section of the Epistle to the Ephesians, which is repeatedly cited also in the
11th Article of the Form. of Conc. It is the following:
Eph. 1. 3—14.: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us
with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as He hath chosen us in Him,
before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in
love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to
[[@VolumePage:1,106]]Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the
glory of His grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the Beloved: In whom we have
redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace;
wherein He hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; having made known unto us
the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure, which He hath purposed in Himself:
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times He might gather together in one all things in
Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in Him: In whom also we have
obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all
things after the counsel of His own will: That we should be to the praise of His glory, who first
trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of
your salvation: in whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of
promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession,
unto the praise of His glory.”
This introduction of the Epistle contains a praise of God. All these verses are subsumed under
the first words in [[V.,3: >> Eph 1.3]] “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
The Apostle Paul blesses the God and Father of Jesus Christ, and by such blessing he exhorts the
readers of the Epistle to join in the blessing, and together with him praise God. He unites himself
with his readers, with all Christians, for whom, indeed, the Epistle is designed, by using the
expressions “We,” and “Us,” which pervade the whole section. At its close he in particular
addresses those Christians who were converts from the heathen, by using the word “ye,” [[V. 13.
>> Eph 1.13]] For what reason, for what benefit, ought all the Christians to bless the God and
Father of Jesus Christ? For this, that God has blessed them “with all spiritual blessings in
heavenly places in Christ,” [[V. 3.b. >> Eph 1.3]] These abundant and complete, spiritual and
heavenly blessings earned for us and mediated by Christ, in what do they consist? This is shown
by the Apostle’s setting them forth in particular throughout the whole section. The [[succeeding
verses >> Eph 1:4ff]] contain the theme announced in [[V. 3. >> Eph 1.3]] The Apostle above all
things praises the grace, the richness, [[@VolumePage:1,107]]the glory of the grace in Jesus
Christ. In Christ we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, we have been
made accepted in the beloved. This is stated in [[Verses 6.b. and 7. >> Eph 1.6-7]] In these
spiritual blessings we have obtained in Christ, there are, besides, according to [[Verses 8—12.,
>> Eph 1.8-12]] included all wisdom and prudence, and the knowledge of the mystery of the
reconciliation of the whole world through Christ. The Apostle then proceeds to remind the
Christian converts from the heathen in particular of their call and conversion, of their having
heard the word of truth, having believed, and having been sealed with the Holy Spirit, [[Verses
13. 14. >> Eph 1.13-14]] The call through the Word, the efficient call, and faith, its effect, are
also constituent parts of that spiritual and heavenly blessing. Finally the Apostle in these last
verses mentions the future perfection of the Christians, their inheritance and glory; which,
indeed, is the final cause of the preaching of the gospel, called for that very reason “the gospel of
your salvation”; and which is, indeed, “the end of our faith,” i. e. the obtaining of the everlasting
inheritance. The Apostle, then, in this section, describes the whole salvation in Christ, all
salvation in time and eternity, mentioning every essential part of this salvation. Generally
speaking, it is all the blessings of Christianity for which he praises God, and for which he exhorts
his readers to praise God.
Now it is in this connection that the Apostle emphatically directs the Christians to mark their
eternal election and predestination, [[Verses 4—6.b. >> Eph 1.4-6]] He says: “God hath blessed
us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as He hath chosen us in
Him before the foundation of the world.” In Christ we are blessed in time with all those spiritual
blessings which are consummated in eternal salvation, according as He hath chosen us in Him
from eternity. That in time we have been made partakers of, the Apostle derives, as we see, from
an eternal act of God as from its source. That we are so abundantly blessed has not happened
perchance, but in accordance with, and by virtue of, an eternal decree of God, His eternal
election, which in these very blessings we Christians possess in all their abundance, has been
made manifest. God, the Father of Jesus Christ, has now, at this very
[[@VolumePage:1,108]]time, executed what He had decreed from eternity; He has, at this time,
delivered to us those good things, He had appointed for us from eternity. This is evidently the
sense of the connection of the two statements concerning the present blessing, and the eternal
election of God. The Apostle, in being about to describe with thanks to God the riches of the
divine blessings in which his readers together with him have become partakers, meets at once
with a thought that could arise in the soul of one or the other of the Christians. It is this: “What
then, if these riches of the divine blessings, all this glory of Christianity, were nothing but mere
appearance and deception, a nighty phantasm? Perchance all these things are transient and
casual, vanishing as swiftly as they have suddenly and unexpectedly fallen into our lap?” Such
thoughts and doubts the Apostle Paul obviates, assuring the Christians by setting forth to them
the blessings of Christianity, that they are eternal, stable, and trustworthy things warranted to us
by an eternal act of God, by His eternal election. From the eternal election of God, therefore, do
come and flow, according to the teaching of the Apostle, all the single blessings, the good things
of salvation enumerated in this section, forgiveness of sins, justification (we are made accepted),
all wisdom and prudence, the call through the gospel, faith, eternal salvation, and glory.
These truths which are incontestably resulting from the connection of the sentences and
thoughts, the Apostle, besides, testifies by direct declarations. In [[Verses 4—6.b. >> Eph 1.4-6]]
he states the final cause of the eternal election and predestination of God. We are chosen in
Christ “that we should be holy and without blame before Him (before God) in love;” we are
predestinated “unto the adoption of children to Himself,” “to the praise of the glory of His
grace.” This then was the object God had in view in that eternal election and predestination; we
should once through faith become His children, be holy and without blame before Him, walk in
love, and praise and bless the glory of His grace here in time and finally in eternity. For this very
object, consequently unto that very state we have come to now, in time, we have been elected.
God has from eternity chosen and predestinated us in Christ [[@VolumePage:1,109]]unto the
adoption of children, unto justification, unto sanctification, unto salvation; and in consequence
thereof, and in accordance with it, we have now, in time, obtained His grace, have been made
accepted, have been called through the gospel, have been made believers, have been endowed
with diverse spiritual powers, and are waiting for the heavenly inheritance which is confirmed
unto us through the Holy Spirit. All that God in time has done to us, and is still doing, exactly
corresponds to the object of His election. Hence the eternal decree of election is carried into
effect in our call, conversion, justification, &c. God now executes in us His eternal thoughts and
purposes.
Now the Christians are exhorted to give thanks to God, the Father of Jesus Christ, for both,
that on the one hand He has bestowed on them such rich grace and blessings, and on the other
hand that the blessings conferred upon them, the grace they met with, repose on a firm and
immovable foundation, on the eternal election and predestination of God.
This is a brief statement of the subject-matter of the Apostle’s rich and precious hymn. If we
collect what results from it in reference to the doctrine of election we obtain the following
sentences:
1st, The election or predestination of God was made “before the foundation of the world,”
consequently from eternity, it is, therefore, an eternal and unchangeable decree of God.
2nd, The ground of election is solely “the good pleasure” or mercy of God, and the merit of
Christ, inasmuch as we are chosen “in Christ.”
3rd, We are elected and predestinated “unto the adoption of children, unto sanctification, unto
love, unto the praise of the glory of the grace of God” (which is consummated in eternity), and in
correspondence to this decree we are, in time, called through the gospel, made believers, are
made accepted or justified, endowed with spiritual gifts, wisdom, &c., and made certain of the
eternal inheritance. Hence the eternal election of God is in truth a cause of our salvation and of
everything that pertains to it, of our call, our conversion, our justification, our faith, and our
sanctification.
4th, Christians ought to be glad and certain of their being embraced in this eternal election.
The Apostle exhorts them [[@VolumePage:1,110]]to praise God for it as for some good and
certain thing. Only for indubitable gifts and mercies God can be praised.
Mention may be made, besides, of the fact, that the conception of choosing involves the
particularity of election. An “election of all” is a contradictory notion. The Apostle in this
section, however, omits taking notice of the separation which is posited with election, and of the
way and manner of this separation, and addresses the believing Christians on this wise, that he
presents to them all the comfort of election, and exhorts them all to give thanks for having been
chosen. We Christians, therefore, according to the will and intent of the Apostle, according to the
will and intent of the Holy Spirit, shall include ourselves in the number of the elect, without in
any way inquiring into the mode and ground of this separation, but consider it self-evident that
we, too, are chosen, since we, too, have heard and accepted the gospel of our salvation, and see
the spiritual blessings in heavenly things manifested unto us. This is the right way of thinking
and speaking of the election of grace, to immediately apply everything pertaining to it, to
ourselves, to our own persons, and stop at the grateful consideration of the great mercy imparted
to our own selves.
It is evident that the doctrine and opinion of our opponents declaring that God had first
foreseen the faith of some men, and then on the ground of this foreseen faith had elected unto
salvation those who believed, have no hold at all in the Scriptural passage considered. They
rather directly contradict the plain words of the Apostle. According to the Apostle Paul’s
doctrine all the blessings of Christianity, consequently faith, too, ([[V. 13. >> Eph 1.13]]) flow
from the eternal election. According to the Apostle Paul we are predestinated unto the adoption
of children, hence assuredly unto faith also, by which alone we are children of God. But if faith
is an object and consequence of election, it can not only not be the ground of election, it can in
no way precede it. The Apostle Paul knows of no third ground of election beside the two named,
God’s grace and Christ’s merit, a ground supposed to exist in man; on the contrary, he exhorts
those who have obtained God’s grace to give the honor to God alone, and to sing the praise of
the glory of His grace in time and eternity. G. ST. [[@VolumePage:1,111]]
(“For the Theological Monthly.”)
Election and Persevering Faith.
MATTH. 24. 24.
In the [[24th chapter of St. Matthew >> Mt 24]] our Lord describes the times preceding the
destruction of Jerusalem and of the Universe as being full of dangers to the soul. [[“Many shall
come,” He says, “in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many. >> Mt 24.5]] [[Many
false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of
many shall wax cold.” >> Mt 24.11-12]] Hence His repeated exhortation: [[“Take heed that no
man deceive you. >> Mt 24.4]] [[Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ or there;
believe it not. >> Mt 24.23]] [[If they shall say unto you, Behold He is in the desert; go not forth;
behold He is in the secret chambers; believe it not.>> Mt 24.26]] Behold I have told you before:
[[He that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. >> Mt:24.13]] [[Watch, for ye
know not, what hour your Lord shall come.” >> Mt 24:42]]
In order to show how great the dangers to the soul will be, in order to awaken His Christians to
so much the greater vigilance, Christ in the [[24th verse >> Mt 24.24]] says: “There shall arise
false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it
were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”
By these words Christ teaches us, as we will now endeavor to show, that the elect cannot be
deceived and led astray unto the end, but will endure unto the end; and that the reason or cause
why they cannot be thus deceived, but endure unto the end, is to be sought not in God’s
foreknowledge of their perseverance as depending on them and only foreseen by God, but of
God’s election to perseverance decreed by God.
1. Christ in speaking of the elect evidently does not speak of all men for whom He suffered
and died, many of whom never walk the narrow path to heaven. Nor does Christ speak of all
believers, many of whom, as He teaches in the parable, believe for a time only. Christ speaks of
those men whom, before the foundation of the world, God elected in Christ, whom our
confessions describe as the good and beloved children of God, and concerning whom we are
taught: [[@VolumePage:1,112]] [[“Many are called, but few chosen.” >> Mt 22.14]] Adopting,
for argument’s sake only, the distinction so firmly adhered to by our adversaries, we would say:
Christ here speaks of the elect whom God embraced in His election, taken in the narrow or strict
sense.
Now Christ teaches that the signs and wonders of the false Christs and false prophets will be
so great, as to deceive the very elect, if it were possible. What does Christ mean? Would he teach
us that the elect cannot even for a time be deceived, seduced, and led astray into sins and errors?
Indeed not; although the Calvinists make such deductions from Christ’s words. Our Lutheran
Church has ever maintained the Scriptural truth, that even the elect may for a time be seduced by
the devil, the world, and their own flesh into sins and errors, so as to wholly fall away and to
wholly cease to be children of God. David became an adulterer and guilty of murder; Peter
denied Christ; all the Apostles for a time erred concerning the doctrines of the kingdom of
Christ, and of His death and resurrection. Christ would rather teach us that, though the elect may
be led astray for a time, yet they cannot be seduced in such a way as to be lost forever. In this
24th chapter of Matthew “to be deceived” and “to endure unto the end” are contraries, as appears
from [[Verses 11—13.: >> Mt 24:11-13]] “And many false prophets shall rise and deceive
many… But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.” Hence Christ teaches in
our passage, that even the elect would be deceived unto the end by false Christs and false
prophets, if it were possible. But this is not possible. This is the import of the words of Christ.
Although the clause “if possible” is used in the Scriptures in such connection as to indicate a
possibility,10 yet in our passage the connection clearly shows that an impossibility is to be stated,
an impossibility concerning which St. Paul triumphantly exclaims Rom. 8. 35—39.: “Who shall
separate us,” that is, God’s elect ([[V. 33. >> Rom 8.33]]), “from the love of Christ? shall
tribulation or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? … Nay, in all
these things we are more than [[@VolumePage:1,113]]conquerors through Him that loved us.
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor
things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature” including false
Christs and false prophets, “shall be able to separate,” or seduce “us,” or lead us astray, “from
the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Accordingly our Lutheran Church has ever
taught, that the elect cannot fall away unto the end.
We have good reason to believe that our adversaries agree with us up to this point. Indeed, if
they did not, they would suddenly find themselves outside of the “good company” of which they
boast so much. But will they agree with us any longer, as we now proceed?
2. Christ says that it is not possible that the elect be deceived unto the end. Why is this not
possible? Does Christ indicate any reason or cause? He does, in calling them that cannot be
deceived unto the end, the “elect.” He might have described them as “His sheep,” as He does
10
The clause “if possible” occurs repeatedly in the Scriptures (see Matth. 26. 39. Acts 20. 16. Rom. 12. 18. Gal.
4. 15.) and its sense varies according to the connection in which it is used.
John 10. 28.: “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give unto
them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand;”
or—if our adversaries’ interpretation of Rom. 8. 29. were correct—He might have described
them as “those whom God foresaw as persevering in faith”: but Christ deliberately chose the
word “elect,” thereby intending to indicate the cause or reason why they cannot be deceived.
They endure unto the end, because they are elect.
It is by no means an uncommon thing to indicate a cause or reason without the use of the
words “for,” “because,” and the like. A cause or reason may be stated in an independent
sentence. Thus we read Numb. 23. 19.: “God is not a man that He should lie; neither the son of
man that He should repent: hath He said, and shall not do it? or hath He spoken, and shall not
make it good?” Answer: Indeed He will do what He hath said, and make good what He hath
spoken. Why? Because “God is not a man, neither the son of man.” Here, then, a reason is stated
in an independent sentence.—The same mode of stating a reason may be found Mark 2. 17., and
John 21. 17. In the latter place we read: [[@VolumePage:1,114]]”He (Jesus) saith unto him
(Peter) the third time: Simon, Son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because He said
unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto Him, Lord, Thou knowest all things;
Thou knowest that I love Thee.” Evidently Peter meant to say this: Thou knowest that I love
Thee; for Thou knowest all things.—In a depending clause also a cause or reason may be stated.
Such is the case Ps. 94. 9.: “He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the eye,
shall He not see?” Answer: Indeed, He shall hear, for He planted the ear; He shall see, for He
formed the eye.—And then a cause or reason may be stated in one single word, as occurs very
frequently in the Proverbs of Solomon. In the following passages the words mentioned are used
emphatically, stating a cause or reason: Prov. 10. 1.: wise, foolish; [[14. 16.: >> Prov 14.16]]
wise man, fool; [[14.15. >> Prov 14.15]] [[22. 3.: >> Prov 22.3]] prudent, simple; [[28. 11.: >>
Prov 28.11]] rich; [[3. 32—35.: >> Prov 3.32-35]] froward, righteous, wicked, just, scorners,
lowly, wise, fools; [[12. 10.: >> Prov 12.10]] righteous, wicked; Matth. 9. 13.: righteous, sinners;
John 9. 31.: sinners, worshipper. St. Paul says 1 Tim. 1.17.: “Now unto the King eternal,
immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.” Why does St. Paul
use so many epithets in this sentence? By each new epithet he wishes to state a new reason why
honor and glory shall be to God. Honor and glory be to Him for ever and ever, because He is
King, He is eternal, immortal, invisible, He is God, the only wise God.—Of the Lamb we read
Rev. 5. 11, 12.: “I heard the voice of many angels… saying with a loud voice: Worthy is the
Lamb that was slain” (one word in Greek), “to receive power and riches, and wisdom, and
strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing.” Why is the Lamb worthy to receive power, and
riches, &c.? Because it was slain; as shortly before ([[v. 9. >> Rev 5.9]]) the four beasts and four
and twenty elders sang in their new song, saying: “Thou art worthy to take the book and to open
the seals thereof; for thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by Thy blood out of every
kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.”—Isa. 49. 15. the Lord says: “Can a woman forget
her suckling child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb?” Indeed not,
for the very reason, that it is her suckling child, the [[@VolumePage:1,115]]son of her womb.—
Finally, the word “elect” is used with particular emphasis and in such connection as to let it state
or indicate a reason or cause. Luke 18. 7, 8. Christ says: “And shall not God avenge His own
elect which cry day and night unto Him, though He bear long with them? I tell you that He will
avenge them speedily.” And why? Because they are His own elect.
And in the same manner the epithet “elect” is used in our passage with particular emphasis to
state a cause. “There shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and
wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” But the elect
cannot be deceived. Why not? What is there that so distinguishes the elect from all other men,
believers and unbelievers, that while all others may be seduced and certainly will not be found
believers at the end of their lives or of the world, these elect not only will not, but even cannot be
seduced unto the end? Are they by nature better than other men? No indeed; with the Apostle St.
Paul, Eph. 2. 3., they must and do confess: “We were by nature the children of wrath, even as
others.” Or having been converted, are they in any way in themselves better than other believers?
Is their conversion, repentance, faith different and better in kind than that of other believers who
are deceived and lost? Such a doctrine has its foundation neither in Scripture nor in the
confessions. By nature they are like all other men; and as believers, their conversion, repentance,
and faith is not more truly such than that of those who believe for a time only. And yet the elect
cannot be deceived, their faith endures unto the end, while all other believers are deceived and
lost? Even so. What, then, constitutes the difference between them and all others? This one fact,
that they are elect. And although the fact that the others are not elected is not the reason of their
fall and damnation, for of that they themselves are the cause: yet the fact that the former are
elect, is the cause of their enduring unto the end, of their persevering faith. The elect cannot be
deceived. Why not? Because they are elect.
3. But let us now ask: In what respect is the election of the elect the cause of their persevering,
rendering it impossible [[@VolumePage:1,116]]that they should be deceived? Some have
answered: The elect cannot be deceived, because God, foreseeing their enduring faith, elected
them; thus resting the impossibility of being deceived upon the foresight of God. But, pray, is the
mere foresight of God an efficient cause of what is foreseen? God foresaw the fall of man and all
sins of all men, is His foresight a cause of all these evils also? No, God’s foresight does not
cause that which it foresees. Hence it has been said: Christ does not mean to teach that it is
impossible that the elect should be deceived, but this only, that they certainly will not be
deceived; as if Christ had said: The elect, however, will certainly not be deceived, because,
concerning them, God foresaw their enduring faith, and God’s foresight cannot fail. Is it
necessary to show at length how erroneous this interpretation is?
Our Lord evidently points in these words to the great powers of deception that will be exerted
in the times He speaks of, and against which no wisdom, strength, or holiness of man are able to
prevail. Even the elect who are provided with the whole armour of God so as to be able to
withstand in the evil day, should then succumb, but for the one thing that they are the elect, that
they are by divine grace predestined from eternity to receive the end of their faith, the salvation
of their souls. This election and predestination unto persevering faith, which, of course, includes
the use of the means of grace, render their final deception impossible. God’s foreknowledge
should have seen the elect finally fall away also, had He not made them His own, and decreed
their eternal salvation through enduring faith. Deny this and suppose that God’s election does not
import a predestination to persevering faith, that it excludes any act of God except His seeing
and knowing beforehand what will happen in future; suppose that election was made in regard to
persevering faith being only foreseen by God in some men who solely on this account are God’s
elect: what revelation is then to be derived from those words of Christ? They then contain either
the suggestion of a doctrine which is rejected by the whole Scripture, that with some men mere
human power is, indeed, able to withstand even the greatest temptations; or the trifling truism
that with [[@VolumePage:1,117]]some men, called the elect, final deception is impossible for
the simple reason that it is a fact foreseen that they will not be deceived. But why will they not?
Because perchance those great temptations will never approach them at all. In this case our Lord
is made to exhort such only as will fall away and perish. Will the context allow such an
explanation? Decidedly not. But suppose that in considering election in its bearing upon the
persevering faith of the elect we were bidden by the divine word to abstain from thinking of any
cause effecting this faith, and to be satisfied with the statement of mere futurity as far as this is
revealed to us from the store of divine foreknowledge; suppose that it is against God’s will for us
to know of any cause of this faith whatever, as some seem to maintain in the interest of the
theory mentioned: what then must be our sacred duty to do, when we are reading passages of the
Bible, like that in John 10. 28—30.? It reads: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my
Father’s hand. I and my Father are one.” We are in that case demanded to believe that Christ, in
mentioning the fact that the Father is greater than all, in connexion with His declaration that the
sheep given Him by the Father shall never perish, spoke inadvertently as to God’s will to leave
us in the dark concerning the cause of their never perishing, hinting so distinctly, as He does, at a
power against which nothing, no thing included in His “all,” is able to prevail. He cannot,
therefore, be one with the Father. Thus this theory of election “in foresight of faith only” is apt to
lead us to a direct denial of the truth of the gospel. Christians, however, know from the divine
word that the cause of persevering faith is God’s election and predestination unto such faith. And
for this reason it is impossible for the elect to be deceived so as to be lost.
Disregarding, then, such interpretation and laying proper stress upon every word spoken by
our Lord, we come to this conclusion: The elect cannot be deceived, but they endure unto the
end, because God elected them, predestinated them, decreed to save them. Nothing but that act of
God, whereby He elected His children, predestinated them to life, ordained
[[@VolumePage:1,118]]them to salvation, decreed to bring them to, and preserve them in, faith
unto the end, will do full justice to the words of Christ. We persevere in faith and cannot be
deceived unto the end, because God, in electing us, has decreed to preserve us in faith unto
salvation. (To be concluded.)
General Religious Intelligence.
THE IRISH PRESBYTERIANS have banished organs, violins, and all Instruments of music from
their sanctuaries.
POPE LEO XIII. has retired from journalism, his paper, the “Aurora,” having been suspended
after costing him several hundred thousand dollars. Thus, afterall, the papal “Aurora” proved to
be an Aurora borealis.
REV. DR. KENDRICK, Baptist, one of the American revisers of the New 'Testament, is being
severely criticised by some of his brethren for giving cooperation, indorsement, and moral
support to the new translation of Revelation 19. 13., where it reads of Christ that He is arrayed in
a garment sprinkled with blood. In the authorized version the word used is “dipped,” and this
word the Baptist would retain. —
THE AMERICAN BOARD’S TRAINING SCHOOL at Kioto, Japan, opens its spring term with twenty
seven in the theological class, more than half of whom pay their own expenses or are supported
by native Christians. The following strange story is told of the effect of the Christian gospel
among a lot of Japanese prisoners: A few months ago a fire broke out in the Japanese prison at
Otsee, where 100 prisoners, instead of trying to escape, helped to put out the flames, and to a
man, remained to undergo the rest of their sentence. Why was that? Mr. Neesoma, the educated
Japanese preacher and teacher gave some copies of the Gospel to the keeper, and he not caring
for them, gave them to a scholar convicted of manslaughter. He believed the record God had
given His Son and taught the rest; and by his personal influence and their own Christian principle
they were restrained.
CAPT. E. MORGAN, President of the American and Foreign Bible Society —a Baptist
organization—has engaged Dr. Thomas J. Conant, of Brooklyn, to make a complete revision of
the old Testament. Dr. Conant, one of the American revisors of the new version recently
completed, has four years more in which to complete the Old Testament. For this work he
receives $25,000 from Capt. Morgan. Each book will contain an introduction giving its object, its
divine authority and inspiration, its composition, unity of plan, division, and on the bottom of
each page are explanatory notes, designed to take the place of a condensed commentary. They
are not intended to be exegetical, but only to furnish such occasional hints as seem necessary to
the intelligent reading of the passage. The work is not intended to be an independent translation,
but only a revision of the common English version. The familiar phraseology of the King James’
version will be identical, where the true sense of the Hebrew text does not seem to make
necessary a change. When completed the book, with the plates and copyright, will be presented
[[@VolumePage:1,119]]to the American and Foreign Bible Society. It is needless to remark that
Dr. Conant is a member of the Baptist denomination.
FROM REV. B. H. BADLEY’S paper contributed to the “Independent”, in which he shows the
progress of mission work in India since 1871, we quote the facts which follow: Of foreign
missionaries in that country, including professors in mission colleges (who labor among nonChristian youths and are bona fide missionaries, although not always so counted), there are now
689 (representing 32 missionary societies), an increase of 67 since 1871. Of this number England
with 244, Germany with 131 and the United States with 117, have the majority. Other countries
are represented as follows: Scotland, 67; Ireland, 19; Canada, 17; Wales, 15; Switzerland, 13;
Sweden, 10; Denmark, 5; Norway, 4; France, 2; Russia, 1; Holland, 1; Belgium, 1; West Indies,
1; while no less than thirty are sons of missionaries, born in India,— the Scudders, Newtons and
others—a very significant fact. The remaining 11 were born here of European descent. Of these
689 missionaries, one, the Rev. George Pearce of the English Baptists, has been a missionary in
India upward of fifty years. He arrived in 1826, and in the fifty-five years has been absent on
health furlough but ten years. Since 1705 there has been but one missionary who has put in a
longer term of service. This was the Rev. J. P. Rottler of the Early Danish Society, who arrived
in 1776 and died in 1836, after laboring sixty years. Sixteen have labored upward of forty but
under fifty years; 33 from thirty to forty; 100 from twenty to thirty; 179 from ten to twenty; 360
under ten years. There are now 389 native missionaries, a gain of 164 since 1871. There has been
a gain of 52 per cent, in the number of native Christians, the total number in 1880 being 340,623.
Besides these native Christians there are thousands of adherents, people who are almost
Christians, in various stages of education and of nearness to Christ. One mission alone counts
upward of 3000 of these. In the South India Missions there were in 1878 no less than 127,000. At
present in all India there are at least 150,000 of these unbaptized Christians. The fact that many
villages are petitioning the missionaries to send them teachers and preachers shows how the
leavening influence is at work. The baptisms tell only a part of the progress made. The following
table shows at a glance the progress of Christian missions in India during the past thirty years:
Foreign missionaries
Native missionaries
Native Christians
Communicants
1850.
339
21
91,092
14,661
1861.
479
97
138,731
24,976
1871.
622
225
224,253
52,816
1880.
689
389
340,623
102,444
The receipts of missionary, educational, and publication societies reported at the May
anniversaries in London make a grand total of $8,686,195 against $8,640,625 last year. The
combined receipts of the, principal foreign missionary societies were $3,388,805. For colonial,
Jewish and other missions, $800,940 was received; for home missions, $1,967,715; for religious
educational objects, $402,115. ALPH.
DOES THE SUN MOVE? The Rev. Johnson, of Canada, has lately been lecturing at New York
City, his theme being: “Does the Sun Move? or, the Science of the Heavenly Bodies, and the
Revolutionary Powers of the Earth and Sun.” He holds that the revolutionary powers of the earth
are nothing, and that the sun is, as it appears to be, really revolving. [[@VolumePage:1,120]]
A GENUINE “NEW DEPARTURE.” A certain Mr. Ludlow, Clerk of the District Court of Seattle,
W. T., is building a “Gospel ship,” to be used exclusively for gospel work along the coast of
Washington Territory, British Columbia, and Alaska. She will be provided with a good library
and a portable cabinet organ, and will carry a tent capable of holding 200 persons, so that
services can be held at short notice, even in the midst of the remotest wilderness. She is designed
to be the means of overcoming the difficulties hitherto experienced by the missionaries, on
account of the isolation of the people of those North Pacific coasts.
HONORARY DEGREES AND D.D.’s. One of the subjects which came up before the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, lately convened at Cincinnati, O., was a resolution
to oppose the practice of the majority of the 360 colleges of our country, to confer the degree of
Ph. D. honoris causa without examination. This proposal was zealously supported by Professor
John Williams White, Professor of Greek, Harvard University, he being the delegate of the
American Philological Society, held at Cleveland, on the 2nd of July. The speech which he made
in favor of the resolution in question contains some remarkable points. It is on this account that
we give our readers a brief extract from the same. Prof. White said: “It fills one with melancholy,
Mr. President, to see to what a pass we are come in this country with our honorary degrees…
There are, sir, in the United States, 360 institutions of a collegiate grade… It is a matter of
surprise to see how large is the list which our unchecked “ingenuity” (i. e. in conferring degrees)
has contrived to devise. The most of us, doubtless, have seen the catalogue of that great producer
of a new light, Neophogen College, in Tennessee, … with the endless degrees, and I, myself,
remember … that the President of a college, not 150 miles away from where we are now sitting,
once told me with a face shining with pride, that his college gave seventeen different degrees.
One of these, I remember, was M. P., which on interpretation meant, not Member of Parliament,
but Master of Penmanship.” Then the Professor comes to speak about the D. D., which a great
many institutions are so profusely liberal in conferring. He continues: “We all know, ladies and
gentlemen, the bad odor into which the degree of D. D. has fallen among us, and that other
degree, which means the same thing, S.P. D., which, if the favor into which it has recently been
growing in this country could be investigated, would perhaps prove to be an attempt on the part
of the clergymen to escape the odium attaching to the D. D.” Evidently Professor White, so
openly acknowledging that, as matters now stand, the title of D. D. is in “bad odor,” an odium
attaching to the same, is not in for conferring D. D. upon any one who shows some ability in
reading a sermon, compiling a lecture, or preparing a short thesis based upon and chiefly
consisting of the intellectual property of others. He deserves credit for his sound views as well as
for the frankness with which he expresses them in rather unmistakeable language. There is no
doubt that Prof. White’s opinion will exert a widely felt influence towards curtailing the number
of honorary degrees, and especially of D.D.’s, annually conferred preeminently by such
institutions which imagine this as adding to their “literary achievements,” believing their general
character and scientific standing to be elevated in direct proportion to the number of LL. D.’s and
D. D.’s they have bestowed on both excellence and mediocrity. AUGUSTUS.
[[@VolumePage:1,121]]
THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL
MONTHLY.
Vol. 1. November 1881. No. 7.
(For the “Theological Monthly.”)
What does St. Paul Rom. 8. 28—30. teach concerning Election?
Ephes. 1. 3—14. and Rom. 8. 28—30. are universally recognized as the principal sedes
doctrinae concerning the article of Election. A careful consideration of the latter passage will
lead us to the same result that we gained from Ephes. 1.
In the second half of the 8th chapter of the epistle to the Romans the Apostle comforts the
Christians concerning the sufferings of this present time, and, in particular, points to their future
glory. In this connexion St. Paul says [[“We know that all things work together for good to them
that love God,” >> Rom 8.28]] i. e. to the true Christians. He desires it to be understood that the
sufferings, too, work to the Christians for good, for their salvation and glory. He adds “to them
who are the called according to his purpose;” or “since they are the called according to his
purpose.” The believing Christians are called in consequence of a firm purpose of God, and what
God has determined upon as an end and object to be accomplished, must unfailingly be
accomplished and realized. It is evident that we Christians are called to an everlasting glory, this
is the end and object also of the purpose of God; this purpose has already begun to be realized in
our calling and conversion, and will also unfailingly be carried out to the end proposed. And
since this is sure and certain, nothing, cross and sufferings not excepted, can divert or restrain us
from the salvation we hope for; on the contrary, all things work together for that salvation
[[@VolumePage:1,122]]which God has designed for us and warranted to us in advance, and to
which He has called us. These are the thoughts briefly comprehended in [[V. 28. >> Rom 8.28]]
It is but natural, however, that the reader expects some distinct explanation of the pregnant
expressions “purpose” and “called according to purpose.” In response to this expectation the
Apostle subjoins the sentences contained in [[VV. 29. 30. >> Rom 8.29-30]] The correct
understanding of both the first part of the first sentence and the structure of the whole depends on
the signification of the word “foreknow.” In the disquisition of this whole passage the most
direct and momentous question is this, What does the Apostle intend to say in beginning this new
sentence with the words “whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the
image of his Son?” The verb “to know,” in the Greek, ginoskein, in the Hebrew, jadah, originally
and in the first place undoubtedly signifies “to have mental cognition of,” it denotes an
intellectual act. Hence this foreknowing of God may mean an act of His prescience. But again, it
is an incontestable fact, a fact never contested before until some days ago, that in the Holy
Scriptures the Hebrew jadah and the Greek ginoskein frequently, and especially when predicated
of God, signify an effective, a loving cognizance of, a cognizance coupled with will and
operation, a conscious act of the will. The expression “God knows this or that person” has in
such cases no other sense than this, that God by His cognizance causes the person He takes
cognizance of, i.e. to whom He directs His loving sight, to be in some certain relation to Himself,
to be in communion with Himself, that He thus causes a person alien from Himself to be one
who is His own, His possession. When, e. g., God said to Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the
belly I knew thee (jadati); and before thou eamest forth out of the womb I sanctified (separated)
thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations,” Jerem. 1. 5., that “knowing” mentioned
here is universally understood to involve the fact that God had chosen Jeremiah unto Himself
even before his birth to be His prophet and preacher. When God, Amos 3. 2., says to Israel “You
only have I known (jadati) of all the families of the earth,” it cannot be understood in any other
[[@VolumePage:1,123]]way than that God had chosen Israel of all nations unto Himself for His
peculiar possession. When in the New Testament Christ, John 10. 14. and passim, gives His
disciples the assurance, that He knows those who are His, a cognition in love is meant according
to the understanding of all the interpreters of the Scriptures. In Gal. 4. 9. the Apostle Paul
describes the conversion of the Galatians in these words “But now, after that ye have known
God, or rather are known of God.” Through God’s knowing those who once were aliens from
God, the true knowledge of God was wrought in them, they were made nigh unto God, they were
made God’s own. In 2 Tim. 2. 19. the Apostle speaks of the foundation of God which standeth
sure, having this seal “The Lord knoweth them that are his.” Hence because God knoweth them
that are His, their salvation is sure. Only an act of God’s will, in virtue of which God has chosen
us unto Himself, not the mere knowledge of God concerning any quality of ours whatever, can
give us such assurance. That in these and other passages of the Holy Scriptures that “knowing”
predicated of God is to be understood to denote a nosse cum affectu et effectu, i. e. a knowing
joined with affection and love, with operation and effect, is a fact recognized by all the
interpreters of the Scriptures at all times, the dogmaticians and exegetes of the 17th century to
whom our present opponents are wont to appeal, not excepted. When they, our present
opponents, now deny this usage, and thus reject the rules of language, and grammar, and lexicon,
we can only say, there is no disputing with minds rambling and blinded.
Since, then, the Holy Scriptures repeatedly signify an affectionate and efficient cognition by
the use of the Greek word ginoskein, as well as the Hebrew word jadah, proginoskein or “to
foreknow”, when predicated of God, may mean God’s causing those to whom His cognition was
directed, to be in some relation to Himself, His appropriating them, His choosing them unto
Himself, in advance, in eternity. An act of the will, a predestination, may be connoted by the
word. In the four passages of the New Testament, Rom. 8. 29. being excluded, in which
foreknowing is affirmed of God, this latter signification is, indeed, demanded by the context. In
[[@VolumePage:1,124]]Acts 2. 23. the Jews are said to have crucified Christ, who was delivered
by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. It is evident that the reason which
determined God to deliver His Son can be found only in a decree of God, not in a mere
foreknowledge of future facts whatever. In 1 Peter 1. 20. St. Peter says of Christ, that God
“foreordained” (foreknew, the word proginoskein is used) him as a lamb, as the redeemer, before
the foundation of the world, and manifested him in these last times. The sense is evidently this,
that in eternity God predestined Christ to be the redeemer, and in time manifested Him as such.
Only predestination and manifestation, not mere mental precognition and manifestation can here
reasonably be conceived as set over against each other.—In Rom. 11. 2. St. Paul writes of Israel
“God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.” This conveys the sense, Whatever God
foreknew, He cannot possibly cast away. Only an eternal act of God’s will, not a mere
precognition renders the casting away impossible.—Finally in 1 Peter 1.2. the “fore-knowing of
God” is found in close connexion with the expression “to elect.” Peter in addressing the
Christians says, ye are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father;” that is, It being
God the Father who foreknew you, chose you for His possession, ye have become elect. If a
mere mental precognition of God the Father was meant, no one could find any distinct sense in
the addition, since no syllable indicates what it was that God had mental cognition of in order to
determine His election, what character or quality of the elect it was that He was aware of in
particular, when this foreknowledge induced Him to elect them.
There is a great probability resulting from the preceding examination, that in the passage Rom.
8. 29. the “foreknowing of God” is of the same import as in the four other passages; i. e. that it
signifies an eternal purpose of God’s will. That it may be thus understood cannot be gainsaid.
The context, however, renders this signification a necessary one. From this our verbal
disquisition which seemed indispensable, we now again enter into the sphere of thoughts
comprised in Rom. 8. 25—30. In [[V. 29. >> Rom 8.29]] we read “Whom he did foreknow, he
also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his [[@VolumePage:1,125]]Son, that he
might be the firstborn among many brethren.” The first words “whom he did foreknow” convey
a sense complete in itself and descriptive of the object of the assertion “he did predestinate.” The
words constitute an objective sentence, which must in itself contain a complete sense. If we
adopt the signification “to have mental precognition of” we obtain either a false sense, or none at
all. Either all men are understood to be those whom God foreknew, for God, indeed, foreknew
everything without any exception, or setting aside this trivial thought we must at once acquiesce
in finding nothing at all to think of in these words. If nevertheless we endeavor to obtain from
these words or give them any tolerable sense whatever it be, we are forced to add a thought
which is not contained in the words of the Apostle. In this way “faith”, or even “love to God” has
been added in thought as the object of precognition, and the passage has been translated thus:
“whom he foreknew as believers, or as those who love God.” A perilous game, however, it is to
make additions to the Bible by way of correction, and according to pleasure, in order to find in it
what we like to read in it. No word in the Bible should then be clear and sure. The clause “whom
he did foreknow” does, indeed, convey a logical sense, and a sense contained in the very words
of which it is composed, only in case of its being understood to mean “whom he did preordain
unto himself, choose beforehand unto himself for his possession.” Hence the Apostle says,
Whom God did foreknow, i. e. from eternity did choose unto Himself for His possession, He also
did predestinate, once to bear in glory the image of His Son. He then continues saying “And
whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and
whom he justified, them he also glorified.” All those, therefore, whom God chose unto Himself
in eternity, and predestinated unto salvation, He also calls in time, He also justifies, and He
finally also glorifies. The one follows and results from the other. What God from eternity
purposed in Himself to do, He also accomplishes in time. That God in eternity chose us
Christians, and predestinated us unto glory, and now in time called and justified us, and thereby
warranted to us the future glory, both these facts united constitute the
[[@VolumePage:1,126]]evidence of the truth, that all things work together for good to them that
love God, to us Christians, and that sufferings also work for our salvation. In the sentences [[VV.
29. 30. >> Rom 8:29-30]] the Apostle only explains more distinctly the thought pronounced by
him briefly in the words “since they are called according to his purpose.” We who now love
God, were chosen by Him from eternity unto Himself, and predestinated unto glory. He has
purposed in Himself to glorify us after our sufferings, and this purpose he effects through His
calling and justification unto the accomplishment of His last end and object. And because God
has purposed this in Himself, and effects it unfailingly, our sufferings cannot hinder it; on the
contrary, our sufferings must aid in the realization of this eternally predetermined end, they must
work for good to us. This is the clear and lucid connection of the thoughts set forth in the passage
before us. The whole argumentation of the Apostle would fall away into nothing, if the first
clause in [[V. 29. >> Rom 8.29]] were intended to convey the sense of a mere precognition of
faith. In that case the whole counsel concerning our salvation together with its execution would
depend on something that God foresaw in us. How could Christians then be of good comfort in
their sufferings? How can they in their temptations be sure of their future glory, since they do not
know whether they will abide in faith? That is known to God alone. And this dark point is the
very thing on which all other things depend.
To conclude, we collect as a result from the Scriptural passage examined the following brief
statements concerning Election.
1. God has from eternity chosen us unto Himself for His possession and predestinated us to
glory. This is His firm purpose which cannot fail.
2. From this eternal election flows and results necessarily our calling in time, our conversion,
faith, justification, and finally our glorification.
3. This eternal purpose of God and its accomplishment in time can not be shaken and hindered
by anything, by any cross and sufferings, by any power of earth or hell. On the contrary, all
things must work together for good to the beloved and elect children of God.
[[@VolumePage:1,127]]
4. For this reason we Christians can and ought to be perfectly sure of our future salvation and
glory, and comfort ourselves with this truth in the sufferings of this present time.
Woe to them that rob the tempted and afflicted Christians of this sure comfort! G. ST.
(For the “Theological Monthly.”)
Election and Persevering Faith.
MATTH. 24. 24.
(Concluded.)
4. Now let no reader be frightened by the hue and cry of “Calvinism.” This is not Calvinistic
heresy as long as our Lutheran confessions are in accordance with the Word of God, and not
denied with Calvinism. This very doctrine we find clearly stated in the Formula of Concord. Let
the reader but carefully and without prejudice read the following passages taken from our
Symbol.
In the [[Epitome of the Formula of Concord, p. 583, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:5]]
we read: “But predestination, or the eternal election of God, pertains to the good and beloved
children of God alone” (in the [[Decl. of F. of C, p. 711, >> BookOFConcord:Formula:SD:xi:5]]
we read: “does not pertain both to the good and to the bad, but only to the children of God, who
were elected and ordained to eternal life, before the foundation of the world”)—evidently
election is here understood in the narrow or strict sense, as our adversaries term it—”and it,” this
election in the “strict sense,” “is a cause of their salvation, which is His work, and for which He
provides all that is appropriate to it. Upon this predestination”—that is, election in the “strict
sense”; or are our adversaries about revolutionizing grammar so as to teach that the pronoun “it”
does not denote that predestination which is named before?— “their salvation is so firmly
founded, that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it. John. 10. 28. Matth. 16. 18.” What does
the F. of C. teach in these words? This most assuredly: Because the good and beloved children of
God are predestinated, therefore the gates of hell cannot prevail against their salvation; or using
the words of our Lord, John 10. 28., [[@VolumePage:1,128]]which passage the F. of C. cites:
Because the good and beloved children of God are predestinated, therefore no man shall pluck
them out of Christ’s hands; or using the words of our Lord in our passage: Because the good and
beloved children of God are predestinated, there/ore it is not possible that they should be
deceived, however great may be the signs and wonders shown by the false Christs and false
prophets. What Christ says concerning the dangers threatening the elect and coming from the
gates of hell, Matth. 16. 18., or coming from man, John 10. 28., even the same He says
concerning the dangers arising from false Christs and false prophets. And as the gates of hell and
no man shall prevail against the salvation of the elect, because they are predestinated of God; so
also shall false Christs and false prophets be unable to seduce the good and beloved children of
God, because they are elected or predestinated of God.
In the Declaration of the [[F. of C, p. 714, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:23]] we read:
“And in this counsel, purpose, and ordination God has not only prepared salvation in general, but
has mercifully considered all and each person of the elect, who will ultimately be saved through
Christ”—election in the “narrow sense”—”has elected them, and DECREED THAT in the manner
now mentioned, HE WILL through His grace, gifts, and operation bring them to this salvation,
assist them in it, promote it, and STRENGTHEN AND PRESERVE THEM.” God has elected the elect,
and decreed that He will strengthen and preserve them. And this election of persons, embracing
this decree to preserve them, is, as the [[F. of C. says, p. 712, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:8]] “the cause which procures, works, facilitates, and promotes
our salvation and whatever pertains to it,” hence persevering faith also, “and upon this our
salvation is so firmly grounded that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Neither shall the
false Christs and false prophets be able to deceive the elect, these cannot be deceived, for they
are elect, and God has decreed that He will strengthen and preserve them.
And thus our perseverance in faith and the impossibility that the elect should be deceived, is
made to rest upon the eternal election of God, [[F. of C. Decl. p. 718. sq.: >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:45]] “Thus this doctrine” of election, “also affords the eminent
and [[@VolumePage:1,129]]precious consolation, that God took so deep an interest in the
conversion, righteousness, and salvation of each Christian, and so faithfully provided for them,
that before the foundation of the world, in His counsel and purpose (in illo arcano suo propositi,
as it is given in our Latin F. of C.) He ordained the manner in which He would bring me”—
election in the “narrow sense,” see [[p. 714, sect.: >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:24]] And
in this counsel, &c.—”to salvation and preserve me there; again, that He wished to secure my
salvation so truly and firmly, that in His eternal purpose, which cannot fail or be overthrown, He
decreed it, and to secure it, placed it in the omnipotent hands of our Savior Jesus Christ, out of
which none shall pluck us. John 10. 28. For if our salvation were committed unto, us, it might
easily be lost through the weakness and wickedness of our flesh, or be taken and plucked out of
our hands, by the fraud and power of the devil and of the world. Hence Paul, Rom. 8. 28, 35, 39.,
says: ‘since we are called according to the purpose of God, who shall separate us from the love
of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.’” What are we taught by these words? This: In His
counsel and purpose (in illo arcano suo proposito), or in election and predestination—for these
words are constantly used as synonyms in the F. of C.— God ordained the manner in which He
would bring me to salvation or faith, and PRESERVE me there; in His eternal counsel He, to
secure the salvation of the elect, placed it into the hands of Christ. Therefore, God having in the
election of His children decreed and provided for their persevering in faith, and God having also
in His eternal counsel put the salvation of the elect into the omnipotent hands of Christ—
therefore it is impossible that they should be deceived, led astray, and lost.
And finally the F. of C. says, [[p. 727: >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:90]]”And thus this
article affords to troubled and agitated minds the surest consolation,” particularly in times of
great spiritual dangers, as they are described Matth. 24., “since thereby they know, that their
salvation is not intrusted into their hands, else they would lose it much more easily than Adam
and Eve lost it in Paradise, and that, too, every hour and moment, but that”—and this is the
consolatory reason why they cannot lose it, cannot be seduced, but will endure unto the end—”it
depends on the [[@VolumePage:1,130]]gracious election of God, which He has revealed unto us
in Christ, out of whose hands no man shall pluck us. John 10. 28. 2 Tim. 1. 19.”
Our salvation depends on the election of God; we need not be harassed by doubts on account
of the weakness and wickedness of our flesh, or on account of the fraud and power of the devil
and of the world. God has in His election decreed to preserve us unto the end, He has therefore
put us, His elect, into the hands of Christ, whence no one shall pluck us; and hence it is
impossible that the elect should be deceived even by the great signs and wonders of the false
Christs and false prophets. The good and beloved children of God endure unto the end and
cannot be deceived—because they are the elect.
(For the “Theological Monthly”.)
Dr. Walther once and now.
Professor M. Guenther, of St. Louis, Mo., has testified to the following facts: 1st, that when he
yet sat at Prof. Walther’s feet in the class room, he heard him teach, one should not say: I am
elected because I believe, but: I believe, because I am elected, election therefore precedes faith;
2nd, that the sermon for Septuagesima Sunday which is found printed in Prof. Walther’s Postil
since 1871 and which contains the so-called first tropus, was delivered by him in 1852, and 3rd,
that the manuscript of a still older sermon, of 1843, contains the same doctrine of predestination
which he now teaches. Lehre und Wehre, vol. 27, p. 157. Rev. J. A. Huegli, of Detroit, Mich.,
has testified that Prof. Walther, in his academic lectures, twenty five years ago, delivered to his
students—Rev. Huegli being one of their number at that time —no other doctrine of election
than he is now teaching. Ibid., p. 142. This, then, was in 1856.
We had thought that, in regard to these matters, Prof. Loy had also received better information
from Prof. Stellhorn, his colleague, who, too, was once one of Dr. Walther’s pupils, than to be
able to write concerning Rev. F. Kuegele: “We fear his memory fails him when he asserts that he
learned his doctrine when a student at St. Louis.” Luth. Standard of
[[@VolumePage:1,131]]Aug. 20th. But the fact that Prof. Stellhorn, in 1858 (over 22 years ago)
and in 1864 (over 17 years ago), learned the doctrine of predestination of Dr. Walther as it is
taught by the Missouri Synod, has, it seems, been heretofore concealed from him. Of late, Prof.
Stellhorn has, indeed, turned out to be an incomprehensible being to us. When it is asserted in the
Columbus Theological Magazine that Dr. Walther once dictated the second tropus as his
doctrinal position, Prof. Stellhorn has not only nothing to say against, but even indicates his
agreement with, the false charge by writing, among other things, the following: “A friend of
Prof. Loy’s thereupon communicated to the latter a dictation of Dr. Walther, showing that about
fifteen years later” (that is, ten years ago) “Dr. Walther had not yet taught so” (as he does now).
Luth. Standard of Aug. 6th. And in the Columubs Magazine he writes that “the new light has
suddenly risen in St. Louis”, in “the latter decades of the nineteenth century”, p. 208.
After the death of the blessed Prof. A. Biewend, which occurred April 10th 1858, Dr. Walther
instructed the whole Concordia gymnasium, which was then yet at St. Louis, in the catechism.
The ten commandments had been catechised on by Prof. Biewend. Dr. Walther continued where
the latter had left off, and, towards the end of the year, he catechised on the doctrine of election
in the third article according to Dietrich’s catechism. The writer of this article who was then in
the second class (Secunda), whilst Prof. Stellhorn was in the fourth (Quarta), begs leave to
produce, not from memory, but from his notes taken down at the time, the following sufficient
evidence to show that Dr. Walther has not in the least changed his position relative to the
doctrine of election, but that he is the same man in theology in regard to this point that he was
over 22 years ago, at least. He, for instance, said that the answer to Q. No. 321 in Dietrich stated,
first, that election of grace is an “act of God”, then, that it is “a voluntary act”, then, that it is “no
unconditional act”; he said that “not a condition of election”, but “a description of the elect”
was given in the words: “all those who shall perseveringly believe in Christ”, and that the answer
finally pointed out the “ultimate end” of election, which is “the [[@VolumePage:1,132]]praise
of His glorious grace”. Further notes make Prof. Walther say the following: “The Calvinists say
God elected a few, but as He did not know how to get them to heaven, He decreed to send His
Son.”—”Election is the cause of the faith” (of the elect). “Right! God Himself gives faith.” In
the catechisation on the words: “All things work together for good to them that love God” (in
Rom. 8. 28—30., under Q. No. 322), he said: “When an elect sins, that also must work for good
to him. If any one is not elected, neither good nor evil will be of avail to him.” “It flows from
God’s mercy (Erbarmung) alone that He elected some.. God is incomprehensible, not only in His
nature and works, but also in His decrees. When the Calvinists cannot comprehend what God
does, they cast a goodly portion away, and God is made to be a hideous God, and a liar and cruel
tyrant. Many errors are connected with the absolute decree, viz.: that Christ did not die for all
men, that grace is irresistible, &c.” Speaking of the elect who continue in faith unto their end,
Prof. Walther said: “God did not elect a person (einen) on account of faith, but a person always
continues in faith because God elected him.” In regard to answer to Q. No. 323, Dr. Walther
said: “The two first” (“the boundless mercy of God and the infinite merit of Christ”) “are the
only causes, but the third” (“persevering faith in Christ”) “and what belongs to the same, are the
means.” “As this decree (2 Tim. 1. 9.) was made before the world began, there can be no word
said about merit or works.” “The Calvinists say ‘world’ signifies the elect. 1 Tim. 2. 4. Here it
says ‘all men’. They assail the word ‘saved’” (in the sentence: “who will have all men to be
saved”), “saying it is God’s will that all men should have a good life (living) here; but that is not
so. 1 Tim. 2. 5-6. The most beautiful in this passage is when it says at last: ‘to be testified in due
time.’ Those who are damned are also purchased by Christ. They (the Calvinists) cannot get over
this passage. Not only God’s will to save and the redemption are universal, but the call is also
universal and earnest. Rom. 10.18. Col. 1. 6, 23.” (These passages which are not cited in
Dietrich’s catechism, were especially added by Prof. Walther.) “The apostles did go into all the
world, and we are the [[@VolumePage:1,133]]gleaning only.” He said with reference to Luke
19. 41.: “If election were absolute, He would have had to elect all in like manner as He also calls
all. If the Calvinists show us a person that has been elected without faith, we will believe our
doctrine is wrong. They are correlates: what God decreed in eternity, and: what He accomplished
in time. The hymn in our “Large Treasure of Prayers”, which begins with: “Welch’ eine Sorg’
und Furcht soll nicht bei Christen wachen und sie behutsamlich und wohlbedaechtig machen!
Mit Furcht und Zittern, heisst’s, schafft eurer Seelen Heil, wenn kaum der Fromme bleibt, wie
denn der suend’ge Theil!”—was praised up to us as a “splendid hymn”. To Q. 327, he said: “The
Calvinists say, if one has once been converted he will be saved; then conversion itself is trusted
in.—God’s will in the decree to save us, is unchangeable.” To Rom. 8. 38-39. (under Q. No.
310): “For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life… shall be able to separate us from the love
of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord”;—Prof. Walther said: “Here perseverance is spoken
of. He (the apostle) says ‘us’, and thus lays it into the mouth of the Christians to make them
certain.” In the notes remaining which do not seem so important for the present, not a word is
said to the contrary of what the notes here given contain, nor does any note contain anything
peculiar to the so-called second tropus.
In the theological seminary at St. Louis the dogmatical textbook used was Joh. Guilelmi Baieri
Compendium Theologiae Positivae. In regard to the doctrine of conversion (see Baier, Part III,
cap. IV, § 38) Prof. Walther said: “Musaeus” (whom Baier follows) “has a wider notion of
conversion than Calov, one that easily leads to Synergism,” from which it is plain that Prof.
Walther, at that time already, did not entirely approve of Baier’s mode of presenting the doctrine
of conversion. In the locus on justification (see § 9.) Prof. Walther again signified his
disagreement with Baier in the mode of presenting the doctrine, by saying: The dogmaticians
have their systems which are for the most part built up of causes and effects. They therefore also
give faith the name of a cause. But I cannot approve of this. Faith is the God-given hand with
which universal justification is received by the [[@VolumePage:1,134]]believer. When we
students commenced to study the doctrine of predestination, according to Baier, in the beginning
of the year 1863, Prof. Walther said to us: I do not quite agree with Baier’s presentation of this
doctrine. You will yet receive this doctrine of me in the Formula of Concord. But, in order that
we might know the contents of Baier’s locus on this doctrine and become acquainted with his
mode of presenting the same, we committed the paragraphs (without the notes attached) to
memory and recited them in class. To some paragraphs Prof. Walther dictated notes of his own,
which, with one exception, are citations from our Lutheran fathers. The note forming an
exception reads thus (under § 2.): “Formula Concordiae non tam latius accipit has voces (sc.
praedestinationis et electionis) quam monet, necessario et semper, si de electione et
praedestinatione meditamur, plus quam hoc considerandum esse, Deum quosdam elegisse, ne
desperemus aut securitati indulgeamus.” (That is: The Formula of Concord does not take these
words [predestination and election] in the wider sense, it rather teaches that if we meditate on
election and predestination, more must necessarily and always be considered than this, that God
elected some persons, lest we despair or indulge in security.) Among other citations under § 15.,
Prof. Walther gave us one from Olearius in which reference is had to Dr. Luther’s preface to the
epistle to the Romans. The writer of this has on the margin of his manuscript: “Cf. Altenb. Test,
ad Rom. 9.,” which was undoubtedly read to us by Dr. Walther, as such references were
generally, without hardly a single exception, read to us and further enlarged upon by Dr.
Walther, as my class-mates will bear witness. The next citation, under the same §, is from
Quenstedt and reads, as far as we need it here, as follows: “Antithesis: I. Calvinianorum . .
Dordraceni: ‘Electio facta est non ex praevisa fide’” (signum interrogations). “Molinaeus: ‘Deus
non elegit nos ex fide, sed ad fidem’” (signum interrogationis). That is: Antithesis: I. of the
Calvinists . . Those of Dort (say): Election was not made by reason of foreseen faith (mark of
interrogation). Molinaeus (says): God has elected us not by reason of faith, but to faith (mark of
interrogation). Dr. Walther dictated these marks of interrogation. Why? Because by so doing he
signified to [[@VolumePage:1,135]]us students his disagreement with Quenstedt, who here, as
far as the words themselves are concerned, but not as far as they are considered in connection
with the Calvinistic system, rejects the biblical and Lutheran mode of presenting the doctrine of
predestination. Prof. Walther undoubtedly expressed himself further on the subject, which,
however, the writer of this no longer recollects.
In 1863, Prof. Walther taught his students, one of whom Prof. Stellhorn was, the doctrine of
predestination according to the 11th article of the Formula of Concord. According to the notes
taken down at that time by the writer of this article, Prof. Walther said, among other things: “In
the superscription of this article” (which reads: “Von der ewigen Vorsehung und Wahl Gottes,
De aeterna praedestinatione et electione Dei.”) “Vorsehung is to be understood only of the elect.
Vorsehung and Versehung is one and the same thing, which is seen from the Latin.” “By
Vorsehung the decree to elect some to salvation is understood. It is secondly taken in the
signification of praescientia (see the Latin in the affirmative No. 2.” “The first four Theses” (in
[[the affirmative of the Epitome >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:2-5]]) “are an epitome of the
whole doctrine of predestination. Here Determinism (Fatalism) as well as Pelagianism is
rejected. The Calvinists make no distinction between praescientia and praedestinatio. Vorsehung
(praescientia) is a wider notion than election, according to No. 3, because it extends to the good
and bad. Seeing before is the knowing, on the part of God, of future objects. He predestinates
with the will. Luther never identifies praescientia and praedestinatio. [[Augsb. Conf., Art. 19. >>
BookOfConcord:AC:I:19]] [[Apology, Art. 19. >> BookOfConcord:AP:19]]” When it is said in
No. 4, that “predestination is a cause of their salvation,” Prof. Walther taught us that “this is
opposed to the Pelagians and Semipelagians and Arminians.” He added: “Since Aeg. Hunnius
until Baier and Hollaz, the expression: ‘Predestination is a cause of our salvation’, was not
retained. It was taught that faith is the cause.—Hence, faith is something human.”—When it is
further said in No. 4, that God “ordains what pertains to the salvation” (of the children of God),
Prof. Walther said: “Hither final faith belongs.” The “πρόϛκαιροι” (those believing for a time
only) are “not included.” “[[Augsburg Confession, Art. 5.: >> BookOfConcord:AC:I:5]]
[[@VolumePage:1,136]]‘In order that we may obtain this faith, God instituted the ministry, gave
the gospel and the sacraments, by which, as by instruments, He gives the Holy Ghost, who works
faith where and when He wills in those who hear the gospel which teaches that we have a
gracious God through Christ’s merit, not through our merit, if we believe it’.” Dr. Walther
dictated the following: “Calvin writes: ‘Decretum quidem horribile, fateor; infitiari tamen nemo
poterit, quin praesciverit Deus, quem exitum esset habiturus homo, antequam ipsum conderet, et
ideo praesciverit, quia decreto suo sic ordinarat.’ [[Instit. lib. III, c. 23, § 7. >> cicr:Institutes III,
xxiii, 7]]” (That is: Calvin writes: I confess, the decree is horrible indeed; yet no one will be able
to deny that God foreknew what end man would have before He created him, and that He
therefore foreknew it because He had so ordained it in His decree.) Prof. Walther said: “This is
Determinism, Fatalism.” He, then, dictated: “Spener writes: ‘Yet, election is not the cause that
such persons remain constant in faith, but, because they will remain constant, this made it (hat es
gemacht) that the Lord elected them. See Katechismuspred., p. 355.” Prof. Walther said this was
“Arminian.” He here also embraced the opportunity of speaking of Pelagianism, and finally said:
“Man is saved by grace alone.” “It is asked: Who knows whether I am predestinated? This God
has wisely withheld from us; but we know it indirectly. Christ is the book of life, He is the way,
the truth, and the life. If I want to know whether I am predestinated, I go to Christ. Every
Christian should be certain of his election, but not absolutely so that he might think he may now
wallow in sin, etc., and yet be saved. A Christian says: I am also in the book of life, in Christ, or
else God would not have given me faith; but with trembling I must take heed lest I fall. ‘We are
elected in Christ,’ is opposed to the Supralapsarians, who assert that God has, without prevision
of the fall, elected some to salvation, the others to damnation.” When it is said in [[No. 7 of the
affirmative, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:8]] God is in earnest that all men should come to
Him, the notes of the writer of this article let Prof. Walther say: “They (the Calvinists) say God
calls the ones not earnestly, the others He calls by irresistible grace.”—”Gracious election is
God’s decree by which He, in Christ, by grace, [[@VolumePage:1,137]]destined some to eternal
life.—The number is irrevocably fixed.” —”Causa interna impulsiva = God’s will; causa externa
impulsiva = Christ’s merit.”—”Whenever we read in the Scriptures that men resist, this is always
an evidence that God is not the cause of damnation. Indeed, there could be no resistance, if God
did not work in the hearts of men.” The fourth antithesis in [[the Epitome >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:20]] reads: “Again, that not the mercy of God and the most holy
merit of Christ alone are the cause, but that there is also a cause in us, of God’s election, on
account of which God elected us to eternal life.” Prof. Walther said: “We turn this antithesis
entirely upside down, so that gracious election is the cause of faith and election.” We were then
shown Gerhard’s position, and the following words were dictated from his locus on election:
“By no merits of men, by no worthiness of the human race, no, not even by the prevision of good
works or faith was He (God) moved to elect certain ones to eternal life, but this is to be ascribed
entirely to His unowed and immense grace alone. Eph. 1. 6. Rom. 11. 5, 2 Tim. 1. 9.” Vid. loc.
de elect, decreto.—No notes on the eight points. We students were shown that “the epistle to the
Romans treats in the first three chapters of sin, in the 4th of grace, in the 5th and 6th of the fight
against sin, in the 7th and 8th of the cross, in the 9th, 10th, and 11th of predestination.” The notes
further say: “Before a person comes to the doctrine of predestination, he is already certain of
salvation; but the doctrine of predestination then serves to render us certain that we shall
overcome all hindrances.” “Here” (on [[p. 712 in Mueller’s edition >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:38]]) “it is shown that private absolution is directly opposed to
the Calvinistic doctrine of absolute predestination. Therefore the sects do not want private
absolution.” “Predestination is, indeed, the cause of salvation and of faith, but not of sin. A
man’s sin, indeed, damns him, but his goodness is not the cause of his being saved.” “Many
things which we are not to know, God has not revealed. Compare here the example of a child and
(higher) mathematics, or: if a maggot found in cheese wanted to dispute with us.” To § 64. in the
Declaration: “The secret decree is in accordance with the one revealed; but, of course, we do not
know all as yet. By the execution of the eternal decree we may best
[[@VolumePage:1,138]]know the decree, e. g., that of redemption.” To §§ 65. 66.: “The Father
has predestinated us to eternal life, the Son has acquired salvation for us, the Holy Spirit brings
us to the salvation acquired, He glorifies Christ.” To § 71.: “Here it is shown that by
predestination the way to salvation by repentance and faith, is not annulled.” “The call is the
offering of the spiritual powers to believe.”
The above plainly shows, not only that Prof. Walther never taught a different doctrine of
election at St. Louis from the one he now teaches, but also that it is not exactly in accordance
with the truth when Prof. Loy writes in the Col. Theol. M., p. 157: “This accords too with his
(Dr.Walther’s) own statement, made in the presence of many witnesses, that while he years ago
held the doctrine which he now teaches and defends, he did not formerly inculcate and expound
it, but only slightly touched it.” A worthy writer for the “Lehre und Wehre”, taking “inculcate”
in the sense of “stark treiben”, did, indeed, concede the point in one of his articles for that
monthly, but what Dr. Walther may have said “in the presence of many witnesses,” was
undoubtedly of a different character from how it is represented in the “Magazine.” The
translation of his German words may be faulty, also. Whoever knows how Dr. Walther works
when he teaches doctrine at all, will admit that he cannot help “inculcating and expounding” the
same. It is just that to a great extent in which his mode of teaching consists.
But how about his dictations? Prof. Loy writes: “But it is not reasonable to suppose that what a
teacher dictates is what he does not teach, and that what he merely cites or remarks without
dictating is what he really teaches and expects his students to believe and to teach. The
manuscript will necessarily be more authoritative than the memory.” Col. Theol. M., p. 157. By
this Prof. Loy shows that he has wholly mistaken the character of Dr. Walther’s dictations. In
Concordia Seminary the Latin dogmatical text-book mentioned above, was studied by us
theological students paragraph by paragraph together with the notes attached. Wherever the book
contained anything with which Dr. Walther did not agree, he told us, giving his reasons which, in
the writer’s opinion, were always [[@VolumePage:1,139]]to the point, without rendering the
book hateful to us. After we had recited a portion from memory in the class room, Prof. Walther
dictated the contents of the separate paragraphs to us and gave additional notes wherever he
deemed it necessary. Although a goodly number of paragraphs remained without such additional
notes in our manuscript, the contents of all the paragraphs were nevertheless dictated, in order to
preserve the text-book complete in our manuscript in some form or other, as far, at least, as the
paragraphs went. Therefore it occurred that even the contents of some paragraphs in which Prof.
Walther did not agree with Baier, were in some form or other dictated to us. Some are in the
form of a single heading, as, for instance: “Subjectum Quo conversionis;” others have the form
of an indirect question, for instance: “Quanam ratione lex et evangelium conveniant?”—others
still are in the form of an Accusativus cum Infinitivo sentence, as, for instance: “Deum ab
aeterno voluisse ut omnes homines crederent.” Therefore, although Prof. Walther did not exactly
agree with Baier’s wider notion of conversion in § 38. of Part. III, cap. IV., he nevertheless gave
the contents of said paragraph in the following incomplete form: “Hominem in initio
conversionis mere passive, in progressu autem active se habere,” that is, that man is in a state of
mere passiveness in the beginning of conversion, but is active in its progress. Although Prof.
Walther did not agree with Baier in terming faith the less principal impulsive cause of
justification, he nevertheless dictated the contents of Part. III, cap. V, § 9. in the incomplete
form: “Causa impulsiva minus principalis.” As the contents of (not, as Prof. Loy says in the Col.
Theol. M., p. 157, “instead of”) § 9 in the locus on predestination, he dictated to the writer of this
article and his class-mates the following: “Quid praedestinationis aut electionis nomine speciatim
appelletur?” A “friend” who received his theological education at the feet of Dr. Walther, allows
it to be said by Prof. Loy that Dr. Walther dictated this paragraph in words beginning with:
“Predestinationis.” (A sentence which all agree no Latin scholar is able to construe, to say
nothing of the orthographical blunders contained in it.) See Col. Theol. M., p. 157 and 210. But
even if Prof. Walther had once, ten years ago, given [[@VolumePage:1,140]]to a class of
students the contents of said paragraph in a form similar to that in which it is quoted by Prof.
Loy, this would by no means prove that Prof. Walther approved of the sense conveyed. Thus,
also, Prof. Walther did not believe faith to be an impulsive cause of election, yet he dictated the
contents of § 15. of said locus, for the reasons given above, in the following form: “Fidem esse
causam impulsivam externam electionis minus principalem,” that is, that faith be the external
less principal impulsive cause of election. These plain facts will undoubtedly convince such as
will think. Prof. Loy may, indeed, be excused for having heretofore labored under a total
misapprehension of the character of Dr. Walther’s dictations and of his mode of teaching, but
Prof. Stellhorn who not only joins in the cry that Dr. Walther formerly taught differently on the
doctrine of election from how he now teaches, but also even sides with and defends those who
maintain that Prof. Walther dictated the so-called second tropus as his doctrinal opinion, has no
excuse whatever for his dishonorable behavior, as he is quite well acquainted with Prof.
Walther’s whole method of teaching.
C. S. K.
(For the “Theological Monthly”.)
Duties of a Beneficiary.
What the duties of a beneficiary in the Ohio Synod’s institutions are, the “Standard” of Oct.
15. tells us, when it publishes the following:
“Past. Bachmann of Evansville, Ind., being dissatisfied with the position of synod, with more
zeal than wisdom, induced his members to have all their Kirchenzeitungs, thirty-nine in number,
discontinued. This was done by a man who was a beneficiary in our institutions for years.”
Base, shocking ingratitude, indeed! Rev. B., for years a beneficiary in the Columbus
institutions, is not ashamed of being dissatisfied with the position of the Ohio Synod in the
predestinarian controversy, although its spokesmen have repeatedly told the Christian world, and
do not tire of informing the readers of the Ohio Synod’s periodicals, that the position of the Ohio
Synod is the truly Lutheran one, that the Ohio [[@VolumePage:1,141]]Synod in the question
confess “a doctrine which all our great theologians since the time of the Formula of Concord
taught”, while the “New-Missourians” (whom now “God has let fall”) hold a Calvinistic doctrine
and “parade Calvinistic arguments”. What “business” has Rev. B. to be dissatisfied with the
position of synod, he having been “a beneficiary in the Columbus institutions for years”? If there
were a grain of gratitude in his heart, he would in simple, childlike credulity take for granted
what the Ohio Synod has so unmistakably declared, viz.: “We again herewith confess the
doctrine of election, as it is contained in the Formula of Concord, and also as it has, in
accordance therewith, been always taught on the whole by the great teachers of our Church.”
Does he, the “beneficiary in the Ohio Synod’s institutions”, dare to doubt the truth of this, the
Ohio Synod’s solemn declaration? Does he not know, if the Ohio Synod declares that “its
doctrine concerning predestination is contained in the Formula of Concord, and also that it has,
in accordance therewith, been always taught on the whole by the great teachers of our church”,
that this declaration cannot but be true? Does he not know that he is guilty of base ingratitude in
doubting the truth of this declaration? Does he not manifest a most pitiable “lack either of
acumen, or of conscientiousness” in being dissatisfied with the position of the Ohio Synod?
But alas! Rev. B. is not satisfied in being “dissatisfied” with the anti-Calvinistic and antiMissourian (and anti-confessional and anti-scriptural) position of the Ohio Synod; he even so far
forgets himself and the duties he owes the Ohio Synod, a beneficiary in whose institutions he
was for years, as to induce the members of his congregation to have all their “Kirchenzeitungs”
discontinued! No doubt, “this matter requires looking into,” as the “Standard” would say. For is
it possible that the members of the Evansville charge could have been so blinded by “NewMissourian Calvinism”, as not to be aware of the inimitable excellence and superiority of the
Ohio Synod’s German organ, the columns of which are always teeming with sound theology,
deep learning, Christian polemics, and aesthetic wit (not to say anything of the beautiful, almost
classical German, which characterizes this periodical)? Every
[[@VolumePage:1,142]]reasonable Ohioan must acknowledge that this is impossible, indeed!
Rev. B. therefore, as a matter of course, has brought this sad state of affairs about, not in a fair
and Christian manner, but, “as it seems,” by “fibbing” after the example of the “Lutheraner”; he
certainly acted like the other apostate from the Ohio Synod in Virginia, by whom, as the
President of Concordia District tells us in the “Standard” of Oct. 15., “neither the new doctrine
which he holds, nor the old which the synod holds, has been fairly represented to the people.”
For if they had not “become prejudiced”, they, as a matter of course, “would have spumed” any
other doctrine concerning election, but the one of the Ohio Synod. This is self-evident! —And
just think of Rev. B.’s base ingratitude!—”THIRTY-NINE Kirchenzeitungs” he induced his
members to have discontinued!—thirty-nine Dollars less in the treasury of the Ohio Synod,
which, as the former beneficiary only too well knows, is so very frequently empty! If he were not
entirely devoid of Christian gratitude, he would at least have induced those of his members that
were dissatisfied with the Kirchenzeitung, to subscribe to the “Standard”, the English organ of
the Ohio Synod, especially now, when so many members of the Missouri Synod have their
“Standards” discontinued, because they do not “like to pay for being kicked”. This, no doubt,
would have been the plain duty of Rev. B., for, having been a “beneficiary in the Ohio Synod’s
institutions”, he knew, and if he did not know it before, even yet the last issue of the “Standard”
might have told him, that “the ‘standard’ is at present the sole English periodical in this great
land of sects and myriad showers of ‘ism’-atic papers, devotedly true to the pure and robust faith
of the Church of the Reformation, representing the positive position of the Synodical Conference
over against the shifting expediencies and inconsistencies of Pseudo-Lutheranism”; moreover, its
zeal for the truth is even so ardent that it does not hesitate to recommend to its readers all
publications directed against the Missouri Synod, even if they are written by such individuals as,
on account of scandalizing conduct, had been excluded from membership! “He handles some of
the Missouri leaders in a manner that is by no means gentle.” Only he that is lacking “either in
acumen, or [[@VolumePage:1,143]]in conscientiousness” will fail to see that this is sufficient
reason for recommending such a polyglot publication to the Christian readers of the “Standard”
which bears the beautiful motto: “Speaking the truth in love!”
Or does Rev. B. forget the duties of gratitude so far as to try to excuse his ungrateful conduct,
so unbecoming to a “beneficiary”, by pointing to those men who, although having been
beneficiaries in the Missouri Synod’s institutions for many years, have found pleasure in not
only inducing their members to have their copies of the “Lutheraner” discontinued, but also in
turning their back upon their mother-synod and in publicly and privately reviling their fathers
and brethren as Calvinists?—or by pointing even to those men who, although having been
“beneficiaries in the Missouri Synod’s institutions for years”, and although for years “eating the
bread” of the Missouri Synod, still endeavored not only to break the heart of that great and good
man, to whom, next to God, they owe whatever they know of Lutheran theology, but who also
employed the time and strength, for which the Missouri Synod paid them, in stigmatizing as
Calvinists the members of that synod whose bread they were eating at that very time? In this case
Rev. B. would again “manifest a lack either of acumen, or of conscientiousness”. Having been a
beneficiary in the Ohio Synod’s institutions for years, he ought to know: “Si duo dicunt (faciunt)
idem, non est idem!”—”Quod decet Jovem, non decet bovem!”—Sic nos, non nobis!—It is true,
these men from the Missouri Synod were also beneficiaries in that Synod’s institutions for years,
but they were, of course, in conscience bound to appear ungrateful in the eyes of that synod, by
“running it down” as best they could, for thus, in fact, they only proved true gratitude: but he,
Rev. B., who was a beneficiary in the Ohio Synod’s institutions for years, by inducing his
members to have all their Kirchenzeitungs discontinued (“thirty-nine in number!”), betrays not
only “more zeal than wisdom”, but becomes also guilty of the basest kind of ingratitude.—
Indeed, we pity the poor Ohio Synod!
A. C. [[@VolumePage:1,144]]
(For the “Theological Monthly.”)
Reasons for Suspending my Membership in the Joint Synod of Ohio and
other States.
1. At its late session in Wheeling by a resolution entitled “Our position concerning the
doctrine of Election,” passed on the 10th of September, the Ohio Synod in so far changed its
confessional basis, that, whilst it formerly confessed itself simply to the XI. Article of the
Formula of Concord it now confesses itself to the same as the Fathers explained it, i.e. in the
widest sense. From this it is evident, that the Synod does no more confess itself simply to the text
of the F. of C, but rather to the explanation of the Fathers. I hold, that the Confessions shall be
their own interpreter, and can not consent to interpret them according to theories set up in the
private writings of the Church-Fathers, as Synod has resolved, that they must be interpreted. (See
[[B. of C. 2d Ed. p. 596. Reject. 3d. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:0:19]])
2. In the same resolution Synod confesses itself to the expression used by some of the Fathers,
that Election took place “in view of faith.” Conceding that this expression can be used in an
orthodox sense I must nevertheless reject an unqualified confession to the same, because it is
neither found in the Scriptures, nor in the Confessions, and is apt to lead to errors. By the words
of the same resolution: “As in the past, so also in the future,” Synod has endorsed Synergistic
explanations of this expression, “In view of faith”, given publicly by officials of Synod, such as:
That election took place in foresight of man’s conduct towards the Gospel; that the mystery of
election is in man; that of such equally guilty the one is converted because he is disposed to hear
the Gospel, and other similar ones. These expressions manifestly imply, that man can and must
contribute something in the work of conversion and salvation, which is condemned by our
Confessions.
3. One of the reasons given for withdrawing from the Synodical Conference is, because the
Synod of Missouri had, set up a doctrine of election, which the Ohio Synod could not accept.
Now the doctrine of Missouri may be summed up in these sentences: 1. God desires and seeks
the salvation of all men; 2. those that will be lost are lost on account of their
[[@VolumePage:1,145]]unbelief; 3. those that will be saved were, before the foundation of the
world from pure grace for the sake of Christ’s merits ordained unto salvation and all that is
necessary to obtain it. I hold, that this is the doctrine of God’s Word and the Confessions of our
Church, and can not consent to condemn the truth.
4. When Synod resolved, that the doctrine confessed at its late session should alone have any
right in its Churches, it made it my duty to preach a doctrine which is false, and to that I can not
consent. F. KUEGELE.
(For the “Theological Monthly”.)
That Oath.
In the “Lutheran Standard” of Oct. 8th appeared an article under the heading: “The New
Doctrine of Election,” signed Roland (E. L. S. Tressel). The object of that article is, to show, that
the doctrine of Election as taught by the Missouri Synod is “new” in that Synod, that it is a “new
bramble-bush” planted only at “quite a recent day.” If this were the only object of Roland, to
repeat the assertion, that Missouri’s doctrine of Election were “historically” new in that Synod,
we would have nothing to say about it, because it is a pretence which has been refuted by the
periodicals of Missouri again and again. But in reality Roland’s object is something different. In
his article occur the following sentences: “To many a Missourian this doctrine is as new as to us,
although formal and solemn oath would be taken that Missouri has always taught it.” Again:
“Yet men will swear that the doctrine is not new in Missouri!”
The man, who offered to take that “formal and solemn oath” is the writer of this, and the
occurrence took place at Mill Creek Church, Grant Co., W. Va., during the session of Concordia
District in the beginning of Sept. last. In order that our offer to “take formal and solemn oath”
may not be misunderstood or misconstrued (which latter has already been attempted), we deem it
necessary to give a short statement of the occurrence. [[@VolumePage:1,146]]
The place where Synod convened is situated in the mountains some 40 miles off the Rail
Road. The Synod was, as it is generally the case in the secluded mountain districts of West
Virginia, largely attended, the lay-members of the Church having gathered in from a wide scope
of territory. We went there not expecting that the controversy on Election would be brought up at
a place, where nothing could be decided concerning it and where but few of those present knew
anything about it. But we were sadly mistaken. When the President (Roland) preached his
opening-sermon we had a presentment of what was coming, and when he read his annual report
we were perfectly undeceived. Such a master-piece of trickery and deceit we had not yet heard.
The report from beginning to end was simply an abuse of the Missouri Synod, together with an
arraignment of the undersigned as being a false teacher and having sought to estrange
congregations from the Ohio Synod. In order that we should have no influence on others we
were then and there to be put down and with us the doctrine of our Confessions.
The first sentences of the article in question are a shadow of how Roland in his report at Synod
misrepresented Missouri’s doctrine. To give the reader an idea of this we will quote them. He
writes: “It is taught by Missouri that when we consider election simply as the decree of God
whereby certain persons are chosen out of the multitude of men before others and ordained to
eternal life upon the way prepared for all men, that God made such choice without taking into
account the fact of their believing in Christ. Why God selected some and not others without
regard to faith is the great mystery to them in election.” That Missouri teaches what we have
underlined, is simply a fib of Roland’s, and that not a white, but a black one. Whether indeed he
reads the publications of Missouri or not, we are not prepared to say, but that Missouri does not
teach this he has been told time and again. Only Rolandic logic can make Missouri teach that. It
must be daring, thus: We say, God elected without being moved by any thing in man; Roland
concludes: So you say, God passed the others by. We say: Election is a cause of salvation;
Roland: So you say, God does not want all men saved. If that is not honest it is at least Rolandic,
brave, and then: stick to it [[@VolumePage:1,147]]anyhow. Misrepresentation of Missouri’s
doctrine is the nag Roland rides; that is his sword, spear, shield, buckler, and shotgun. If he
would condescend to present Missouri’s doctrine fairly he would find himself suddenly
disarmed, and then, perhaps, he would see his own naked synergism. If he thinks we are doing
him injustice we would call to his memory his talk about “spinning out.”
But our present writing concerns only a particular point of Roland’s presidential report at Mill
Creek, namely his assertion, that Missouri’s doctrine of election were a new doctrine, brought up
recently since a few years in that body. We requested Synod to grant us permission and time for
a defence against the President’s report and, after some hesitation on the part of Synod, obtained
it. Having no material at hand to disprove the assertions of Roland, except the marginal notes in
our copy of the Book of Concord, we proposed in our defense, that Synod set apart a time for an
oath to be taken, we offering to swear, that Missouri’s present doctrine of election is not new in
that body, but that we had been taught this same doctrine when a student at St. Louis twelve
years ago, and Roland might then swear, that Missouri’s doctrine of election were a new doctrine
brought up in that Synod since a few years only. The connexion, in which the offer was made,
was this, that we were not school-boys, who would swagger away at each other, not caring,
whether it be the truth, what they say, or a lie, but we wanted to be men and Christians; therefore
as the Scriptures say Hebr. 6. 16. etc. Roland did of course not accept the offer. In a latter session
the attempt was made to represent the matter as though we had offered to decide the doctrine by
an oath, but the attempt was unsuccessful. We made the offer because the circumstances were as
they were, and we would do the same to day under the same circumstances. If Roland is, we are
ready any time to go to Mill Creek Church, and to take the proposed oath. We can do so with a
good conscience.
But Roland certainly has good reasons to be “horrified” at such a proposal. Would not an oath
in confirmation of his assertion be a very uncertain thing? At Synod he indeed did produce a
letter from a class-mate of ours. But what does the [[@VolumePage:1,148]]letter say? Why,
“that Dr. Walther did already implant into us the roots of his now full-grown forest of
contradictions, called doctrine of election.” That foundation would be rather a little shaky to rest
an oath on. In his article in the “Standard” he quotes from theses presented to the Concordia
Conference of Pittsburgh and vicinity. We have never seen nor read anything of those theses
except what Roland quotes in the “Standard.” But what do those quotations show? They show,
that six years ago Missourians did not altogether set aside the phraseology of the dogmaticians,
but accommodated themselves to it. That the Concordia Conference in 1875 did not entertain
Roland’s doctrine of election is sufficiently evident even from the short quotations he gives.
When they say: “Election is the cause of faith” only Rolandic logic can infer, that those
“Missouri pastors did not teach the present St. Louis doctrine of election to faith.” That also
would be a sorry foundation to base the assertion on, that Missouri’s doctrine is “historically
new” in that body.
When Roland thinks, that the doctrine of the later dogmaticians and the doctrine of the
Columbus men are one and the same, the quotations, which he gives from thesis VIII. (of the
minutes of Cone. Conf.) should certainly show him his mistake. Those quotations show, that the
Fathers included faith in election, whilst the Columbus men exclude it from election and make it
the outside rule according to which God chose. Roland’s proof of the newness of Missouri’s
doctrine is yet to be forthcoming. F. K.
(For the “Theological Monthly.”)
Ohio’s Standpoint.
In No. 41 of the present volume of the “Lutheran Standard” a great deal of ink and paper is
wasted for rather mean purposes. The “Standard” is “published under the auspices of the Ev.
Luth. Joint Synod of Ohio and other States.” It is the official organ of the Ohio Synod and
consequently that body is responsible for the publications, and must be judged according to the
editorials and communications contained in the “Standard.” The latest articles, touching the
doctrinal [[@VolumePage:1,149]]contest and its unpleasant results, corroborate the declaration
that “God has let the Ohio Synod fall.” If any one doubted the truthfulness of this undisguised
assertion, he may be fully convinced of Ohio’s dreadful downfall, by perusing the respective
articles in the “Standard’s” edition, dated Oct. 15, 1881. Verily, that paper stoops low, very low
indeed, in its efforts to “prop up” the synergistic tenets as well as the unjustifiable actions of its
Synod. Time does not permit, neither is it worth while, to reply to every tirade delivered against
us in the issue referred to. It is a matter of fact which never can be denied—and it ought to be
kept before the reader—that the very first step our opponents in the Ohio Synod directed against
us, was neither friendly nor fraternal, but inimical, and that their warfare has been carried on in a
hostile manner. We, therefore, can not hope or expect that a word of explanation or refutation
with reference to the “Standard’s” declamations, would cause our enemies to take a moment’s
time for reconsidering their own utterances and actions. They wanted war,—wanted it very
eagerly,—for reasons known best to themselves—and now they have it and carry it on to their
heart’s content—although they blame others for it.—
To show to the reader that the Ohio Synod has fallen away from the confession of the
Lutheran church and accepted a doctrine in direct opposition to the Formula of Concord, a few
quotations from the “Standard” (No. 41.) may suffice. The Editor well knows that the Formula of
Concord confesses that “election is the cause of our salvation.” He also feels the force of these
plain words, but submit he would not. But how does he manage to reject that doctrine and
nevertheless make his readers believe, that he and his Synod did not deviate from the Lutheran
truth? He says: “The expression” (viz. election is the (a) cause of our salvation) “is strictly true,
when the definition of election given in the Formula of Concord is kept in view.” Well said,
inasmuch as these words are intended to make the reader believe that Ohio has the true definition
of election. The Editor, however, without stopping to say which is the correct definition, only
proceeds to say after this statement, that the expression “is rendered false only by imputing to the
Formula another conception than that which [[@VolumePage:1,150]]is there set forth, and we
are made to reject it only by imputing to us the acceptance of the Missouri imputation.”—The
idea! It certainly required a great quantity, and a first-rate quality of effrontery that could enable
the Editor to publish such bold-faced pervarication! Those that take the words of the Formula of
Concord as they read—without adding to or taking from the text, are the miscreants that dare to
“impute to the Formula another conception;” those that “explain” (?) by introducing foreign
opinions, are, of course, the defenders of faith and innocent martyrs, to whom “the acceptance of
the Missouri imputation is imputed!”
“When the definition of election given in the Formula of Concord is kept in view”—says the
“Standard.” A definition is an explanation of the meaning of a word or term. Now we know from
the periodicals of the Ohioans, how they explain the term election. Election, say they, must be
taken in at least a twofold sense, sometimes in a narrow, sometimes in a wide sense. Election
sometimes means the act of selecting, sometimes it indicates the counsel of grace. It sometimes
includes certain persons only, sometimes the means of grace as intended for all men, sometimes
both at the same time.
Again: election means the general call extended to the sinners, whilst sometimes it is, strictly
taken, the judicial application of the universal counsel of grace. Election, having at least a
twofold meaning, sometimes really means election, sometimes it does not; election unto
salvation, however, always means only the decree of God to save those whom in time He shall
find willing to accept His grace and to persevere in faith,—the execution of such decree being
dependent upon man’s conduct.—These are the different definitions of election, as they are set
forth and defended by the Ohioans. Now, whereas the Editor of the “Standard” alleges, that the
Ohio Synod keeps that definition in view, which is given in the Formula of Concord, we would
desire that it should please him, to point out one or more of the above definitions, in the Formula
of Concord. Where, in the Formula of Concord, is e. g. that explanation of election, that election
must be taken in a wide and a narrow sense? Where, in the Formula of Concord, do we find a
smgle sentence, that election includes [[@VolumePage:1,151]]all men, or at least all that are
called by the Gospel? Which words, or expressions, or sentences, in the Formula of Concord
convey the idea, that there be an election, which, in a stricter sense of the word, takes place in the
hour of death, or rather as soon as death has separated the soul from the body? 11
We want the “definition, given in the Formula;” we do not want any imputations, we do not
want any interpolations, we do not want any inferences based upon fallacy, sophistry or human
reason; we do not want any ifs and buts;—we want such definitions, such descriptions, as they
are said to be given in the Formula of Concord. The “definition of election” and the elect, is
there, but no unprejudiced mind, no unbiased reader will ever find such explanations there, as
they are advanced by the Ohioans. When the definition of election, given in the Formula of
Concord, is kept in view—by the Ohioans, they will teach and confess the Lutheran doctrine (as
it is taught and confessed by the Missourians ), and by promulgating the pure gospel-truth, they
will exterminate that synergistic and rationalistic leaven, which has been permitted secretly to do
its mischievous work in the midst of them.
The Editor of the “Standard” evidently was somewhat mixed up, when he wrote his opinion
about a definition given in the Formula of Concord. He mistook those divines for the Formula of
Concord, who indeed made the distinction between an election in the narrow and wide sense but
not all of them appealed to the Formula of Concord for substantiating that distinction by the
Confession of our Church. A Lutheran Editor ought to know that the “great teachers” are be to
judged and corrected by the Confession of the Church, not vice versa, and that there is quite a
difference whether we find an explanation in the Book of Concord or in the writings of “the great
fathers.”
In an editorial the “Standard” tries to refute the pure doctrine of predestination by the
following questions:—”How could any one then believe or be converted if he is not elected, and
what becomes of those whom God has not chosen and ordained to faith, repentance, and
11
Our opponents ought to name their doctrine on predestination post mortem election.
conversion? By what [[@VolumePage:1,152]]possibility could they be saved, when God was not
pleased to elect them to faith and without faith no man can be saved?”—Is it the voice of the
Ohio Synod, which resounds in these interrogations? Is there not even one member in that
Synod, endowed with sufficient intelligence and courage as to raise his voice against such
flippancy?—To say nothing for the present about the misrepresentations which are based on the
imputation that the means of grace are made efficient only by election, and which are contained
in the words quoted above, we would ask the Professor, whether he really imagines his questions
to be so many arguments in his favor? Or was he in so great a hurry that he did not find time to
reflect upon what he had written? Is he really not aware, that by proposing these questions, he
betrayed his rationalistic notions? If such questions and their expected answers—if that mode of
proposing questions for refuting a rejected doctrine—have any bearing in the present contest,
then it will be an easy matter to wipe out every article of faith, and finally there will be nothing
left except Rationalism or naked infidelity. Hume’s scepticism will carry the day and Th. Paine
will stand vindicated!—From all the “Standard,” No. 41, has to say with regard to the
controversy, it is again apparent, that the Ohio Synod finds fault with a doctrine which is taught
in the Scriptures and confessed in the 11th Art. of the Formula of Concord; hence the Ohioans
have no just cause to “grit their teeth” on account of the declaration that “God has let the Ohio
Synod fall.”
G. R.
General Religious Intelligence.
SPIRITUALISM. A Pennsylvania judge has just decided that Spiritualism is a religion, and its
exponents are entitled to all the privileges enjoyed by ministers. A medium who had been
arrested for giving exhibitions without a license was accordingly discharged.
THE SALVATION ARMY now has 245 stations against only 26 five years ago, 470 officers
against 36, and an income of $250,000 a year against $20,000. The meetings are attended by
46,000 persons a week, and there are 7000 “soldiers” who are prepared to face mobs, to speak
and to sing. It is proposed to build a great world-centre for the organization, to be called
Salvation Temple. Its erection will cost about $500,000 and it will accommodate 10,000 people.
ALPH. [[@VolumePage:1,153]]
THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL
MONTHLY.
Vol. 1. December 1881. No. 8.
The New Confession of the Ohio Synod.
This singular production, lately raised as a standard of faith, claims, in the opinion of its
authors, a careful consideration for two reasons. The first is its intrinsic value, its authors
declaring it to be “the clarion voice which has pointed out the way to find a truly Lutheran
home.” The second reason is the evidence it affords, that the Ohio synod was right in severing its
connection with that body of Lutherans which is called the Synodical Conference, and of which
that synod had been a constituent part. These reasons imply that Lutherans who disobey the call
are not true to their duty, and that such as prefer to remain in connection with the Synodical
Conference, are by this document convicted of a heterodoxy from which the Ohio synod cleared
its conscience by a withdrawal from that body. We who conscientiously deny the new confession
of the Ohio synod to be an exposition of the Lutheran faith, and therefore decline on its account
to obey that call to desert the Synodical Conference, deem it our duty to justify our position. We
shall endeavor to do so by carefully examining the new confession in connection with such other
documents as may appear to be requisite, in order to attain the exact sense, the authors intended
this document should convey, and which was authenticated by synod. The document reads as
follows:
“OUR CONFESSION CONCERNING ELECTION.
“1. If by election we understand as is done by the Formula of Concord the entire ‘purpose,
counsel, will, and ordination of God pertaining to our redemption, vocation, justification, and
salvation,’ we believe, teach, and confess that election [[@VolumePage:1,154]]is the cause of
our salvation and of everything that in any way pertains to it, therefore, also of our redemption
and vocation, of our faith and perseverance in faith. Thus understood, election precedes faith as
the cause precedes its effect.
“2. But if by election, as the dogmaticians generally do, we understand merely this, that from
eternity God elected and infallibly ordained to salvation certain individuals in preference to
others, and this according to the universal way of salvation, we believe, teach, and confess that
election took place in view of Christ’s merit apprehended by faith, or, more briefly stated but
with the same sense, in view of faith. According to this understanding faith precedes election in
the mind of God, as the rule according to which one selects precedes the selection itself, and thus
election, properly speaking, is not the cause of faith.
“3. The mystery in election consists not in this, that we do not with certainty know from the
Word of God according to what rule God proceeded in the selection of persons, but in this: (a)
That no one except God knows who belongs to the elect; (b) that we creatures are unable to
fathom and comprehend the wonderful guidance and dispensations of the grace of God towards
individuals as well as whole nations.
“4. The certainty of the individual that he belongs to the elect is, before his hour of death, a
conditional or regulated (geordnete) certainty, that is, bound to a certain condition or order;
under this condition and in this order, however, it is also infallible.”
After having accepted this confession, synod resolved:
“We again herewith confess the doctrine of election as it is contained in the Formula of
Concord and also as it has in accordance therewith been always taught on the whole by the great
teachers of our church; especially do we hold the doctrine of our fathers, that the ordination of
the elect to eternal life took place in view of faith, i. e., in view of the merits of Christ
appropriated by faith, to be in accord with the Scriptures and our Confessions; Therefore,
“Resolved, That in the future as in the past the doctrine here anew confessed be alone
authorized in our institutions, schools, publications, and churches.” [[@VolumePage:1,155]]
This confession is confined to an article which many Christians have permitted to be obscured
or perverted in their minds. Doubts have been nourished as to whether any such article is at all
contained in the Scriptures. Assertions have been made to the effect that our Lutheran
Confessions are mistaken in stating that “the holy Scriptures mention this article not only at one
place casually, but copiously treat and inculcate it in many places.” A church when it sets forth a
confession is expected to remove those uncertainties or perversions which necessitated a new
public testimony. It is a just desire by perusing the confession quoted above to learn whether in
the opinion of the confessors there is such a thing as election or predestination revealed in the
Scriptures, and if it be revealed, in what the confessors think this scriptural election to consist
and how it ought to be understood. A confessing church is fairly supposed not only to be in
possession of some certain knowledge of the subject, but to have the purpose to exhibit it clearly
and distinctly. In this respect the careful reader of the document under consideration is
disappointed. The new confession has the appearance of the arbitrament of a person solicited to
pass judgment concerning an object which is entirely unknown to him, and in regard to whose
nature and qualities contrary assertions are made which occasion some dispute. The perplexed
arbiter to conceal the straits he is in, proceeds to settle the difficulty in this way. He solemnly
declares that if the thing be what the one party say it is, it follows that it must be understood to be
such a thing as that party say. If, however, the thing be what the other party declare it to be, it
must be understood to be such as this other party say it is. And so the matter ends.
On consulting the explanations furnished by the publications of the Ohio synod this singular
arbitrament, however, gains another aspect, which will become apparent in the examination of
the statements made in the theses of the new confession.
According to the first thesis the Formula of Concord understands by election the entire
purpose, counsel, will, and ordination of God pertaining to our redemption, vocation,
justification, and salvation. Is this assertion founded on a definition
[[@VolumePage:1,156]]given by the Formula? On opening the Formula, Part 1, XI, Of God’s
foreknowledge and election ([[p. 583, New Market Ed. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi]]),
we read, that this article is consolatory when rightly handled, and that, in order that no offensive
disputation may arise in the progress of time, it is also explained in this writing. We proceed and
read: Affirmative. The pure and true doctrine concerning this article. We are then informed, that
the difference between praescientia and praedestinatio ought to be accurately observed. Then an
explanation is given of praescientia, and immediately after it the explanation of predestination or
election. The words are these: “But predestination, or the eternal election of God, pertains to the
good and beloved children of God alone, and it is a cause of their salvation, which is His work,
and for which He provides all that is appropriate to it. Upon this predestination their salvation is
so firmly founded, that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, John 10. 28. Matth. 16. 18.”—
According to this statement, then, it is wrong to say that the ordination of means for all men is
election, or a part of election, for election is said to pertain only to the children of God.—
According to this statement it is wrong to say that the election or predestination of the children of
God is not a cause of their salvation, or that they could obtain salvation without election. For as a
cause election is said to be that without which their salvation can not be. And since the elect are
saved only by true and persevering faith, this faith cannot be without election. For if it were, the
elect would be saved without election, election in that case being no cause of their salvation,
which is denied by the statement above. Hence it is wrong to say, that election is not a cause of
the faith of the elect.—According to this statement it is wrong to say that anything the elect do
will save them, for all that is appropriate to their salvation is provided by God, the salvation of
the elect being His work.—According to this statement it is wrong to say that election is
inoperative, does not produce effects until the death of the elect, for according to the statement
above, election renders vain all the attempts at prevailing against the salvation of the elect in the
time of grace.—In this simple statement the Formula of Concord plainly declares what it
understands by election. It [[@VolumePage:1,157]]is the predestination of those persons whose
salvation God in the time of grace works out by providing everything appropriate to it, so
operating in and for them that they are finally saved.
We now direct our attention to the words of the second part of the Formula of Concord. This
part is distinctly asserted to be “a solid, plain and perspicuous repetition and declaration” of
what is more briefly stated in the first part. With these words it removes all suspicions of
correcting, modifying, complicating, or making intricate the plain statements of the first part. It
only repeats them with such additions as may serve to more fully understand them. And so we
find it also in the article of election. To state more fully what is meant by the words of the first
part: the eternal election or predestination of God, it adds: “that is, the ordaining of God unto
salvation.” To state more fully what is meant by the words of the first part: the good and beloved
children of God, it says that election “does not pertain both to the good and to the bad, but only
to the children of God who were elected and ordained to eternal life before the foundation of the
world, as Paul, Eph. 1. 4-5. declares: ‘He has chosen us in Christ Jesus, and predestinated us unto
the adoption of children.’” To state more fully what is meant by the words in the first part: and it
is a cause of their salvation etc. it says: “the eternal election of God not only foresees and
foreknows the salvation of the elect, but through His gracious will and good pleasure in Christ
Jesus, is also the cause which procures, works, facilitates, and promotes our salvation and
whatever pertains to it; and upon this our salvation is so firmly grounded that ‘the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it,’ Matth. 16. 18. For it is written: ‘Neither shall any pluck my sheep out
of my hand,’ John 10. 28. And again, Act. 13. 48.: ‘And as many as were ordained to eternal life
believed.’” There is no need of showing in particular that all these additions confirm what we
said above, that election as understood by the Formula is a predestination of persons, a cause of
their salvation and faith, faith being here specially mentioned, and that it effects its purposes also
in the time of grace until death.
But one more of these additions must be mentioned, the [[@VolumePage:1,158]]one which
has been used to represent the Formula as understanding by election something entirely different
from, and in contradictory opposition to, what it plainly presents. It is a passage subsequent to
the explanation given of election, that passage in which the Formula directs attention to the fact
that that in no way is the sound sense, or the legitimate use of the doctrine concerning the eternal
predestination of God, by which either impenitence or despair is excited or confirmed; that the
Scriptures do not set forth this doctrine in any other manner than to direct us to the Word of God,
admonish us to repentance, encourage us to godliness, to strengthen our faith, and to assure us of
our salvation. Wherefore, if we would reflect and discourse correctly and with advantage upon
this election, we should accustom ourselves, not to speculate upon the bare, hidden, secret,
inscrutable foreknowledge of God, but to meditate on it in the manner in which the counsel, the
purpose, and ordination of God, in Christ Jesus, who is the right and true book of life, are
revealed unto us through the Word. “Therefore, the whole doctrine concerning the purpose, the
counsel, will and ordination of God, belonging to our redemption, call, justification, and
salvation, should be comprised together.” In this whole doctrine, the Formula shows, we do not
only learn what election is, but also its cause, and the manner in which God brings the elect, not
to election but to the salvation to which they are elected, predestinated or ordained. As the cause
of election the doctrine names the merits of Christ, the redemption of the human race. The
manner of God’s bringing the elect to salvation is not only fully stated in the so called eight
points, the Formula also expressly declares, that God has decreed, that in this manner He will
through His grace, gifts, and operation, bring them to this salvation. “All this,” the Formula says,
including election by stating that He has elected to salvation all and each person of the elect,
“according to the Scripture, is comprehended in the doctrine concerning the eternal election of
God to the adoption of children, and to everlasting salvation, and should be understood in this
article; it ought never to be excluded or omitted, when we discourse of the purpose,
predestination, election, and ordination of God to salvation.”—These words plainly show that we
[[@VolumePage:1,159]]neither understand nor use this article correctly, if we speculate upon the
bare, hidden, secret, inscrutable foreknowledge of God. We must not neglect keeping in mind
that the elect are elected also to faith in time, to the adoption of children, for only believers are
children of God, and only children of God are heirs to eternal life. Consequently, if we do not
embrace Christ in true repentance and genuine faith, we have no hope for salvation; but if we do,
the gospel assures us of our eternal salvation and election. So neither impenitence nor despair is
excited or confirmed. This order in which God brings the elect to salvation and which is stated
and described in the eight points, we must not exclude or omit if we would reflect and discourse
correctly and with advantage upon the eternal election or predestination and ordination of the
children of God. The description added in the second part, of the cause and of the manner in
which God brings His elect to salvation also confirms the explanation of election given in the
first part of the Formula. It is not a correction or modification, but an enlargement of what is said
in the words, “salvation is His work for which He provides all that is appropriate to it.”
We now turn to the first thesis of the new confession. We there meet with the bold assumption
that the Formula understands by election the cause of our redemption. This strange discovery is
made, as we learn from the thesis itself, by a singular stroke of reasoning. The Formula declares
election to be the cause of our salvation and of everything that pertains to it; therefore, the thesis
says, also of our redemption. For does not redemption pertain to salvation? Indeed it does. For
redemption is the property of him who is saved, and God also is forever the portion of him who
is saved, Ps. 73. 26. Hence election according to this reasoning is the cause of God Himself, too,
if election produces all the good things that pertain to salvation, or are enjoyed by them who are
saved. This assertion of the thesis needs no refutation, election being nowhere presented in the
Formula as a cause of the existence of every good thing the elect enjoy, but as the cause of their
enjoying all these things. And as to redemption the Formula clearly denies redemption to be an
effect of election. It states: “the eternal election of God … through His gracious will and
[[@VolumePage:1,160]]good pleasure in Christ Jesus is the cause which procures… our
salvation.” It is evident that in these words redemption is presented as a cause and foundation of
election, the latter being founded on God’s good pleasure in Christ Jesus. It is therefore in direct
opposition to the Formula when the new confession states that the Formula presents election as a
cause of redemption. This is still more apparent from the direct declarations of the Formula that
the merits of Christ, hence His redemption, are a “cause of the election of God.”
According to the thesis the “entire purpose, counsel, will and ordination of God belonging to
our redemption, vocation, justification and salvation” is understood by the Formula of Concord
to be election. When we examine the Formula we find the facts as following. Election is declared
by the Formula to be a cause which works our salvation, and whatever pertains to it. Hence our
salvation as well as our vocation and justification, which cannot be denied by any Christian to
pertain to our salvation, are considered by the Formula to be effects of election, not election
itself. This is one undeniable fact. A second fact which cannot be denied is this, that the Formula
considers redemption, that is, Christ’s merits, to be a cause of election. From these two facts it
appears that the Formula by mentioning “the entire purpose etc. belonging to our redemption,
vocation, justification and salvation” mentions “the entire purpose etc.” belonging to the cause
and effects of election. But we must note another fact. The Formula expressly declares that “this
predestination of God is not to be sought out in God’s secret counsel, but in the Word of God, in
which it is revealed.” And more definitely it declares that “a Christian should embrace this
article concerning the eternal election of God, so far only as it is revealed in the Word of God.”
How far is election, according to the Formula revealed to us? In the first place the foundation is
revealed unto us, on which election reposes, the source from which it springs, and from which all
its operations proceed. This is Christ and His redemption of the human race, which reveal the
will of God that all men should be saved, but no man without faith in Christ, since salvation is to
be a salvation of pure grace. In the second place there is revealed unto us
[[@VolumePage:1,161]]the way and manner in which election operates to effect the salvation of
the elect. This mode of operation is this: God executes His purpose concerning the way to
salvation which He established for the human race, He reveals His gracious and earnest will in
Christ, to save all men, He therefore through the promise of the gospel and it seals, the
Sacraments, calls to Christ all sinners in order that they believe in Him, be justified through His
merits, and eternally saved. This execution of His purpose concerning the salvation of the human
race is accompanied by the promise of the aid, power, and operation of the Holy Spirit, and of
divine aid that we may abide in faith, and obtain eternal salvation. If men are lost, only their
wickedness and not election is the cause. Those in whom the execution of His purpose
concerning the salvation of the human race takes effect, when they regard the revealed will of
God and pursue the order which St. Paul observes, i.e. repentance, knowledge of sin, faith in
Christ, obedience to God’s commands, are assured by the Word of God that they are elected to
eternal life in Christ, through pure grace, and that no one is able to pluck them out of His hands.
Hence, the Formula says, in order that we might form our views in reference to this article
agreeably to the Scriptures, and reflect and discourse correctly and with advantage upon the
eternal election or predestination and ordination of the children of God to everlasting life, we
should… “meditate on it in the manner in which the counsel, the purpose, and ordination in
Christ Jesus, who is the right and true book of life, are revealed unto us through the Word.” And
how are they revealed? In “the whole doctrine concerning the purpose, the counsel, will, and
ordination of God, belonging to our redemption, call, justification, and salvation.” In short, if
we meditate on election, we ought to meditate on what is revealed of its cause and foundation as
well as on the mode of its operation, and “not pry into the abyss of the secret predestination of
God.” The knowledge of the cause, the mode of operation, and the effects, if we comprise
together the whole doctrine concerning them, reveals to us so much of election as to correctly
and with advantage reflect and discourse upon it, though we be still unable to penetrate it. An
accurate knowledge of the limits of what we [[@VolumePage:1,162]]know of election and its
precise distinction from what is not known will also enable us to avoid and reject all false
conceptions of election. The Formula, therefore, wisely advises us not to exclude or omit
anything from what it mentions as comprehended in the doctrine concerning election. For if we
do, it is impossible for us to have a correct understanding of this article. Nor is the mere telling a
person that God elected or predestinated persons to salvation a correct or salutary teaching this
article. All that is named by the Formula proceeds from divine decrees, the revelation of which
shows us not only that He elected His children, but on what foundation this election reposes,
viz.: Christ’s merits and benefits, for He elected us in Christ. If we do not note this point when
we consider election, we could chance to think the foundation of election to be God’s
foreknowledge of man’s conduct, and so an imaginary election would delude us, while we
thought we meditated on the election of God.—By the revelation of these decrees the manner is
made known to us, in which God brings the elect to salvation, that is, by faith in Christ. If we
omit to observe this point in considering election, we could perchance think that election does
not become operative until after faith or after death, and should contrary to God’s will render His
election an idle and worthless fancy.—And when the Formula declares that nothing of what it
mentions ought ever to be excluded or omitted when we discourse of election, it cautions us
against the error of losing sight of the fact that God elected all and each person of the elect who
will ultimately be saved through Christ. For in that case we could happen to understand the
decrees concerning the means of salvation to mean election. It therefore distinctly and expressly
mentions this fact also.-—The simple statement of the thesis, then, that “the entire purpose etc.”
is election according to the Formula, is evidently unsatisfactory.
There is still one point left in the thesis to be examined, which however it is preferable to
consider in connection with the second thesis. It is the word cause, which in its application to
faith and perseverance of faith is understood in another sense than in its application to
redemption and vocation. In its application to faith the word cause is taken in the sense
[[@VolumePage:1,163]]of occasion when used to denote that which brings to pass an event
without being its efficient cause or sufficient reason.
We learn from the second thesis that in election Christ’s merit is no cause of faith. To bring
out this doctrine more fully we refer to the explanations given in the publications of the Ohio
synod. We select the statement of the position of that synod, in which the leader of that body set
forth the reasons which caused him to oppose the Missouri synod. In the Columbus “Magazine”
p. 5. he writes: “To make the points of controversy plain it will be necessary to state, as clearly
as possible, the two forms of doctrine that are now placed in opposition to each other.” Then
follows on p. 7. the chief point which he maintains in opposition to the Missouri synod. It is
given in these, words: “Faith is merely the divine requisite without which, in the purpose of God,
the causes of election could not be operative in the individual.” The causes of election are in the
sentence preceding this stated to be the grace of God and the merits of Christ. Neither the grace
of God, the internal moving cause, nor the merits of Christ, the external moving cause of election
could be, and consequently is, operative unless it find faith in the individual. It is evident that
according to this doctrine the grace of election does not begin to operate until the time when faith
exists, and that it only operates in the individual who is a believer. For it is God’s purpose,
counsel, will, and ordination, that Christ’s merit should not move His grace to be operative in the
individual so as to work faith in him, though without it he cannot be saved. Faith must be the
work of man alone. The grace of God is merely to wait until man’s work is done, it is to abstain
from all operations until it perceive that the individual has resolved to believe and has executed
his resolve in actually believing. The quotation terms faith a divine requisite and speaks of the
grace of election. We could infer from these expressions that it supposed another grace existing
in God, which is not the grace of election, but a grace permitted to be operative in the individual
when faith is not as yet existing in him, in order to produce it. But we are not allowed such a
supposition. It is that grace which is operative in and through the means of grace, the Word of
God and the Sacraments, [[@VolumePage:1,164]]which is the grace of election. It is this grace
and no other, which in the purpose of God is not permitted to be operative before finding faith in
the individual. This fact the “Magazine” endeavors to prove and sustain by means of that passage
which it quotes from the Formula of Concord, in which the Formula declares that the unbelief of
man which causes his damnation, is not an effect produced by God or His election, but that
man’s own wickedness is the cause of this unbelief. This passage is quoted to prove that it is the
grace of election which in the means of grace brings to men that salvation which is prepared and
designed for all men alike. It is this grace which in the purpose of God, having set the merits of
Christ in Word and Sacrament before the individual, is to remain inoperative, unless the
individual believe. Faith therefore is in no case understood to be an effect of the grace of God.
For should faith in those individuals that are saved be anything more than a mere requisite,
should in them grace be in any way operative or co-operative in the generation of faith, God
should be found to be the God of the Calvinists and subject to the just reproof that His election
“favored the few;” for the idea of “the favored few” is, according to the Ohio Synod’s
declarations, the abyss of Calvinism. Hence the origination of faith is elucidated and explained
by the origination of unbelief. The object which is apprehended by faith, and rejected by
unbelief, is the same in both cases. It is offered to both kinds of men in the same way without
any favor shown to one in preference to the other. In this respect the election of grace is
operative, inasmuch as it operates not in but without the individual, and its operations are equally
conferred upon all. But neither the apprehending Christ, i.e. faith, nor the rejecting Christ, i.e.
unbelief, is the work of grace. Both apprehension and rejection are only and solely proceeding
from man’s own reason and strength. Thus it happens that .when the grace of election in Word
and Sacrament offers salvation to men, at the same time abstaining from all other operations,
some men believe, they apprehend Christ and His merits, and now grace begins to operate in the
individual; since they received Him, He gives to them power to become the sons of God. And to
them who endure to the end in faith He gives eternal life. This [[@VolumePage:1,165]]enduring
in faith must again be their own work proceeding from their own reason and strength, for if it
were the operation of the grace of election, they should be the few who are favored in preference
to those who do not endure, and would thus be an eternal reproach to God’s justice and mercy.
We cannot fail to observe that when the means of grace as well as the “entire purpose etc.”
mentioned in the first thesis, are called the cause of faith, the word cause is to be taken in the
sense of occasion as explained above, and as applicable also to the rejection of grace. Thus the
case of those who reject Christ, or fall from faith after having believed for a time, elucidates the
whole doctrine of election. For all this as it happens in time is known to God from eternity.
Whatever the grace of election meets with in time, passed in God’s mind before the foundation
of the world. These operations and states of being inoperative that are predicated of the grace of
election in time, form what is called election. It is called eternal election because God purposed
from eternity to proceed in this way in the work of salvation; “and as God knew from eternity
who would be believers, He from eternity elected them in foresight of their faith.”
We trust to have presented the doctrine of election which in the new confession is set forth in
opposition to the Missouri synod, so plainly and clearly as to be understood by all. We have left
no mystery lurking in our presentation, lest we be rebuked for fancying mysteries where there are
none. A second perusal of the thesis will convince anyone that thus understood all the partial
statements are in perfect agreement with each other and with the whole, as also with the three
other theses. There is no surer mark than this, of a correct, sound and perfect comprehension of
another person’s writing. It will at once be understood what it means by God’s electing certain
individuals in preference to others, and this according to the universal way of salvation. We at
once understand why this election may be stated to have taken place in view of Christ’s merit
apprehended by faith, or simply to have taken place in view of faith, without altering its sense.
We at once understand why this election is not the cause of faith, since God elects to sonship
only believers whom He himself has not [[@VolumePage:1,166]]made such, and elects to
everlasting life or salvation only those believers whose enduring faith is not His own work. We
at once understand why it is said that we are speaking properly of election only when we
conceive it to be no cause of faith. We at once understand the rule according to which God
elects, to be His own purpose according to which His grace is always and in all cases inoperative
until it find faith in the individual, when God in consequence thereof elects him to sonship; and
further, that His grace is always and in all cases inoperative as to the enduring of faith in the
individual, but that in finding an individual enduring in faith to the end, God elects him to eternal
salvation. We thus understand why faith always precedes election in the mind and purpose of
God.
One thing in the thesis is not examined as yet. But it requires no more than a brief remark. It is
the assertion that the thesis represents election as the dogmaticians generally understand it. It
should indeed be wasting ink to show that election in the sense of the thesis never was the
doctrine of any of the dogmaticians of the Lutheran church, nor at any time an article of the
Christian faith in the Church of Christ.
From the third thesis we learn that there is no mystery in election except so far that we are not
made participants of God’s foreknowledge. The guidance and dispensations of the grace of God
toward individuals as well as whole nations which the thesis mentions, are no mystery at all in
election as understood by the new confession. This confession might have as appropriately
mentioned the wonders of creation in this connection. For neither the one nor the other affect or
modify the rule of election and consequently election itself, which is besides expressly declared
to be no mystery at all. There are none “favored” in election. Howsoever God may have dealt
with the individual in things which are not election itself, in election he is dealt with according to
the rule which the new confession says it “knows with certainty.” No effects produced in the
believers by the grace of election affect election in the least, since it is of no consequence
whether an individual have experienced some such, or none; for such as enjoyed many may be
lost as well as he who experienced none, and he who only believed at his hour of death by his
own reason and [[@VolumePage:1,167]]strength is saved as well as he upon whom all the riches
of grace are poured out, excepting beginning and enduring faith which he must furnish himself as
the divine requisite without which grace will grant him nothing.—The thesis evidently is meant
to present the teaching of the Formula of Concord. It requires no great acumen, however, to find
that it is not so. The Formula indeed asserts that God foresaw and still knows precisely, and with
the greatest certainty, who is among the number of the elect and who is not, and it warns us not
to enter this mystery with our thoughts to search it out or to draw inferences in our minds in
reference to it. But the mystery of election includes more than God’s foreknowledge of the
conduct of each individual in regard to His electing grace. Election itself is termed a mystery by
the Formula; it also says that God has not only concealed and kept secret many things concerning
this mystery, but that He has also with respect to this matter revealed unto us in His Word things
we are unable to reconcile in our minds. It mentions cases in particular which are embraced in
the term election to salvation, in connection with which divine appointments, judgments,
punishments, severity, goodness, grace, and mercy are named which imply something else than
foreknowledge. It points to St. Paul who, when speaking concerning this mystery, also refers to
things which are not God’s knowledge, he refers also to His wisdom, His judgments, His ways,
and His mind.
The fourth thesis of the new confession is set up to combat in particular the declaration of the
Missouri synod, “that a believing Christian shall seek to become certain of his election out of
God’s revealed will,” which certainty is identical with a firm faith in God’s gracious promises
given us in Christ Jesus, our trustworthy Saviour, Redeemer, and Lord. This certainty is
expressed in distinct words in [[Luther’s Small Catechism, Third Article: >>
BookOfConcord:Small Cat.:II:6]]”I believe that the Holy Ghost will give unto we eternal life.
This is most certainly true.” From the thesis we learn that the certainty of the individual that he
belongs to the elect, that is, that the Holy Ghost will give him eternal life, is infallible only under
a certain condition. We know from the second thesis what this condition is. It is not
[[@VolumePage:1,168]]one which God will fulfil. It is one which the individual himself and
alone must fulfil. It is faith enduring unto the end. If the believer, then, who in the time of being
a believer, and before his death, desires to have an infallible certainty concerning his eternal fate,
he can have it. And how, by what means? Only by trusting in his own reason and strength. If he
have not this trust, his infallible certainty is a mockery. It is then its contrary. It is an infallible
uncertainty, that is, so long as he is uncertain he is not deceived; as soon as he is certain, he is
deluded. This is infallibly true. For the certainty is so bound up with the condition, that it is a
certainty only in connection with the fulfilled condition. It turns at once into uncertainty when
the individual presumes to trust in God’s promise that He will give him the grace of
perseverance. For it is not this promise which God has indissolubly bound to the certainty as the
condition. Since the certainty taught by the thesis is presented as the true Lutheran doctrine, it
will suffice to state that this infallible uncertainty is called by Luther the work of the devil. We
quote the following words from his [[commentary on the Genesis, Chapter 26.: >>
logosres:lw05;ref=VolumePage.V_5,_pp_44-47;off=-386 ]] “God has proposed His will and
counsel in this manner: I shall excellently make manifest unto thee foreknowledge and
predestination, but not in the way of reason and carnal wisdom, as thou imaginest. From a God
not revealed I shall become revealed, and yet I shall remain the same God. I shall be made flesh
or rather send my Son; He will die for thy sins, and will arise from the dead. And thus I shall fill
thy desire, that thou mayst know whether thou art predestinated, or not. ‘Behold, this is my Son,
hear him,’ Matth. 17. 5.; look at Him lying in a manger, in His mother’s bosom, hanging on the
cross. Observe what He will do, what He will say. There you will certainly apprehend Me. He
that seeth Me, Christ says, John 14. 9., seeth the Father Himself. If thou hear Christ, and be
baptized in His name, and love His Word, then certainly art thou predestinated, and certain of thy
salvation.”… “Thou must therefore hear the Son of God, who was sent into the flesh, and
appeared for that reason that He might destroy this work of the devil (i. e. uncertainty whether a
believing Christian be among the elect or not), and might render thee certain of
[[@VolumePage:1,169]]predestination. Therefore He says to thee: Thou art my sheep, for thou
hearest my voice. No man shall pluck thee out of my hand. John 10. 28.”
We have considered it our duty to conscientiously examine this doctrine of election respecting
which the Ohio synod has solemnly resolved that in the future as in the past it be alone
authorized in its institutions, schools, publications, and churches. As to the statement that in the
past this doctrine was alone authorized in its institutions, &c., we can but say that this fact had
been kept perfectly hidden until now, for none of the synods constituting the Synodical
Conference we could suppose would ever have entered into church-fellowship with a synod
confessing the doctrine presented in the new confession as explained by its framers. Synod
further declares that its doctrine of election is that contained in the Formula of Concord, and
which in accordance therewith has been always taught on the whole by the great teachers of our
church. This latter statement needs no comment, it must stand there as it is, a memorial not apt to
instill thoughts we like to cherish. We can but say that we are sorry, yea sad in our innermost
soul that what we could not avoid exposing, must be chronicled as real facts in the history of our
dear Lutheran church.
Literature.
REVISED ODD FELLOWSHIP ILLUSTRATED. The complete revised ritual of the Lodge and
Encampment and the Rebekah degree, profusely illustrated. With an historical sketch of the
order, and an introduction and critical analysis of the character of each degree by Pres’t S.
Blanchard of Wheaton College, and foot-note quotations from standard authorities of the order,
showing its character and teachings. Chicago, Ill., Ezra A. Cook, Publisher. 1881.
Secret Societies nowadays seem to have irretrievably lost the power of keeping their things
secret. It is a merited punishment that in their endeavors to deceive their fellowmen as to the real
purpose and practices of their secret league, they are on their part deceived by fellows of their
own, who do not hesitate to divulge what is confided to them as a secret. The publisher of the
work before us states in his Preface that he “had propositions to furnish the new ritual
(necessitated by the divulgation of the one in use) as soon as it was issued. One of these
propositions was accepted.” The new ritual which is thus again divulged at its very birth, exhibits
that sort of modern paganism with its “ridiculous boys’-play ceremonies” which constitutes the
glory those odd fellows aspire to successively in the degrees called Initiatory, degree of
[[@VolumePage:1,170]]friendship, of brotherly love, of truth (which in the three preceding
degrees is not needed), encampment, patriarchal, golden rule, and royal purple degrees. In order
to “lessen and ultimately destroy the prejudice felt against the Order by many of the fairer sex in
various portions of the Union, and which, undeniably, often tends to prevent accessions of
members In Subordinate Lodges,” the Rebekah, or Ladies’ degree, has been established as “an
honorary degree, to be conferred on such Scarlet members and their wives as may desire to
receive it.” From the Critical Analyses which are added to the presentation of the ritual of each
degree, we copy the following heads. Initiations are mental debauches; every lodge a gateway of
perdition through false worship; sacrilegious use of Scripture narratives; the dupe of the first
initiation becomes the devil-worshiper of the following; the diversity in form conceals the unity
in essence of all secret orders; the ancient Mysteries, their suppressions and remodelings; orders
never grow until the religious element becomes prominent; the lodge is deism and infidelity,
claiming superiority to Christianity; true love and lodge love compared; “pay as you go” upward;
treason to human language; the degree of Truth a hodge-podge of heathen and Jewish symbols,
with a coffin for solemnity; Christ a stumbling-block, a system of salvation by ceremonies; the
object of the Golden Rule degree to checkmate Christ’s plan of union in Him; a union in hatred
of Christ; mimic journey to heaven; acknowledged real design of the Rebekah degree; a lodge
debauch.—The book is a companion to “Freemasonry Illustrated” and “Knight Templarism
Illustrated.” It contains 281 pages, is profusely Illustrated with cuts of the signs, grips and
symbols, and diagrams of the lodgeroom in various degrees, and sells, in substantial cloth
binding at $1, in paper at 50 cents, postpaid, by the publisher, Ezra A. Cook, 7—13 Wabash
Avenue, Chicago.
General Religious Intelligence.
THE NEW VERSION. The theological faculty of Yale College has formally adopted the revised
version.
A NEW missionary society, called the Evangelic Association on the behalf of the German
Protestants in America, has been formed In Bremen, Germany.
A COLORED preacher in Clark County, Ky., named Marshall, announces that he will pray for
any desired object on receipt of seventy-five cents.
IT is reported by the Religious Tract Society of London, that for the past twelve years the
Spanish people have purchased a larger number of the Scriptures in proportion to their
population than the French or Italian.
THERE were but twenty-two persons attendant upon the anniversary mass said for the soul of
the late M. Thiers at the church of Notre Dame de Lorette in Paris. This looks somewhat like
contempt on the part of the ex-President’s surviving friends for that sacrilegious ceremonial of
the Roman church.
A NEW religious sect, called the Overcomers, has arisen near Chicago. They disown churchfellowship as contaminating to pure souls, and church organizations as hopelessly corrupt, and
consider themselves entirely consecrated in soul and body to the service of the Lord.
IF the Roman Catholic Church had retained all its children, so says the Catholic Telegraph,
there would now be In this country something like [[@VolumePage:1,171]]25,000,000 members
of that church, whereas there are now less than 7,000,000. The loss is attributed to the influence
of the public schools.
THE Virginia Episcopal Convention passed a resolution at the late session in Danville
affirming “that the time had now come when the clergy should recognize the fact that negroes
within their parochial bounds are an integral part of their parochial work, and that such work
cannot be ignored or neglected.”
REV. W. K. HOBART of Londonderry, Ireland, is about to publish a work showing from
internal evidence that the “Gospel according to Luke” and the “Acts of the Apostles” were
written by one person who was a medical man. Certain words and phrases peculiar to those parts
of the Bible are compared with the use of the same words and phrases in the works of the Greek
medical writers, Hippocrates, Aretaeus, Discorides and Galen.
ACCORDING to the “Independent” the most practical and effective way to counteract the work
of the Mormon Propaganda is to form an Anti-Mormon Missionary Society, which will send out
missionaries and printed documents, follow the Salt Lake emissaries, and warn and enlighten
ignorant people, among whom these emissaries chiefly operate, of the bad character of the
system they are asked to accept. It adds that polygamy as a religious or economical theory
preached and advocated, but not practiced, does not come within the scope of penal legislation,
and that to make the advocacy of such theory legally a crime, as it is proposed that it shall be in
Georgia, would be a violation of the very first principles of both civil and religious liberty.
ALPH.
NECROLOGICAL. Prof. Gebhardi of Northwestern University, Watertown, died recently, his
burial taking place on the 31st of Oct. He was the youngest member of the faculty, having but
recently entered upon his duties. His death is a severe loss to the institution. We hope that the
Board will soon succeed in finding an able successor to the lamented Gebhardi.
THE FOURTH CONFERENCE OF THE MINISTERIUM OF PENNSYLVANIA, in a recent meeting,
discussed the following question: “What attitude shall Pastors and Congregations assume over
against the desire for sinful pleasures which penetrates more and more into our congregations, by
which more particularly the young are drawn into worldly diversions?” In answer to this question
theses were drawn up the fourth of which reads: “Secret societies into which many are brought,
for the purpose of so-called mutual benefit, militate directly against the Church, and tend to
alienate the young from it.” May the Synod of Pennsylvania not be found wanting in unity of
spirit and zeal in executing what is involved in the judgment here given concerning secret
societies.
THE GENERAL COUNCIL held its fourteenth Convention from Oct. 20th to Oct. (?), at
Rochester, Pa. The forenoon of the first clay was occupied by the opening services, with
preaching by Rev. Dr. Spaeth. In the afternoon the council organized) when it showed that the
assembly was made up of 43 delegates from the ministry, and 26 from the laity. Rev. Prof. Dr.
Spaeth was elected president. In the evening session Ash wednesday was fixed upon as a day of
humiliation and prayer, the resolution being preceded by a debate in which reference was had to
the old so-called Quatember days. Then a petition was proposed to the Northern Pacific R. R. to
grant lands for missionary purposes. On Friday morning, after the reading of two letters, the
order of [[@VolumePage:1,172]]the day was resumed, viz. the work of Home Missions. In the
evening an interesting meeting was held in the Church of the Reformation in behalf of the
Foreign Missions. On Friday morning, “the committee appointed to propose some subjects for
the consideration of the Council during the mornings devoted to doctrinal discussions” proposed
subjects of which the following was adopted, viz.: “The true nature and the distinguishing
characteristics of the visible and the invisible church, and the relation of one to the other, as set
forth in Theses 97—99.” In that very forenoon, after the appointment of a committee, the
consideration of the work of Home Missions and in the afternoon of “Emigrant Mission in the
port of New York” and minor missionary business was taken up. On Monday afternoon, after
having passed resolutions of Garfield’s assassination, and Tuesday afternoon the unfinished
business of Home MISSION and minor matters, resolutions of thanks etc. filled the time. Monday
and Tuesday forenoons were devoted to doctrinal discussion.
THE CHURCH OF THE GOOD TEMPLARS. Formerly, before modern heathenism attained to that
predominating influence which it is now exerting throughout “Christendom,” marriages were
generally solemnized in some church. At present, this is not the general rule, the majority of
marriage ceremonies being performed in court-rooms and Squire-offices. Still there are some
couples who would not like to be united in holy wedlock under the auspices of some church,
while, on the other hand, they cherish an equal dislike to being married by a Squire, Justice of
the Peace or any magistrate, all of them being known for the short, matter-of-fact manner in
which they invariably perform this part of their official business. Up to this time, all such couples
were in an embarassing dilemma. But this may now safely be regarded as belonging to “auld
long syne,” if the future husband only be a Good Templar, for then the Church of the Good
Templars will assist him in evading both to get married in the temple of God or in some dark and
dreary looking Squire’s office. At least, that is the idea we derived from the following paragraph,
clipped from one of the religious papers of New York: “A marriage in a Good Templar Lodge,
the first ceremony of the kind, it is believed, that has taken place there since the formation of the
order, was performed in the Lodge of the Templars of Freedom of New York, on July 11th. The
bride, bridegroom, and officiating ministers were all Good Templars, and the Lodge also
furnished the contingent of brides-maids and brides-men to complete the wedding party. After
the religious ceremony, speeches were made of which a prominent topic was the duty of the wife
to see that her husband maintained his connection with Good Templarism and adhered to the
principles of the order.”—Thus, the Good Templars are ahead of all their sister-orders, in
permitting, and, in a way even encouraging, “religious ceremonies” to be performed under its
auspices, thus showing their religious, or rather idolatrous character which they, in common with
the rest of secret societies, are so prone to deny.—And now when that religious (! ?) ceremony
came off in the church of the Good Templars, what were the “sermons” about?—Their main
topic was the duty of the wife to see that her husband faithfully adhere to the Church of the Good
Templars. It is obvious that, if in the future many couples are married in that “church,” and the
wives do what is inculcated on them as their duty and keep their husbands on the right track, i. e.
in the Church of the Good Templars, the prospects of that Order are remarkably favorable.
AUGUSTUS. [[@VolumePage:2,1]]
THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL
MONTHLY.
Vol. 2. January 1882. No. 1.
A Few Prefatory Remarks.
On entering upon the second year of the publication of the ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY
we consider a statement of the motives for its continuation necessary. The peculiar situation into
which the Missouri synod had unexpectedly been thrust, and to which the MONTHLY owes its
origin, has changed of late. It was through God’s grace that the machinations of our enemies fell
short in their intended effect. The storm stirred up to break the bonds of peace which unite the
members of our synod is now left only to growl powerless at a distance. At the time, however,
when it was trying its force upon us, those who considered themselves out of the reach of the
prospective devastation must have found themselves in a position not favorable to a correct view
of the trouble. It was an easy task for its originators to preoccupy in their favor the judgment of
persons not sufficiently interested in, or informed of, the real nature of the disturbance. The
spiteful attacks on our orthodoxy as well as on the very animus and aims of our labor in the
Church proceeded from men who stood up as professed guardians of the pure doctrine of the
Lutheran Church, protesting that they were forced to these measures in vindication of divine
truths that were imperiled. Their claims to an impartial hearing had the more force against us
from the fact that, up to this time, they had been our acknowledged and honored brethren,
associates with us in that ecclesiastical body which has ever regarded it as its sacred duty “by the
help of God with the greatest vigilance to be careful that no new and ungodly doctrine insinuate
itself, spread, and prevail in its churches.” One important circumstance which to every candid
mind must have appeared as an evidence against them, [[@VolumePage:2,2]]their craftiness
endeavored to turn to our own confusion. Their repeated and emphatic assertions that the faith
they contended for was the one they had always maintained as their own, showed them to be
guilty of a former wicked collusion with us for the perversion of this very faith, if the charges
they made against us were true. For the very doctrine they seized upon in their attacks had, for a
long course of years, been freely, distinctly, and emphatically promulgated in our publications as
true Lutheran doctrine without having ever in the least disturbed the bonds of peace and the
oneness of mind which, as our new enemies publicly and privately professed, had united them
with us. But now our former presentations and expositions of this doctrine were looked upon as
materials fit to be shaped and intertwined with error in such a way as to present to the
uninstructed the appearance of a shocking heresy. Means which only a bad cause avails itself of,
the extraordinary energy displayed in this warfare did not disdain to employ. Nor were these
hostilities carried on only within the scope of our vernacular in which we could well defend
ourselves. Our adversaries caught us at a disadvantage in employing the language of the country,
by which means our cause seemed entirely left at their mercy when presented to the generality of
readers. Under these circumstances it was thought to be advisable for us to publish a periodical
of modest dimensions with a view of offering to those who might be willing to accept it, a plain
and honest testimony concerning the doctrines we hold and teach, and the work our labors are
directed to accomplish, together with some defence that might prove sufficient to discover the
nature of our enemies' warfare. These were the occasions which gave existence to, and shaped
the course of the ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY.
But the scene is changed now. God’s grace has not permitted the truth to be suppressed. The
evil which was thought against us God meant unto good. What had been intended to divide has
the more firmly united us. Brethren who had been alarmed at the accusations so wantonly raised
against the doctrine we defend, are now in a position to clearly perceive that, in fact, the object
of the assaults was the eradication of precious and divine truths. Sufficient evidence has, besides,
been [[@VolumePage:2,3]]produced in the course of the controversy to enable any one who
honestly concerns himself in the knowledge and preservation of what God has graciously
revealed of the doctrine in dispute, to know where to side with. It has become manifest that the
mode in which the later dogmaticians presented predestination has been taken hold on for the
purpose of making Synergism and Pelagianism insinuate themselves, spread, and prevail in our
Lutheran Church. Those who are honestly minded to retain in its purity the apostolic doctrine
laid down in our Confession, and find themselves disturbed in the apprehension of its
presentation in the Formula of Concord, need not be at a loss how to get rid of their
embarrassment. A careful and attentive reading of the Eleventh Article, when kept free from
forced interpretation, will produce in the heart and mind of any lover of Christ’s gospel the same
effects it once produced, when the confession was first communicated to them, in the hearts and
minds of more than 8000 ministers and teachers of the Word who, by subscribing their names,
gladly acknowledged it as a plain and clear statement of their own faith. There was no need for
them in order to correctly and fully understand what they subscribed to, of the apparatus lately
invented for a pretended understanding of the Formula, by which it is purposed to enable any one
to apply different senses to the word election whenever he meets with it in our Confession. This
collection of different senses which our opponents represent as having been found by them
scattered throughout the whole article in an improper promiscuousness and now made
discernible by them and convenient to ready application: the wide sense of election, the narrow
sense of election, the widest sense of election, the sense of election as the principal part of
election, the sense of election as the second part of election, the sense of election in two parts of
election being combined—these new-fangled and uncouth contrivances will never succeed in
finding favor with any one who has some sincere respect left for the learning and ability of the
framers of our Confession. No one among us, we should think, on being ordained vowed to teach
as Lutheran doctrine what is left of it after manipulating in the manner now recommended by our
opponents; nor will any intelligent man ever be inclined to regard a
[[@VolumePage:2,4]]document which for being intelligible requires a treatment of this kind, to
be a fit expression of his faith. In short, the whole controversy has come to this pass, that those
who had no other grounds for mistrusting us are no longer disquieted by the accusations made,
nor do they, to the best of our knowledge, think any further defence against them needful or
desirable.
Whether our MONTHLY was so blessed as to contribute ever so little to this wished-for result
we do not know. Thus much, however, we do know that we claim no merit at all in this issue.
We, therefore, never thought of grounding the continuation of its publication on considerations
of its having proved useful. There are other reasons for having it run its course another year, and
committing it to God to bless it so long as it may please Him. It was not the purpose of our synod
on authorizing its publication to have it continued only for the time the controversy on Election
might appear to render the issue of an English Monthly desirable. There is a considerable number
of Lutherans in our country who are not indifferent to an opportunity of having the pure and
distinctive doctrines of their church set forth to them in the English language. Our Lutheran
Church is so abundantly provided with spiritual treasures collected and amassed during a long
period of years through the labors of most eminent servants of Christ as to be, above all other
churches, able to meet wants and afford increase in spiritual things. It cannot, besides, but
recognize as its duty wherever a door is opened unto it to expose and refute false and seductive
doctrines, to warn against them, and to restore the biblical doctrine from the corruptions it
suffered at the hands of false teachers. It has the duty of removing prejudices maintained against
it in other denominations, by setting forth its doctrines in their divine purity, comfort, and
sanctifying power, as well as by opposing men who, usurping the name of Lutheran, spread error
and unbelief in the church. There is, moreover, a goodly number of persons interested in our
work, and willing to accept of our hands such service as we may be able to afford. It is, then,
neither a lack of work to be done, nor of opportunity for doing it that could excuse a
discontinuance of our periodical.
There is but one thing which appears discouraging. It is [[@VolumePage:2,5]]the feebleness
of the hand intrusted with the work. Many reasons, indeed, which however we shall not name
here, could make us despair of the task undertaken. But we know of the gracious promise of
Him, of whom the sacred oracle says: “He givcth power to the faint, and to them that have no
might He increaseth strength.” To this truth we desire to refer also those brethren of ours who,
knowing the MONTHLY to be a periodical sent forth by the Missouri synod, ought to regard it as
intrusted also to the loving care and sustenance of all whose ability may well supply its wants
and help it execute the work allotted to it. We beg their permission for offering to their
consideration the words of Augustinus when, on commencing his work on the Christian doctrine
and treatment of the Scriptures, he says: “It is a work great and arduous, and if to sustain it be
difficult, I fear that to undertake it be inconsiderate. So it would be, indeed, if we ventured it of
our own selves. But now, since our hope of performing this work rests in Him of whom we
already hold much of this matter communicated to us while we were thinking on it, we ought not
to be afraid that He will forbear giving the rest when we begin to lay out what is given. For a
thing that does not decrease by giving, when had and not given, is not had as it ought to be had.
He, however, says: ‘Whosoever hath, to him shall be given.’ He, therefore, will give to them who
have, that is, to those who with beneficence use what they have received; He will make full and
run over what He has given. These were the five, and these the seven loaves before they began to
be given to them who were hungry. When this began to be done they filled the baskets and
wallets, after having satisfied so many thousands of men. As that bread, therefore, increased
while it was dealt, so the things which the Lord has already granted for the undertaking of this
work, when they will begin to be distributed, will by His own furnishing be multiplied, so that in
this our very administering we shall not only not suffer any want, but also rejoice at His
wonderful abundance.” (De doctr. Christ. I, 1.)
Trusting in this encouraging promise alone, we unpretendingly send out this MONTHLY again
to be directed and aided by Him to whose mercy it was devoted at the first.
[[@VolumePage:2,6]]
(For the “Theological Monthly.”)
“Full Assurance of Hope.”
Dr. Luther declares: “Even if there were no wickedness in the popish doctrine except this, that
it has been there taught, that we must waver and fluctuate, and remain unsettled and doubting,
regarding remission of sins, grace, and our salvation, we should have had just reason for
separating from that unfaithful church.” These weighty words, quoted by M. Chemnitius in his
Ex. Con. Trid., are the more noteworthy when men, pretending to fight for the pure gospel truth,
trouble the Lutheran Church by defending a doctrine which is repugnant to the holy Scriptures
and the confession of our Church. The doctrine that God’s election is dependent upon men’s
conduct in accepting and keeping the grace offered them, can not but bring forth the bad fruit of
uncertainty and doubt with regard to final salvation. It must then be considered an objectionable
and dangerous delusion, if true believers rest assured of their eternal election. Alas! how far have
these modern Romanizers strayed from the truth which is in Christ Jesus, and which our Church,
in obedience to God’s own gracious will and command, has confessed and defended over against
the papists and their allies! The Word of God is written for our instruction, that we, through
comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope —yea, might abound in hope, through the power of
the Holy Ghost. Rom. 15. 4, 13. And even for this very purpose, too, our merciful God has
revealed to us His precious truth concerning our eternal election; He has given that truth in such
a manner that the believers in the Gospel may and can ascertain from His own words, that they
are in the number of the elect. His good will towards us would not let our feet stand upon the
quicksand of our own efforts, or of human speculations and presumptions, which necessarily
must leave us in a deplorable, unsteady state of mind, but rather has He placed us upon the solid
rock of His love and promises, by which we are made sure of the inheritance incorruptible and
undefiled, reserved in heaven for us. His unspeakable love and His “exceeding great and
precious promises” are the immovable foundation upon which the “living hope” is resting.
[[@VolumePage:2,7]]And for this reason hope is “an anchor of the soul, both sure and
steadfast,” an anchor, fixed in the future world by faith in God’s never failing promises. Of this
hope the Holy Ghost testifies, “it maketh not ashamed,” it can not fail, it shall not be in vain; our
expectation shall not be cut off. Prov. 24. 14. Doubt, therefore, can not be consistent with the
living hope. For how may a man hope for the crown that faideth not away, if it be doubtful,
whether he ever shall receive it? How may we firmly expect and wait for a valuable present, if
we are not certain, that we shall have it? if we can not look upon it and for it as something that
already belongs to us by virtue of the promise made by a friend in whom we may rely? Or is it
the lively hope, that would cause us to complain, saying, although we now believe in the Savior,
yet we can not tell, whether we shall receive the end of our faith, even the salvation of our souls,
for this is a matter of which we can have no certainty before our last breath? Was such the state
of” mind of St. Paul, when he suffered persecution and death on account of the hope of
resurrection? Acts 23. 6, 24. 15, 26. 6. &c. Is it that tantalizing uncertainty, when the apostle
declares, “We are made heirs [of the glory of God] according to the hope of eternal life”? Tit.
3.7.
A clear and beautiful illustration of the Christian’s lively hope is placed before our eyes by
Abraham’s example, Rom. 4. By faith this friend of God was fully persuaded,—his soul was full
of confidence that, though in the ordinary course of things, he had no foundation of hope for
becoming the father of many nations, yet God’s promise could not fail. Knowing by faith that the
truth of God bound Him to fulfil His promise, and that He was able to perform what in His
merciful kindness He had promised, trusting in the grace, power, and never failing faithfulness of
God, Abraham “in hope believed against hope.” He staggered not at the promise of God through
unbelief—he was not floating upon an uncertain “perhaps, if I shall remain to be the friend of
God”—but was strong in faith, giving glory to God, awaiting the accomplishment of the promise
in which he believed. Such is the living hope, which God desires to instill in the heart of every
believer, so that he may be fully persuaded and infallibly assured of his
[[@VolumePage:2,8]]election unto life everlasting. “Hope awaits future blessings, faith receives
present reconciliation.” ([[Apol. Art. 3. >> BookOfConcord:AP:iii:191]])
It is to be lamented, then, that there are men who trouble the Lutheran Church by presenting
the inspired word Hope as having no other meaning and value than is usually indicated in
common conversation, when mere human things are under consideration! The grand, joyful, and
firm Lutheran confession (in Martin Luther’s Questions and Answers) I HOPE—is, by these new
teachers, reduced to a timid expression of a weak and wavering expectation. They teach us to
answer the question: “And dost thou hope to be saved?” by saying: I may be saved, but I do not
know!—May God bring to naught the attempts at substituting in the hearts of Christians
pernicious popish leaven for the heavenly manna of the “full assurance of hope.”
Luther, in his [[Commentary to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, ch. 5, 5., >>
logosres:lw27;ref=VolumePage.V_27,_p_20;off=217]]writes, as follows: “The word hope, after
the manner of the Scriptures, is taken in two ways. In the first place it expresses that valiant
confidence (affection), that remains steadfast amidst all afflictions and trials, waiting for the
victory and final salvation. In the second place it denotes that very victory and salvation towards
which the soul, by hope and confidence, is looking, and which it shall obtain. In the first
signification St. Paul applies this word in Rom. 8.24., saying: ‘For what a man seeth, why doth
he yet hope for?’ In the other sense it is made use of in Col. 1.5.: ‘For the hope’s sake, which is
laid up for you in heaven,’ that is to say, for the sake of eternal salvation which you are firmly
and confidently waiting for. So in this place also, the word hope may be taken in two ways, first,
as denoting the salvation, which we do not see or feel, but await, as he says, Rom. 8. 24.: ‘We
are saved by hope.’ Secondly, as indicating that confidence of the heart, which patiently and
longingly is waiting for such salvation,” &c.
Thus Luther taught the Christians not to doubt, nor to despair, but to take a good heart through
hope—not only to rest assured that they have forgiveness of all sins for Christ’s sake, but also to
wait for the full consummation of perfect righteousness in heaven. Truly “this is an eminent,
sweet [[@VolumePage:2,9]]consolation, whereby poor, troubled consciences that feel their sins
and are terrified, are mightily comforted over against every fiery dart of the devil.” ([[Luther, ib.
>> logosres:lw27;ref=VolumePage.V_27,_p_22]]) But on the other hand the afflicted may be
driven to despair by that comfortless doctrine, which aims to convert the Scripture-language
relating to the Christian’s hope, into a term denoting doubt and uncertainty.
The F. C, amongst other purposes for which the doctrine of predestination is set forth,
expressly points out this important end, “to strengthen our faith, and to assure us of our
salvation;” and it adds, “Where this comfort and hope are impaired or taken away from us, it is
certain that the Scriptures are understood and explained contrary to the will and meaning of the
Holy Ghost.” And in the Apology ([[Art. 3. >> BookOfConcord:AP:iii]]) the Lutheran Church
confesses that “The doubting soul flees from God, falls into despair and can not hope. Now the
hope of eternal life must be certain, and in order that it may not waver, but be sure, we must
believe, that we receive eternal life, not through our works or merits, but by grace alone through
faith in Christ.”
The Lutheran Church, indeed, does not maintain, that every Christian is in possession of the
full assurance of hope, nor that, if once obtained, it will at all times and under all circumstances
be experienced in the same degree. For since in this life we receive only the first-fruits of the
Spirit, “every Christian discovers in himself, that he is at one time joyful in Spirit, and at another
timid and fearful, at one time ardent in love, strong in faith and hope, and at another cold and
weak.” ([[F. C. III. Decl. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:68]]) But our Church contends
against that popish fiction, in consequence of which Christians are caused to be uncertain
regarding their election, and misled, so as to trust in their own efforts and to make final salvation
dependent upon their conduct, contrary to the Word of God, which teaches us to confide solely in
the Savior’s abundant grace and mighty power. The Lutheran Church has fought, and, God
helping, shall continue to fight, for that pure doctrine concerning predestination which, filling
our hearts with confidence and gladness, opens our lips to join in the praise of divine mercy with
St. Paul: [[Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? >> Rom 8:35]]
[[@VolumePage:2,10]][[I am persuaded that neither death nor life, &c., >> Rom 8:38]]&c., shall
be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord. And why should
we not sing this triumphant song? “Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and God, even our Father,
which hath loved us, hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace.” 2
Thess. 2. 16. G. R.
(For the “Theological Monthly”.)
In Defense of a Brother in the Faith.
Controversies on the doctrine will very aptly result in acts of injustice. This has been
abundantly exemplified by the present controversy on Election. If men once become so imbued
with their own notions, or the opinions advanced by others, that they are deaf to the testimony of
the truth, they are easily carried away by their zeal to acts which otherwise they themselves
condemn. And why should not a man who, to uphold his opinion, will pass by a plain word of
the Gospel, also set aside a plain word of the Law? What is in the word: “Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself,” which would make it more sacred than the word: “I have chosen you out of
the world”? Both are equally God’s Word, and he who, turning a deaf ear to all testimony, can
pass by the one may be expected to set aside the other also, when occasion offers. That the
Columbus men and their adherents set aside the word: “I have chosen you out of the world,” is a
public fact, inasmuch as they teach that God chose not “out of the world,” but only those whom
He saw as having already persevered in the faith until the end, hence as having already come out
of the world. Standing in direct opposition to this word, why should they not, in regard to those
who oppose their false doctrine, also set aside that other word: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself”? Their misrepresentation of the doctrine of those who hold the true Scriptural and
Confessional position is evidence enough. But the most recent and, we believe, the most flagrant
violation of the ten commandments, done in order to prop up the cause of Columbus, it is the
object of our present writing to show. We would, indeed, have said not a word about it publicly,
if it were not necessary in defence of the reputation of a beloved brother in the faith.
Those readers of the MONTHLY who read the Lutheran Standard will have found a notice of
suspension in the issue of November 12th. It reads thus:
“It becomes our painful duty to suspend Rev. J. E. [[@VolumePage:2,11]]Senecker from
membership in Concordia English District of the Joint Synod of Ohio until the next session of
this body. First, for his wilful telling of falsehoods. Secondly, for his dishonest undermining and
disorderly efforts in estranging his congregations from and trying to lead them out of Synod.
Thirdly, for his blindly following Missouri in her new doctrine, inasmuch as he has no intelligent
conception of the controversy. His course for the last few months would astonish and shock the
upright and honest Christian. Good Lord, give him repentance before it is too late, and deliver
Thy Church from such pastors. E. L. S. TRESSEL.”
Before this notice was printed Past. Senecker had already withdrawn from the Ohio synod and
also resigned his charge.
Are those charges against Past. Senecker true? and why did he resign? In answer to these
questions we can state the following:
At the meeting of Concordia District E. L. S. T. managed to get the delegates from Past.
Senecker’s charge on his side and armed them with certain papers. What the contents of those
papers were Past. Senecker did not find out, but it soon became evident, that they were to be
used against him. Some time after the meeting of Synod at Wheeling E. L. S. T. appointed
visitation at Cabin Hill for the 9th of November. Thereafter he changed his appointment to the
2nd. Invited by Past. Senecker we went to Cabin Hill on the 1st of November, expecting to be an
auditor at the visitation. Arriving there, we found that E. L. S. T. had suspended Past. S. from
membership in the Synod under pretence of the reasons given in his notice, in reality, however,
because three congregations of that charge had passed resolutions forbidding him to hold
visitation, and the fourth had suspended membership in the Synod.
Notwithstanding the action of the congregations E. L. S. T, put in an appearance at Cabin Hill
on the evening of November 2nd. Shortly after his (T.’s) arrival Past. Senecker sent him notice
of his withdrawal from Synod and, as T. had declared himself ready to prove his charges
anywhere, Past. Senecker invited him to his residence for that purpose. But as he declined
coming to the parsonage, Past. S. proposed to come to the house where T. was staying, provided,
the writer of this be admitted as a silent witness. But again T. refused, urging Past. Senecker to
come alone. Why this strange conduct on the part of T.? A bad conscience will cause strange
conduct. He knows very well that his charges against Past. Senecker are false.
Possibly he might plead that he refused our company [[@VolumePage:2,12]]because we had
refused to shake hands with him. Why did we do this? Simply on account of the same thing,
which finally induced Past. Senecker to resign his charge. When T. saw that he could not gain his
object of ousting Past. Senecker and retaining the congregations in the Synod by any fair means,
he not only resorted to the slanders published in the Standard, but he also brought up and
clandestinely spread abroad in the congregations things which had occurred and had been
adjusted inn Christian manner and to the satisfaction of all parties concerned years ago. Before
Past. Senecker had heard anything of these scandalous actions, Tr. had already succeeded in so
prejudicing the minds of the people, that Past. Senecker thought it best to resign. To add any
thing further is needless.
“By their fruits ye shall know them,” Matth. 7. 20.
F. K.
(For the “Theological Monthly.”)
Review of Comments on our Reasons for suspending Membership in the
Ohio Synod.
In the “Standard” of Nov. 12th and 19th our reasons for suspending membership in the Ohio
Synod were published with a commentary attached to them by E. L. S. T., Pres. of Concordia
District. He entitles the whole: “Rev. Kuegele Suspends Himself—His Reasons for It.” From the
standpoint of the author of those comments the title is not ill-chosen. It indemnifies us for some
sour expressions occurring in the comments. We are, however, glad to be able to state that the
poor fellow who suspended himself is now no more suspended, but withdrawn to terra firma.
Whilst we are not minded to give any answer to the invectives against us, which E. L. S. T. has
been and, it seems, still is venting through the so-called Luth. Standard, it might nevertheless be
well to show that his comments on our reasons have failed to disestablish them. They thus far
stand unrefuted. E. L. S. T. does indeed introduce his comments in a high tone. He says: “They
(our reasons) really are undeserving of notice, for all who have read up the history and
discussions of this controversy will see the groundlessness of his charges and the deceptiveness
of his statements.” He forgets that not every one is looking through his spectacles.
Before entering on E. L. S. T.’s comments in particular a few general remarks are necessary.
He appears to think that, when he says a thing, that must be sufficient. He simply
[[@VolumePage:2,13]]makes assertions, evidence he does not furnish. And he has a good reason
for not doing so. He can furnish no evidence, because the facts are against him. Our object in the
following therefore is not to disprove E. L. S. T.’s assertions, but simply to show, that our
reasons are founded on facts. So also E. L. S. T. has taken liberty to change some words in our
reasons. That, indeed, would be of little moment, because by those alterations the sense is not
materially changed, but with our first reason he did not publish the quotations which we had
given from the Book of Concord. That we consider a dishonesty on his part. Why did he leave
that out? Simply because that one quotation upsets his whole theory, inasmuch as it shows that
the Confessions are not to be explained according to the private writings of the Fathers, but that
the writings of the Fathers are to be proved by the Confessions.
As regards our reasons in general we are not aware that we could have given them in any
milder language. We could have put them in stronger language and we could have added more,
but we were not minded to hurt the feelings of anyone without urgent necessity. Whether that be
a fault we, of course, leave to the judgment of others. But since publishing our reasons for
suspension, we have, when sending in the notice of our final withdrawal from the Ohio Synod,
added a fifth reason, couched in somewhat different language, which however we consider fully
justified by recent occurrences. We did, indeed, not reserve a copy of it, but the import is this:
“The tyrannical and Jesuitical practice of the President of Concordia Engl. Distr., who, to gain
his ends, will stoop to the vilest means.”
We are ready to furnish the evidence that the person named has been carrying on things with a
high hand whilst stooping very low.
We also readily concede that there are not a few in the Ohio Synod, who were always opposed
to its connexion with the Synodical Conference, and that before the meeting of Concordia
District at Mill Creek and of Joint Synod at Wheeling every thing was predetermined. We
concede that Synod only met to carry out what a clique had determined on beforehand. Perhaps a
cry may be raised about this, but we are not afraid of a further ventilation thereof. But all this
could not be decisive in this matter. The reasons, why the men at Columbus did obeisance to the
voice of “command” resounding from Madison, Wis., and the manner in which the orders going
forth from Columbus were carried out, may indeed serve to cast much light on the actions of
Synod, but ultimately those actions themselves must decide. The question is: Do the
[[@VolumePage:2,14]]actions of the Ohio Synod justify our action, or in other words: Are our
reasons for suspension and withdrawal well founded?
Our first reason reads thus:
At its late session in Wheeling by a resolution entitled: “Our position concerning the doctrine
of election”, passed on the 10th of September, the Ohio Synod in so far changed its confessional
basis that, whilst it formerly confessed itself simply to the XI. Art. of the Formula of Concord, it
now confesses itself to the same as the Fathers explained it, i. e., in the widest sense. From this it
is evident that the Synod does no more confess itself simply to the text of the Formula of
Concord, but rather to the explanation of the Fathers. I hold that the Confessions shall be their
own interpreters, and can not consent to interpret them according to the theories set up in the
private writings of the Church-Fathers, as Synod has resolved that they must be interpreted.
Quotation left out by E. L. S. T. (See [[B. of C. 2d Ed. p. 596 Reject 3. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:0:4]])
We underline certain words to show, what our ideas were at that time. Now, since the Minutes
of Concordia District have appeared in print, we would rather have had the wording a little
different. We at that time restricted the change of the “confessional basis” to the XI. Art. of the
Formula of Concord. We did so, in order that no one might think, we were accusing the Ohio
Synod of more than it was guilty of, inasmuch as the actions at Wheeling directly and
immediately concerned only the XI. Art. of the Formula of Concord. But we were well aware
that the principle: The Confessions must be explained according to the Fathers, if applied in one
article, would equally apply in all others. In reality E. L. S. T., as a perhaps somewhat overzealous disciple of the men at Columbus, had already made this application. We had indeed
heard the Pres. report read at the meeting of Concordia District and we were under the
impression that, besides its rottenness in the doctrine of conversion and election, there was also
something wrong with the position taken in regard to the Confessions, but not being positive
what that position was, we took no notice of it, thinking that, when the Minutes would appear, it
would show. The Minutes have appeared and they prove even more than we had expected. There
we read, p. 10: “In determining the import of the language or context of the Confession the same
absolute rule which obtains in explaining the Scriptures can not with justice be pressed here.”
Again: “The private defense and explanation of the Confessions by those who wrote both, or by
those who originally subscribed the Confessions, or by those who lived nearest
[[@VolumePage:2,15]]to the time of their publication, rightly have much weight in settling the
exact meaning of the Confessions on points of dispute. Furthermore, when such explanations
have been adopted by the orthodox teachers of the Church, and acknowledged and acquiesced in
by the Church itself for centuries almost without exceptions, especially when they have been
tried by the severest fires of controversy, the proof is almost overwhelming that the settled
conviction of the Church regarding her Confessions is the correct one.” We do hope that E. L. S.
T. is not planning to carry out his principles; for that would cause a revolution in the United
States. “For centuries almost without exception” it was “the settled conviction of the Church,”
that the civil government has some power in Church affairs. If E. L. S. T. in this point explains
the Confessions according to that settled conviction of the Church and the writings of the later
Church-Fathers, then it would be his duty to try his skill in establishing a State-Church.
Sweeping assertions will sometimes involve more than is desirable.
But the language in these quotations is certainly plain enough. The maxim, that a book shall
explain itself “can not with justice be pressed” in regard to the Confessions. And why not? Why
because the writings of the Church-Fathers must “rightly have much weight in settling the exact
meaning of the Confessions on points of dispute.” We do, of course, not deny, that in studying
and explaining the Confessions the private writings of the Fathers are of great value; but this is
setting up the principle that the meaning of the Confessions shall be determined by the Fathers. If
that were true then our actual Confession would be, not the Book of Concord, but the
explanations of the Fathers. That is the position, which the Ohio Synod now occupies. It says:
“The Confessions also explain themselves.” But “in settling the exact meaning of the
Confessions on points of dispute” “the private defense and explanation” of the Fathers must
“rightly have much weight.” So then according to the principles of the Ohio Synod a layman,
who has the Book of Concord, but is not in possession of the writings of the Fathers, could never
be positive, what “the exact meaning of the Confession” is, he could not know, what the
Lutheran doctrine is, until some wiseacre would tell him, how the Fathers explain this and that.
That is certainly setting the Fathers above the Confessions and making them judges over them; it
is robbing the Church of her Confessions.
We wonder how E. L. S. T. manages in regard to this point! According to his own principles
he can only be positive [[@VolumePage:2,16]]about “the exact meaning of the Confessions on
points of dispute” by “the private defense and explanation” of the Fathers. But in his library
books of hoary age are scarce. How then can he know “the axact meaning of the Confessions?”
Does he go it blindly trusting in the assertions of Others? (To be continued.)
General Religious Intelligence.
THE BAPTISTS in France have doubled in ten years. The Church at Montbeliard has increased
from nine to a hundred members.
DEGENERACY OF THE AMERICAN PULPIT. Church Attendance—is it falling off? was one of the
subjects of Dr. Talmage during the month of October. He tries to show, by the churches of New
York, that it is not falling off. Then, in the bulk of his sermon, he goes on to point out the causes,
if any church really be depleted, viz. that professors who can’t preach themselves are put up as
professors to teach their scholars how to preach, that the meekest, softest boys, just those
showing least character are selected for the ministry. Not a word about Christ as the Saviour of
our fallen race. The greater part of the whole harangue would, if need be, do perhaps, for an
extemporaneous address at the banket of a theological alumni association, but never for a
sermon. How can such desecrations of the pulpit as Mr. Talmage is furnishing every Sunday, be
harmonized with 1 Cor. 2. 2., where Paul says: “For I determined not to know anything among
you save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.” But always to preach Christ, is no maxim with Dr. T.,
and if it would be earnestly pressed upon him, he’d very likely say: “Hearers who are intelligent
through reading newspapers and by active associations in business circles will not on the sabbath
sit and listen to platitudes.”—The sermon referred to is only a specimen of T.’s general style, and
it is a deplorable fact that the majority of the American clergy are trying to excel each other in
aping him as closely as possible, and everybody praises such Christless preaching.
MITE SOCIETIES. A mite is a small coin, donated for a good purpose, having reference to the
mites of the widow in the gospel. (Mark 12. 41-42.) There is scarcely any similiarity between the
mites of the widow and the mite societies. What is required to get up a mite society is to get
plenty of cake and lemonade, fix upon an evening and Mrs. So and So’s parlor, or Mrs. So and
So’s hall, and then advertise that all young folks in town now have a splendid opportunity of
doing good, plenty of lemonade, cake, and sociality being on hand for all of them at very
moderate prices, the whole transaction of their buying lemonade, cake, and sociality being
sanctified by the view with the profits to convert the Zulus, or fix up the church. Then everybody
comes, and everybody is acceptable. Ps. 1. 1. is suspended. No references are required except the
mite in the form of a modern quarter. Since these Christians cannot get what they need by free
contributions, they think God must be satisfied with some “crooked money.” And how
lavishingly all those good and amiable young people pay their quarters for their fun and
lemonade to assist in the conversion of the Zulus, or the fitting up of the church. Could the
apostle call them (2 Cor. 9. 7.) “cheerful givers whom the Lord loveth”? Certainly not. Such
business-like way of making money is simply an indirect taxation for church purposes,
everybody who wants to attend is in a way compelled to contribute, even if it be Ingersoll
himself.—We are glad to report that the practice of holding mite societies has not yet become
universal. There are still some Lutherans who in this point, too, scrupulously adhere to the word
of God, so as to have cheerful giving and free contributions only. And God, the giver of all good
gifts, will never let them be wanting who trust in Him, follow His ways, and rely on His
promises. AUGUSTUS. [[@VolumePage:2,17]]
THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL
MONTHLY.
Vol. 2. February 1882. No. 2.
(For the “Theological Monthly.”)
SERMON
preached at the meeting of the Protest Conference at Logan, Ohio, and given to the public by
request of Conference,
BY
F. KUEGELE.
TEXT: ROMANS 11. 1—6. “I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I
also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away
his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scriptures saith of Elias? how he maketh
intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down
thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto
him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image
of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of
grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be
of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.”
In God our Saviour beloved brethren! The history of the Church teaches us that at certain
times certain articles of the Christian doctrine will become most prominent, and demand more
attention than others, namely those articles which, at the time being, are assailed by errorists. So
in the earlier stages of the Church the doctrine of the person of Christ was most prominent; in the
time of St. Augustine, the doctrine of the natural depravity of man; in the time of the
Reformation, the doctrine of justification. In such times of controversy articles may become most
prominent which in the whole complex of doctrines are subordinate to others in importance.
Since a few years the doctrine of predestination has been attracting universal
[[@VolumePage:2,18]]attention in our Evang. Luth. Church here in America, because men who
were regarded as faithful to the doctrines of the Church, began to set forth teachings which are at
variance with the public confessions of our Church. It is, therefore, highly necessary at this time
that we treat of this doctrine, that we study it in the Scriptures and the Confessions, and that we
do this in the fear of God with the fervent and continued prayer that God would lead us in the
way of truth, and preserve us from being led astray into the paths of error. More especially we,
beloved brethren, have need of becoming rooted and grounded in the knowledge of the doctrine
of election as taught in the Scriptures and the Confessions, inasmuch as we are accused of
disturbing the peace of Israel without a cause by protesting against and opposing the actions and
teachings of those who claim to be the legitimate sons of our old Church-Fathers. Because we
hold, confess and defend the doctrine of election as set forth in the Confessions, therefore
misrepresentations, slanders, and unjust and false accusations are heaped upon us. Surely
unhappy we, if our own conscience would condemn us, if our own heart would tell us that we
were not certain, whether it be God’s truth, for which we are battling and suffering. To bear the
wrongs which are inflicted upon us in a spirit of truly Christian meekness and humility we must
know, our heart and soul must be certain of it, that it is not a human notion, not an invention of
men, but God’s own truth for which we are suffering. That alone can impart godly fortitude. We
must be certain of this, that the doctrine which we defend is not of ourselves, not of Missouri, not
of Dr. Walther, not of men, but that it is of God; then only can we be cheerful, though all the
world stand against us and condemn us; for the world shall pass away, but God’s truth shall not
pass away. To comfort our hearts, permit me briefly to speak in accordance with our text on:
The Election of Grace.
I will endeavor to set forth:
I. THAT THE ELECTION OF GOD IS INDEED AN ELECTION
Of Grace, and
II. WHY IT IS SO NECESSARY TO ABIDE IN THIS DOCTRINE. [[@VolumePage:2,19]]
I
That the holy Scriptures and with them our Evang. Luth. Confessions do teach an election is
barely necessary to mention. In numerous passages of the Scriptures is this article of faith treated
of, so that our Confessions in the [[first paragraph of the XI. Article of the Formula of Concord
>> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:2]] rightly say: “The holy Scriptures mention this article not
only at one place casually, but copiously treat and inculcate it in many places.” Every system of
doctrine, therefore, which, be it directly or indirectly, denies the election of God is, on that very
account, false, un-Scriptural and un-Lutheran. There is an election, and to deny that, or to make
the election of God a mere judicial act, a separating of the worthy from the unworthy, is to deny
what is plainly taught in the Scriptures.
If then the Scriptures do teach an election, what kind of an election do they teach? [[“Even so
then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” >> Rom
11.5]] Here we have a short and yet a very comprehensive description of God’s election; it is an
election of grace.
The election taught in the Scriptures is therefore not an election of sovereignty, that God
according to His sovereign power should have picked out some and passed by the others, simply
to show that He has power to do with His creatures whatsoever He please. God is indeed
sovereign; no one can prescribe laws to Him; no one can lay down rules which He would be
obliged to go by. In the [[115. Psalm >> Ps 115.3]] it is said of Him: “Our God is in the heavens:
he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased,” and in the [[9th chapter of Romans >> Rom 9.21]]
Paul says: “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto
honor, and another unto dishonor?” God is the independent one, who can do what He please,
who has power to make out of His creatures, whatsoever He be pleased. He has power to save,
and He has power to destroy both body and soul in hell. If God did not possess this power He
would not be the God in whom we live, move, and have our being; He would then be a
powerless idol. But in His election God did not thus proceed according to His sovereignty simply
to show His absolute power over His creatures; for after speaking of the potter’s power of the
same lump to make vessels of [[@VolumePage:2,20]]honor and vessels of dishonor, Paul adds
that [[“God endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath, fitted to destruction: and that
he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he had afore
prepared unto glory.” >> Rom 9:22]] The vessels of dishonor God does not fit to destruction, He
finds them already fitted to destruction, and He so little desires their destruction that He on the
contrary endures them with much longsuffering, whether they would not repent; but the vessels
of mercy are vessels of mercy, because God has afore prepared them unto glory. The election of
God therefore is not an election of sovereignty, that He should have made the one a vessel of
wrath, the other a vessel of mercy, according to His absolute power; it is an election of grace,
which makes vessels of mercy only.
Again, the election of God is not an election of worthiness or merit on the part of man. If there
had been such a difference among men in the sight of God, so that some had been better than
others, be it in their nature or by virtue of their deeds, and election would have been made on this
wise, that God chose those of whom He foresaw that they were more worthy of eternal life: that
might indeed—in an improper sense of the word—be called an election, but certainly not an
election of grace, it would be an election of worthiness, or an election of preferableness, and the
cause of election and salvation would be in man. The election of grace precludes all merit or
worthiness on the part of man; for that only is grace, which is not merited in any way, as the
apostle here says: [[“If by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.
But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” >> Rom 11.6]]
If it had been the works, the good conduct, the better behaviour of the elect which persuaded
God to elect them, then it would be no more an election of grace, because grace and worthiness
are diametrically opposed to each other. In as far as an object is worthy of a favor or blessing
bestowed upon it, in so far it is no more grace, but reward.
Therefore also the election of God can not be an election of foreknowledge. God indeed does
foreknow all things both good and evil, but whatsoever good things transpire on earth
[[@VolumePage:2,21]]since sin came into the world, came to pass because God ordains and
works them. If then we hold that whatsoever pertains to everlasting salvation is God’s own work
and gift in man, how then could we teach an election of foreknowledge? Shall we say: Because
God foreknows that He will save certain persons, therefore He resolves that He will save them?
Therefore, to teach an election of foreknowledge amounts to the same as teaching an election of
worthiness, because it necessarily implies that God foreknew something good in some men
which is of themselves and not of God. The apostle here indeed also uses the word foreknow:
[[“God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.” >> Rom 11.2]] Is not that teaching an
election of foreknowledge? Most certainly not; to explain the words in that way is to do them
violence. The apostle says: “God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.” Therefore
the words: “Which he foreknew” cannot signify a mere foreknowledge, because a mere
foreknowledge cannot be the reason for God’s not casting them away; they comprise the reason
why God does not cast away His people, because He had afore known and acknowledged them
as His own, or to speak with our Confessions, because He had mercifully considered and elected
them. That the Scriptures when speaking of God as knowing His people mean more than we
commonly understand by the expression: to know a person, is but too evident. God knows them
that are His as a shepherd knows his flock, a father his children; He knows them so, that He does
not cast them away, He knows them in grace and mercy. That is the meaning which the words
convey in themselves, and that this alone can be their meaning is evident from this: If in this
second verse Paul meant to teach an election of foreknowledge he would contradict himself,
because in the fifth verse he unquestionably teaches an election of grace.
Therefore this is the election of God: When all men were equally lost in sin, as the Scriptures
testify that [[“Adam begat a son in his own likeness”, >> Gen 5.3]] God, moved by His grace
and the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ who alone is the reconciliation for our sins and not for
ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world, God, without foreseeing any thing good in
man, but moved only by His grace and Christ’s merits, elected unto
[[@VolumePage:2,22]]salvation those who will be saved, and electing unto salvation He elected
unto all that which is necessary to obtain eternal life, and in and by His election He so
established their salvation, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is an election of
grace only and an election of grace fully.
II.
Having briefly shown what the election of God is, let me yet present the question: why is it so
necessary to abide in this doctrine? Is it so important an article of faith? Is it worthy that we
should rather suffer ourselves to be slandered as heretics, than to sacrifice one jot or tittle
thereof? Yea surely shall we rather suffer persecution, than deny the election of grace. It is a
precious doctrine. And why is it so precious? Why, even because it is a doctrine of the
Scriptures. [[“There is a remnant according to the election of grace.” >> Rom 11.5]] He who can
not see that the Scriptures do indeed teach an election of grace must surely be blinded by
prejudice and preconceived opinions. Shall we then deny, or explain away by skillful arts of
logic, what the Word of the Lord so plainly teaches? Nay, though we must say with David:
[[“Many are my persecutors and mine enemies,” nevertheless we shall also add: “Yet do I not
decline from Thy testimonies.” >> Ps 119.157]]
Again, this doctrine is so precious because by it all honor of salvation is ascribed to God
alone. Because God elected us for no other cause save His grace and Christ’s merits, because He
elected us before the foundation of the world, before we had done either good or evil, therefore
we can not deny it, but must confess that He is our Saviour, that to Him belongs the honor all.
Whilst all other doctrines of election which have been devised by men, diminish the honor of
God in one way or the other, this doctrine that there is an election of grace only and that it is an
election of grace fully, alone gives to God the honor due Him. It indeed praises His glorious
grace.
Another reason why it is so essentially necessary that we abide in this doctrine, is, because so
soon as we lose sight of this, that the election of God is an election of grace, so soon will our
reason lead us into grave error either to the right or to the left. On the one hand reason will argue
on this wise: [[@VolumePage:2,23]]If God elected some He must have passed by the others; if
He predestinated some to everlasting life He must have consigned the others to everlasting death.
That is the language of reason, but it is not the language of the Scriptures. Let reason say a
thousand times, if God elected some He must have passed by and rejected the others, the
Scriptures say: No, He did not; He did not pass by the vessels of wrath, He on the contrary
endured them with much longsuffering. The election of God is an election of grace and not an
election of wrath. When men say, if there were an election of grace in the full sense of the word,
there must also be an election of wrath: when men argue thus, they are indeed reasoning, but
they are reasoning from reason and not from the Scriptures.
On the other hand reason will argue on this wise: Because the grace of God is equal over all,
and because there is no respect of person with God, therefore God in His election must have seen
a mark of distinction among men, by which, as by a rule, He elected some and rejected others.
That, beloved brethren, is the argumentation for opposing which we are denounced. Persevering
faith is called this distinctive mark. It is said, because God foresaw who would persevere in faith,
He elected them as being worthy of salvation while others were not, and yet it is claimed, this is
not teaching an election of worthiness, but an election of grace also, because faith is the gift of
grace. Let me present it in a comparison: I buy a nursery; I go and graft some of the trees which
are no better than the others. Thereafter I come and choose those grafted, because they are
worthy of being transplanted and the others are not. Who should not see that there is neither
sense nor meaning in such argumentation? Therefore those who think to get around the mystery
of election on this wise do not stop there. Going a step farther they say that it is man that makes
the difference, because some yield to the grace of God whilst others do not. If then it is man that
makes the difference by his yielding to the grace of God, how then should he be “dead in sin?”
That is surely making man’s yielding the one great decisive cause of his election and salvation,
and if that were true, then Paul must have been mistaken, when he wrote concerning Jacob and
Esau: [[“Neither having done any good or evil,” >> Rom 9.11]] [[@VolumePage:2,24]]he must
have written: Jacob having yielded and Esau not. Those reasoning on this wise are indeed
reasoning, but they are reasoning from reason and not from the Scriptures.
If we would not be led into grave error by our reason, we must here let reasoning alone. We
must not seek to smooth over what God’s Word has left open; we must not try to answer
questions which God’s Word does not answer. The election of God is an article of faith and not
of understanding. We shall as faithful stewards present this mystery to the people as the apostles
and prophets have written of it.
Finally it is so highly important to abide in this doctrine that there is an election of grace only
and grace fully, because it is a doctrine so full of comfort. Permit me yet to point out three things
indicated in our text. By His election God has secured His Church from ever becoming extinct
on earth. The days of Elias were evil days in Israel; there was a general falling away, so that the
prophet thought he alone were left. But what did God say? [[“I have reserved to myself seven
thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.” >> Rom 11.4]] God had
reserved those seven thousand to himself, or they too would have fallen away. So also the
prophet Esaias cried out: [[“Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as
Sodoma and been made like unto Gomorrah.” >> Rom 9.29]] Long as the world may stand,
wicked as it may become, God has always His remnant on earth; before the foundation of the
world was laid He provided for that by His eternal election. Let the enemies of God in the latter
days arise to obliterate the name of Christ from the earth, a remnant will be left to see the Lord
coming in the clouds of heaven.
Furthermore our text tells us: [[“If by grace, then is it no more of works.” >> Rom 11.6]] Why
are we the children of God, heirs of eternal life, whilst so many others are not? Why men are not
the children of God is manifest; God calls to them, but they refuse. The Gospel is preached in the
world, that every one shall believe it and be saved, but men will not. But why have we become
the children of God? Is it on account of something which we did, or refrained from doing, and
whereby we became worthier than others? O! if that were the case, then we would be obliged to
waver in uncertainty the livelong day; then the [[@VolumePage:2,25]]question would even recur
to our minds: have I done, have I accomplished, what is required of me? But, thank God, the
election of grace teaches us that it is not on account of something in us, but that it was God who
graciously came to us through the Gospel, broke and hindered in us the will of the flesh, and
worked in us both to will and to do. When we were firebrands worthy only of hell, God came to
us and made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light.
If then God has come to us, and according to His good pleasure has begun the good work in
us, His election certifies us that He will not [[“cast away His people.” >> Rom 11.2]] He did
indeed cast away the nation of Israel, but His elect in Israel He did not cast away; “For,” says St.
Paul, [[“I also am an Israelite of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.” >> Rom 11.1]]
His elect God will not cast away, He will save them. If then He has begun the good work in us,
let us rejoice, not doubting that He will also finish it to the praise of the glory of His grace.
Amen.
(For the “Theological Monthly”.)
The Distinction between Foreknowledge (Praescientia) and Predestination
in the Formula of Concord.
It is significant that the most learned and conscientious framers of the key-stone confession of
our church, drew a clear and decided line between God’s foreknowledge (praescientia or
prevision) and predestination in the 11th article in which they propound the Scriptural doctrine
concerning predestination. That such a line is drawn by them no one will deny. They say in the
[[Epitome >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:2]] of said article: “In the first place” [the German
edition has: “Anfsenglich,” i. e., from or in the beginning, and the Latin has: “Primum omnium,”
i. e., first of all] “the difference between praescientia” [“vel praevisio” in the [[Declaration, § 3
>> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:4]] ] “et praedestinatio, that is, between God’s
foreknowledge and eternal election must [oportet] be observed with diligence.” It is significant
that when the authors of the Formula of Concord treat of the difficult and mysterious doctrine of
predestination, they not only set out with this important distinction between God’s
foreknowledge and predestination, but also require the reader to observe the same with all
diligence throughout the entire article. Their meaning is that, if the doctrine of predestination is
to be [[@VolumePage:2,26]]rightly understood and retained in its purity, the two ideas:
foreknowledge (praescientia) and predestination, must necessarily be kept separate. They well
knew that predestination did not take place in God’s mind, so to speak, without His
foreknowledge (praescientia). God, indeed, foreknew and foresaw all those whom He
predestinated, as his act of foreknowing and foreseeing is co-eternal with that of predestinating.
But in exactly determining what is meant by foreknowledge (praescientia or praevisio) and
predestination in this 11th article, we must keep the idea of foreknowledge or praescientia
distinct from that of predestination or election, and vice versa.
The authors of the [[Formula of Concord >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:3-4]] then
proceed by assigning to each of these terms the limits within which they do what is peculiar to
them. It, therefore, says: “For God’s foreknowledge (praescientia) is nothing else but that God
knows all things before they come to pass.” Dan. 2. 28. Thus God, from eternity, foreknew all
the Christians, He foreknew their faith and justification, their love and good works, He foreknew
their salvation in this life and in the world to come. But as far as God foreknows, He does not
cause. His foreknowledge of things is not their cause. He foreknows the salvation of the elect,
but this foreknowledge is not the cause of their salvation. Neither is sin, or any evil that occurs,
caused by God’s foreknowing it. For the general rule is: “God’s foreknowledge (praescientia) is
nothing else but that God knows all things before they come to pass.” The authors of the Formula
of Concord, therefore, also say: “This foreknowledge (praescientia) pertains alike to the pious
and the evil, but is no cause of evil or of the sins, that wrong is committed (which originally
comes from the devil and man’s evil, perverted will), or of their perdition, of which they
themselves are the fault, but it only disposes it (the evil), and assigns bounds to its progress and
continuance, so that although evil in itself, it may nevertheless conduce to the salvation of God’s
elect.” In this manner the authors of the Formula of Concord dispose of sin and all evil as regards
their origin and cause. As little as God is the cause of anything by His foreknowledge, so little is
He the cause of sin, in particular, by His foreknowing it.
But it is altogether different with predestination. Our fathers say further in the [[Epitome: >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:5]] “But God’s predestination or eternal election pertains to the
pious, acceptable children of God, which [predestination or election] is a cause of their salvation
which is also His work, and He ordains what pertains to the same. Upon which [predestination]
our salvation is so firmly [steif = stiffly] grounded, that the gates of hell cannot prevail against
it.” As far, therefore, as God foreknows, He is not a cause, but as far as He predestinates,
[[@VolumePage:2,27]]He is a cause. As far as God predestinates, He has nothing to do with sin
and with those who are lost. God is not the cause of sin or evil by either His foreknowledge or
His predestination. But by His predestination, which is one eternal act, He is the cause of the
elect’s salvation and all that pertains to it. Upon God, as far as He predestinates the elect to
salvation, this their salvation is firmly grounded. Their salvation is not based upon God’s
foreknowledge (praescientia) any more than sin. The sole cause of the salvation of the elect is
God who saves them by, 1st, predestinating them or decreeing that they shall be saved, 2ndly, by
carrying into effect His eternal decree of predestination, so that the divine acts by which God
saves the elect follow in the order designated by the holy apostle Paul in Rom. 8., namely, 1st,
eternal election and predestination in the order of salvation, 2nd, the call, 3rd, justification, 4th,
glorification (or as it is expressed in the Formula of Concord itself: “The same [secret counsel of
God] is thus revealed to us, as Paul says Rom. 8.: Whom God has predestinated, elected, and
foreordained, them He has also called.” [[Declaration, § 27 >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:27]]). To the decree of predestination God was moved by
Himself, viz.: by His mercy and Christ’s merit. Predestination is, therefore, an entirely gracious
decree.
Our adversaries in this doctrine assert that the act of God which is called predestination, is
based upon God’s foreknowledge (praescientia). The Columbus Theological Magazine, edited by
Prof. Loy, has the following on p. 309: “The apostle would tell them (the Romans) that God had
foreknown them with all their surroundings; had foreknown their conversion, faith, perseverance;
had foreknown them unto the end, and had in addition predestinated it—them and their call,
justification, &c. And God’s foreknowledge cannot err. He had foreseen them as Christians in
their whole career unto the end, and upon that had based their predestination, so that His
foreknowledge and predestination guaranteed their final success and triumph.” Comparing this
with what the authors of the Formula of Concord say above, we are forced to draw the following
conclusion: According to the Formula, predestination is the foundation or ground upon which the
salvation of the elect is based. The Magazine says, predestination is “based” upon God’s
foreknowledge. Hence, according to the Magazine, the salvation of the elect which, according to
the Formula, is based upon predestination, is based upon God’s foreknowledge, or foresight.
First, predestination is based upon foreknowledge, and then, salvation is based upon
predestination. Hence, salvation together with predestination is based upon God’s
foreknowledge, or foresight. Every base or ground [[@VolumePage:2,28]]is a cause, as Baier,
one of the Lutheran dogmaticians of the 17th century, says: “Fundamentum est ratio et causa, cur
illud, quod fundat, nempe aedificium sit aut esse possit,” i. e., Base is the reason and cause why
that which is based, namely, an edifice, is or can be. Proleg., cap. I, § 29. Therefore the
Magazine teaches, in contradiction with the Lutheran confession, that God’s foreknowledge
(praescientia) is a cause of the elect’s salvation. We repeat it: The confession admonishes the
reader to draw a distinct line between God’s foreknowledge and predestination in the article of
predestination, and teaches that God’s foreknowledge (praescientia or praevisio) is nothing else
but that God knows all things before they come to pass, but that, on the other hand, God’s
predestination is a cause of the elect’s salvation, and the foundation upon which the same is
firmly based. Indeed, Prof. Loy and the confused writer of those words of the Magazine should
no longer aver that the Formula of Concord is their symbol. The Synergists make man’s cooperation in conversion as foreseen or foreknown by God, to be the cause of predestination, and
the shifting, more euphemistic way of expressing the error has got to be: God’s predestination is
based upon God’s foreknowledge. Therefore, also, the order given above of the acts of God by
which He works out our salvation, is just reversed by our adversaries. The Standard says that
election comes after “the calling of the world through the gospel” and “the giving of faith to
those who do not wilfully resist,” and this doctrine, it is said, is “contained in the Formula of
Concord.” Nos. 1272, 1273. According to this theory, God foreknew or foresaw from eternity
that certain persons would have faith, He foresaw their conversion, faith, perseverance, He
foreknew them as Christians in their whole career unto the end, in short, He foreknew them as
most blessed people, as Christians who would die in true faith and thus be eternally saved; upon
this prevision and foreknowledge of God predestination is “based.” Predestination to what?
According to the Formula God predestinated the elect to be saved by being called, justified, and
glorified, but, according to our adversaries’ theory, there is nothing left to which the elect may be
predestinated, as God has already foreseen and foreknown them as saved persons. If they were
saved already in God’s foreknowledge—”and God’s foreknowledge cannot err”—what need is
there of a predestination? This shows beyond contradiction that our adversaries are proclaiming a
predestination to nothing. Would to God those men would see that their doctrine cannot stand
before the judgment-seat of the distinction, made by our fathers on Scriptural ground between
foreknowledge (praescientia) and predestination in the Lutheran confession!
C.S.K.
[[@VolumePage:2,29]]
(For the “Theological Monthly.”)
Review of Comments on our Reasons for suspending Membership in the
Ohio Synod.
(Continued.)
The objection might be raised that E. L. S. T. is not the Ohio Synod. Certainly not. But we
answer: 1st, Professor Schuette was a member of the committee to examine the President’s
report at Mill Creek. He, therefore, sanctioned that report, and he is one of those men whose
word as far as our observation goes, is law to the great majority of the Ohio Synod. 2nd, When at
Wheeling the vote was about to be taken on the resolution by which the Ohio Synod adopted its
new confessional basis, a division of the question was called for. Some who voted against the
resolution as a whole were willing to vote in the affirmative on the first clause, reading thus:
“We anew hereby confess ourselves to the doctrine of election as it is contained in the Formula
of Concord.” When this division was called for we requested information of Synod, whether it
by those words meant to accept and profess the 11th Article in the wide or in the proper sense,
adding that, in the first case, we could not vote in the affirmative, because we were in no way
minded to profess the Fathers. The answer we received was, that Synod meant to receive and
profess the 11th Article in the wide sense as the Fathers explain it. Hence, in passing that
resolution Synod did not only profess the doctrine of election as it imagines the later ChurchFathers taught it, it also sanctioned the principle that the Confessions shall be explained
according to the Fathers at least as far as the 11th Article is concerned. E. L. S. T. is not the Ohio
Synod, but he certainly stands on the grounds of the Ohio Synod.
But does this, indeed, involve a change made in its confessional basis by the Ohio Synod? At
Wheeling the Professors from Columbus, chiefly Schuette, were very vociferous in declaring that
they had always stood as they do now; that they had always taught of election what they now
teach, and that, therefore, Synod were not adopting a new position, but were only professing its
former position anew. After the same manner the Standard ever since the meeting at Wheeling
has been trying to smooth over this so very unpleasant point, and whenever it was said that the
Ohio Synod had adopted a new confession at Wheeling, it would call forth an outburst of
indignation in that paper. But that is only warping the question, and by deceptive argumentation
throwing dust into people’s [[@VolumePage:2,30]]eyes. The question is not: What was taught at
Columbus, but: What was the public confession of the Ohio Synod? What was formerly taught at
Columbus concerning election and the rules of interpreting the Confessions we do not presume
to say. Neither could that decide the quarrel. Let the Professors at Columbus have taught in the
class-room whatsoever they will, where did the Ohio Synod ever before publicly say that it
adopted the 11th Article of the Formula of Concord according to the explanation of the Fathers?
Where did it ever say that “in determining the import of the language or context of the
Confession the same absolute rule which obtains in explaining the Scriptures” (namely, that the
book shall explain itself) “can not with justice be pressed” in regard to the Confessions? Where
did it say that “in settling the exact meaning of the Confessions on points of dispute” they
themselves are not sufficient, no “infallible expounders of themselves,” but to expound them the
Fathers must be consulted? (See for quot. Min. Conc. Dist., p. 10.) Where did the Ohio Synod
ever before say: “Their (the Fathers’) writings set forth the pure Confession”? (See Standard,
Nov. 12th.) If any such a confession of the Ohio Synod from former years be extant, we should
be glad if our attention were called to it. We never knew nor heard that the Ohio Synod occupied
such grounds. If we had, we would never have thought of joining that body.
The fact is, before its meeting at Wheeling the Ohio Synod never made such a confession. It
simply professed and accepted the Book of Concord without any restrictions or limitations,
whence every one was obliged to conclude that it adopted the Confessions as they read and
interpret themselves. If that was not the real meaning of the Ohio Synod, if it adopted the
Confessions with “mental reservations,” then it should at least not grumble now, when it is said
that it has changed its confessional basis, and adopted a new one. The point appears to us so
plain that every unprejudiced mind can see it. Formerly the Ohio Synod acknowledged the Book
of Concord without any restrictions, limitations, or additions, but at Wheeling it wheeled about,
and now sets up the principle that the Confessions must be explained in agreement with the
Fathers. In elucidation hereof we add: In the year 1879, the Concordia District adopted a
constitution, which was ratified in 1880. In the confessional basis it is said: “The Symbols of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church are received and acknowledged by all the ministers of this Synod
as the true and faithful expression and declaration of the doctrines of the Word of God.” In the
Standard of Nov. 12th, 1881, the President of [[@VolumePage:2,31]]Concordia District writes:
“Their (the Fathers’) writings set forth the pure Confession.” If that is not a change of
confessional basis, we must confess ourselves ignorant of what a change is.
From these facts it is apparent that it is all empty talk when E. L. S. T. writes in his comments:
“Without hesitation or equivocation the Ohio Synod now as heretofore accepts the 11th Article
of the Formula before all the world in its natural grammatical construction and sense.” Why did
he not go to work and prove this from the text of the 11th Article? All the world knows that the
Ohio Synod adopts that article as treating of election in the wide sense. Let E. L. S. T. take e. g.
the [[fourth paragraph of the Epitome >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:5]] and show, how it
“in its natural grammatical construction and sense” teaches election in the wide sense. It
certainly says as plainly as plain can be, that that same election which “pertains to the good and
beloved children of God alone,” “is a cause of their salvation.” E. L. S. T. will say disgustedly:
O, that’s Missouriism! Certainly, it is Missouriism, but it is also Confessionalism. Or will he say
that the authors of the Confession were guilty of equivocation by using one and the same word in
a double meaning in one and the same sentence? Or is he honest enough to say with Past. Trebel,
the President of the Western District of the Ohio Synod: “I regard that (§ 4) as a thoroughly
Calvinistic sentence”? Or let E. L. S. T. choose one of his favorite paragraphs, which says
concerning the eight points: “All this, according to the Scripture, is comprehended in the doctrine
concerning the eternal election of God.” ([[B. C. 2nd Ed., p. 714. >>
BookofConcord:Formula:SD:xi:24]]) It is notorious that the Ohio Synod says that the eight
points with the section following are election, and the paragraph quoted is said to prove this. But
where does it say so “in its natural grammatical construction”? It says: All this is comprehended
in the doctrine of election. What grammatical rule authorizes E. L. S. T. to change the
comprehended in into a flat is? We will not multiply examples. We think these sufficient proof
that the Ohio Synod does not “accept the 11th Article of the Formula in its natural grammatical
construction and sense.”
We would yet note some bombastic declamations in E. L. S. T.’s comments on our first
reason. He says: “St. Louis has taken up arms against old Wittenberg on predestination. We say
we will stand by old Wittenberg.” Which old Wittenberg does he mean, the Lutheran, or the
Melanchtonian! They are both old. If he means the Lutheran, he can easily convince himself that
he is not standing by it, by examining Luther on Free Will. But if he means the Melanchtonian,
we concede that he is right. [[@VolumePage:2,32]]
Again he says: “Their (the Fathers’) writings set forth the pure Confession. We say, let no
tongue slander these noble witnesses for the truth, let no ruthless hand attack their and our
Confession. If it is done we, as their legitimate (?) sons, will defend them and the Confessions.”
The Fathers can rest themselves quietly in their graves. E. L. S. T. of Baltimore, their legitimate
(?) son, will defend them.
Other assertions in the comments on our first reason we pass by, as not the least attempt is
made to establish them by evidence. (To be continued.)
General Religious Intelligence.
MOODY’S sermons are being used in the Greek Church at Beirut, Syria, and crowds go to hear
them read.
MORE than four thousand five hundred services are now held every week in Great Britain by
the Salvation Army.
AT the dedication of a Roman Catholic church in Jackson, Mich., recently, an admission fee of
one dollar was charged and the building was filled. No doubt many protestants attended the show
(circus).
IN 1875, a German Christian worker founded at his own expense a mission in the neglected
Santhal country. Then Christianity was unknown there. Now the mission has a teachers’ trainingschool with fourteen students, eight village schools with eighty-one scholars, a dispensary, and a
small hospital, at which about 1,500 cases of sickness are treated every year.
THE first regular service in connection with a movement to establish a Hebrew-Christian
Church in New York city was held on Sunday, January 1st. The Rev. Jacob Freshman had charge
of the meeting, and several other converted Israelites took part. Ministers of various
denominations were also present, and spoke words of counsel and encouragement. Divine
service in the English language will be held every Sunday at 3 p. m. in Cooper Union, room 24.
IN regard to the recent refusal of the Episcopal Church authorities in Maryland to admit a
colored man to orders, the Churchman says: “The Standing Committee of Maryland has refused
to recommend for Holy Orders a candidate (Mr. Bishop), who happens to be the first colored
man graduated from the General Theological Seminary. The secular press has leaped to the
conclusion that Mr. Bishop’s rejection was owing to his color. A recent dispute in a Southern
Presbyterian synod over the ordination of a colored man, in which the ground was openly taken
that no colored man can “edify” a Southern congregation, has assisted that delusion. In Mr.
Bishop’s case it appears that the color-line was drawn, not at his skin, but at his theology. Of that
question the ecclesiastical authorities of Maryland are the sole judges.”
ALPH. [[@VolumePage:2,33]]
THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL
MONTHLY.
Vol.2. March 1882. No. 3.
(For the “Theological Monthly.”)
New Doctrine.
Among the many queer ideas which the predestination question has given origin to on the part
of our opponents, the idea that the so-called Missouri view is of very recent date, will surely take
the prize on account of its profound absurdity. More than two years ago this idea was rather
timidly started far away in the Northwest, but soon its original source was almost forgotten, on
account of the stentorian clamor wherewith it resounded from more central regions. That queer
idea has been refuted time and again, still the war cry about the “new doctrine” of the “New”Missourians seems to get more clamorous in indirect proportion to the number of times it has
been refuted. Nevertheless, we shall once more endeavor to show that this doctrine, to say the
least, is much older than the other side would have it. Just compare the “Report of the First
Session of the Western District of the Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and other States,” held in St.
Paul’s congregation at Chicago, Ill., from the 25th of April to the 1st of May, 1855. We take the
liberty of inserting the whole item under the heading, “Doctrine of Predestination”, just as it is,
without any abbreviations. It reads (page 18):
“In one of the sessions of conference the wish which had been made known to the synod,
came to be debated, viz., that the consolatory doctrine of election in Christ should be abundantly
preached in our congregations, according to the example of the apostles who so frequently, in
their epistles, call our [[@VolumePage:2,34]]attention to the eternal gracious decree of God
concerning our election in Christ. Remarks were made to the effect that a distinction was to be
made according to whether you were preaching to a congregation already embracing a number of
such as were quite firmly founded in their faith (“ob man eine Gemeinde vor sich habe, worin
sich schon viele im Glauben fester gegruendete befaenden”) who could, therefore, be glad on
account of this doctrine so rich in consolation; or, whether you were preaching to a congregation
still containing many unconverted persons who might easily, wrongly applying this doctrine to
themselves, be confirmed in their security, this distinction having also been made by St. Paul,
abundantly treating of this doctrine in his epistles to the Corinthians and Ephesians, not even
mentioning it in his epistle to the Galatians. Of course, this article must be taught, and affluently
and unrestrainedly, too; still we should beware of straightway applying it to individuals in such a
way as can be easily misunderstood. It is the Formula of Concord which, in this respect, sets us
the best example. In case of our following this example, we shall avoid two aberrations:
Calvinism, the absolute decree, and pelagianizing Arminianism according to which God is said
to have elected the believing because they believe. The true via media is: elected on account of
the grace of God and the merit of Christ. A true Christian can find consolation in this glorious
doctrine, but with fear and trembling.”
Even the most superficial consideration of these old lines should suffice to convince even the
most skeptical reader that in those old days the “new” ( ! ) doctrine of election was not entirely
unknown among the founders and pioneers of our constantly growing Missouri synod. Time and
space will not allow us to enlarge upon this point in an exegetical demonstration, with a view of
proving it from that old document. And, besides, it is so plain; the unbiased reader can not fail to
find it almost selfevident after merely a single hasty perusal of the ’55 Report. We shall,
therefore, content ourselves with a few short remarks. Thus, to begin with the last, it is
remarkable that the founders and pioneers of ’55 don’t speak about an election in a wider and a
narrow sense. They don’t seem [[@VolumePage:2,35]]to know anything about election as
consisting of those two (distinguendi causa!?) so exceedingly important constituent parts, viz.,
electio mediorum and electio personarum. They know but one simple and undivided, indivisible
election to grace.—Another point. We are cautioned to avoid not only the Scylla of Calvinism,
but also the Charybdis of Arminianism. And they seem to have been under the impression that
that theological Charybdis were far more perilous, requiring them to be even more explicit in
their cautionary signals, for they explain that “pelagianizing Arminianism,” “according to which
God is said to have elected believers, because they believe.” Hence, in spite of Prof. Stellhorn’s
arguing to the contrary, they considered it a grossly un-Lutheran opinion, that “in His electing
individuals God had reference to foreseen faith or unbelief” (St., Tract “Worum, &c.,” p. 21),
that the rule (norma), according to which the electing and rejecting took place, was the same, that
election to grace having an exact counterpart in an election unto wrath the faith of the believer
sustains the same relation of cause and effect to the believers’ salvation, as final unbelief, in fact,
does to the damnation of the unrepentant. Prof. Loy had not yet instructed them, in order to avoid
“pelagianizing Arminianism,” acutely to substitute for “man’s faith” “man’s conduct.” Even at
that early period (when true Lutheranism was hardly dawning from the Western [ ! ] horizon)
they did not acknowledge man’s conduct as something on account of, or with reference to, which
we are elected. They favor the true via media (den Mittelweg der Wahrheit), viz., “elected on
account of the grace of God and the merit of Christ.” All the say about the cause, about the of
necessity existing difference in individual men, about that often ventilated, alleged partiality of
God, they leave altogether unexplained, and so does also the Word of God.—Moreover, they
advise their readers for the purpose of finding the true via media, to follow the example of the
Formula of Concord. Now, is not this queer? Especially in those old days long gone by, when
some of us were not yet born, some in the cradle, and quite a number not yet advanced to
maturity in all other cases, the writings of the pioneers of the Missouri synod redound with
citations from the dogmaticians [[@VolumePage:2,36]]of the 16th and 17th centuries. Doesn’t
common sense almost compel you to arrive at the suggestion that this special and exclusive
reference to the last of the Standards of the Lutheran Church could and would not have taken
place in a public document like a Synodical Report, except for very good reasons? Why was it
that those pioneers of ’55 already in those early days, with such unhidden earnestness of purpose
refer their readers to the “Formula of Concord” as “setting the best example”? It was because
they were, even then, fully convinced that the dogmaticians had in this doctrine, at least in
phrasibus, deviated from the Lutheran Confessions.—Finally, these pioneers also give evidence
that they knew that election ([[Form. Conc, § V >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:5]])
“pertains only to believers,” for they confess, that unbelievers are simply “outsiders” to the
doctrine of election, or, as they put it, they are “erroneously applying this doctrine to themselves,
and (to conclude with) they acknowledge that this doctrine is full of mystery, hard to understand,
and hard to believe, and thus they hold that, in preaching this doctrine, a distinction was to be
made as to whether or not your hearers were “quite firmly founded in their faith.” So much for
the “New” Missouri doctrine. Sapienti sat! AUGUSTUS.
(For the “Theological Monthly”.)
“To the Law and to the Testimony.”
Speaking of St. Paul’s call to the ministry of the Word, Luther, in his [[Commentary on the
Epistle to the Galatians, >> logosres:lw26;ref=Bible.Ga1.12]] shows that the Apostle was
constrained explicitly to recite in what manner the apostolic office was committed to him,
because false apostles had labored to bring him into disregard with the Galatians in order to
promulgate and establish their own doctrines in opposition to what St. Paul had taught. Luther
also gives an explanation, based upon the context, as to how it could so happen that the
impostors succeeded in doing so much mischief in the churches of Galatia, and, having the
deluded Christians before the eyes of his mind, their wretched and miserable state they had been
thrown in, caused [[@VolumePage:2,37]]him to lament, [[“Good God, what horrible,
immeasurable mischief and what great harm one only argument readily and easily may bring, as
it can so confound and alarm man’s conscience that, when God withdraws His grace, all is lost at
once.” >> logosres:lw26;ref=VolumePage.V_26,_p_63;off=1758]]
Enlarging more fully upon this matter, Luther goes on to point out both the great folly and the
dreadful mischief resulting from that folly, when human authority is appealed to with a view of
settling a doctrinal question. The [[following are his weighty words:— >>
logosres:lw26;ref=VolumePage.V_26,_pp_65-67;off=2551]]
This argument of the false apostles, whereby the Galatians were unsettled, had a great show
indeed and seemed to be strong. In the same manner, even at this day, many are shaken when
they hear our adversaries brag after this fashion: —the holy fathers and their successors have
taught so and so, the Church, or all Christendom, has followed them; now it is impossible that
Christ should suffer His Church and Christendom, so many centuries, to err, and certainly you, a
single person, are not wiser, nor more learned, than so many holy men and the holy Church.
Seeing then that the holy Church, these many hundred years, has thus taught and believed in
accordance with the primitive fathers and teachers, all of whom were holy men indeed and much
better learned than you are, who, then, are you, that you dare to embrace and to set forth an
opinion different from theirs?
Truly, such talk is apt to startle the conscience. For, who should remain indifferent when the
name of the fathers and in special that of the holy Church is being mentioned? But the name
alone avails naught, or else the false apostles must needs have been in the right, as they indeed
were of high renown and claimed to be ministers of Christ and scholars of the Apostles of
Jerusalem. But all this does not affect Paul; on the contrary, he boldly declares, because they
preach a gospel different from that which we have received, they are cursed, despite their
boasting of being Christ’s servants and the disciples of the apostles. And so we, too, say, let the
papists vaunt and brag as long as they please, “fathers, fathers, church, church.” Because they not
only do not preach the gospel, but rather persecute and slander it; [[@VolumePage:2,38]]because
their only aim is to uphold their pomp, caring neither for Christ’s blessings and glory, nor for the
salvation of poor sinners, their boasting will help them nothing more than the false prophets
profited by their vainglory. On the other hand, I am fully persuaded, that we do not preach in
order to please men, but to glorify God, that is to say, we attribute all things to God alone, and
our heart’s desire is that all the world would learn to know the unspeakable grace and blessings
of the merciful Father in Christ Jesus, our Lord.
I well remember that, when the gospel again began to shine forth, Dr. Staupitius said to me,
“This is my greatest consolation that this doctrine of the gospel, which now has come to light
again, yields all honor and praise to God alone and nothing to man.”—
But you will say, The Church is holy and the fathers are holy. It is true, and who denies that?
Notwithstanding, albeit the church is holy, it necessarily must pray, “forgive us our tresspasses.”
Even so, though the fathers be holy, they must ask the forgiveness of sins. Accordingly neither
am I to be believed, nor the church, nor the fathers, nor the apostles, nor an angel from heaven, if
we teach anything against the word of God, but God’s Word must stand and abide forever. If it
were otherwise, the argument of those false apostles would have prevailed mightily against
Paul’s doctrine. For it was a great matter, yes, a great matter indeed, to set before the Galatians
the whole Church, nay, even all the apostles, against St. Paul alone who, having but lately been
converted, was of but small authority. Their argument, therefore, was very strong and powerful
and concluded forcibly. For nobody would have dared to return, that the Church is liable to err.
Still it is necessary for us to declare that the Church does err, if it teaches aught besides or
against God’s Word. Therefore I will hear neither the Church, nor the fathers, nor the apostles,
nor the angels, unless they teach and proclaim the real, true and pure Word of God.—(Gal. 1. 11,
12.)
The above declaration of Luther is in exact conformity with God’s will, revealed by Himself
in His written Word, which is the only fountain of truth, the only infallible rule of
[[@VolumePage:2,39]]faith and practice, and the only criterion whereby to decide between right
and wrong. Not the writings of the fathers, but the holy Scriptures are given by inspiration of
God. And this written Word of God we, like the noble Bereans, must search, in order to ascertain
whether “these things be so.” Acts 17. 11. G. K.
(For the “Theological Monthly.”)
Review of Comments on our Reasons for suspending Membership in the
Ohio Synod.
(Continued.)
Our second reason is this: “In the same resolution Synod confesses itself to the expression
used by some of the Fathers, that election took place ‘in view of faith.’ Conceding that this
expression can be used in an orthodox sense, I must nevertheless reject an unqualified confession
to the same, because it is neither found in the Scriptures nor in the Confessions, and is apt to lead
to errors. By the words of the same resolution: ‘As in the past so also in the future’ Synod has
endorsed Synergistic explanations of this expression: ‘In view of faith,’ given publicly by
officials of Synod, such as: that election took place in foresight of man’s conduct towards the
Gospel, that the mystery of election is in man, that of such equally guilty the one is converted
because he is disposed to hear the Gospel, and other similar ones. These expressions manifestly
imply that man can and must contribute something in the work of conversion and salvation,
which is condemned by our Confessions.”
His comments on this our second reason E. L. S. T. commences thus: “We can safely say there
is not a preacher in the Joint Synod, from the highest to the lowest, who teaches that man has the
least power naturally to help himself in spiritual things. Our whole Synod confesses and teaches
that man by nature is dead in trespasses and sins, and that his conversion and salvation is solely
the work of God’s grace.”
We are well aware that E. L. S. T. always did claim this for the Joint Synod. We very readily
concede that the Joint [[@VolumePage:2,40]]Synod so strenuously disclaims Synergism, that it
raises great lamentation of being not only misunderstood, but misrepresented and slandered,
whenever it is said that the system of doctrine which it defends tends to Synergism, or that
certain expressions used in its publications are Synergistic. We concede that at Wheeling Prof.
Schuette with amusing emphasis said: “We (of Columbus) have now given assurance so often
that we are not tainted with any kind of Synergism, that any one who will say so still, is a
rascal.”
“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing.” Where is an errorist who
would publicly say that he is an errorist? where a false prophet who would confess himself such?
If false prophets would present themselves as false prophets, they could certainly not count on
much success. That the Joint Synod claims not to teach any Synergism amounts to nothing. And
as to Prof. Schuette’s assurances, they are of the same value. The pope also gives to the world
the assurance that he is not an errorist, and he does this so decidedly that he will pronounce those
heretics, and will persecute them with fire and sword, who dare accuse him of error.
The question here is not, What does the Joint Synod claim, but what does it teach? Do the
words and phrases used really involve Synergistic ideas? Is it true, when E. L. S. T. says: “To
make synergistic teaching out of our writings, their meaning must be perverted?” If it is true that
Joint Synod’s writings involve no Synergistic teaching, then our second reason would fall to the
ground. Let us see how our commentator proves his assertions.
He says: “The reader will observe that Synod defines in what sense she means ‘in view of
faith,’ namely, ‘in view of the merits of Christ apprehended by faith.’ The meaning, in other
words, is this: that when God decreed in eternity that this one, that one, should enter heaven, He
did so only with those whom He beheld in His Son Jesus Christ by faith.” That is language
which, although it may easily be misunderstood, yet admits of an orthodox construction. God
certainly did elect in Christ Jesus through faith, for without Christ there is no redemption, and
without faith, no salvation. But the question here is not, whether the elect are elect in Christ
[[@VolumePage:2,41]]Jesus and saved through faith, for this is a matter of course. The question
is, how comes it, that God beheld the elect in Christ through faith? how do men come to faith? Is
it because “God breaks and hinders in them every evil counsel and will” ([[see Lord’s Prayer,
Pet. 3d >> BookOfConcord:Small Cat.:iii:11]])? or is it because they themselves refrain from
that “evil counsel and will” which would hinder God from performing the good work in them?
This is the question at issue, and what has our commentator to say in regard to it? He continues:
“When it is said, that election took place in view of man’s conduct toward the Gospel, it is
simply said that God did not elect absolutely, without any reference to man’s acceptance or
rejection of the Gospel.” “Those whom He saw would reject His Gospel He did not elect; those
whom He saw would believe His Gospel He elected to eternal life.” Here, we say, E. L. S. T. is
hoisting the colors of the Synergists. So then to him “in view of faith” is synonymous with in
view of “man’s acceptance of,” in view of this, that some “would believe” the Gospel. Because
God saw that some would accept and believe His Gospel, He elected them. So then the final,
ultimate cause of election, according to E. L. S. T., is man’s acceptance of the Gospel.
Our doctrine is, that no man on earth would ever accept the Gospel, if God did not break and
hinder his evil will, and make him willing, but E. L. S. T.’s doctrine is radically different. His
doctrine is: the Gospel is preached in the world, and if God sees that a man accepts it, then God
accepts him. The first stone laid is man’s acceptance. If that is not giving man a free will, some
power in spiritual things, we should be glad to see E. L. S. T. show, how not. The rock of offence
to him is, that God should have elected “out of the world,” out of the fallen human race lying in
one common pool of corruption. That God did so, and how He could do so, is certainly a great
mystery, of which we say, it shall be left unexplained, because God did not explain it in His
Word. But E. L. S. T. is not willing to bridle the curiosity of his reason; he wants the thing
reasonable. So he fixes it in this way: because God saw that some had come out of the pool,
therefore He elected them.
How do E. L. S. T. and our Confessions agree? The Confessions [[@VolumePage:2,42]]say:
“Accordingly we reject the following errors: 4. Again, that the mercy of God, and the most holy
merit of Christ, are not the only cause of the election of God, but that in us also there is a cause,
on account of which God has elected us to eternal life. All these doctrines are false, odious and
blasphemous, and should not be tolerated in the church of God.” ([[See B. C. 2d Ed. p. 586. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:20-21]]) But E. L. S. T. says: God elected only with “reference
to man’s acceptance of the Gospel,” because He saw, who “would believe.”
But our commentator even quotes Luther to establish his Synergistic doctrine: “Luther says in
his sermon on Matth. 20. 1—16. on the words: ‘Few are chosen: that is, but few conduct
themselves towards the Gospel that God can be pleased with them.’ After stating how the ‘Word
is treated by different classes he says: ‘This Christ calls not being chosen, that is, not so
conducting themselves that God could have pleasure in them’.” It is refreshing to find an attempt
at producing evidence in the scribblings of E. L. S. T. In the mass of his unproved and
unprovable assertions this indeed is the sole and solitary attempt of the kind, and certainly this
one attempt brings him disgrace enough. Not enough that he misrepresents the meaning and
intent of Luther, he even falsifies Luther’s words by translating them falsely. Luther says: “That
God has pleasure in them,” but E. L. S. T. translates: “That God can be pleased with them.” Is it
not a shame so to pervert the words of Luther? Or should E. L. S. T. not have seen, that thereby
the sense is also altered? Did he make the alteration in order to get the doctrine out of Luther,
that men can conduct themselves so, that God can have pleasure in them?
E. L. S. T., besides, puts the quotation into such a connexion, that it makes the impression as
though Luther meant to say: Because God saw the good conduct of the elect, therefore He was
pleased in them. Does Luther, indeed, mean to say, as our commentator would make him say,
that it is the conduct of the elect, which makes them pleasing to God? If that were the case, then
we do not see why Luther should have separated from the Roman Catholics, who also teach that
it is man’s conduct, his good works, which makes him pleasing to God. Who would believe that
Luther really [[@VolumePage:2,43]]entertained such Pelagian opinions? E. L. S. T. only
falsifies Luther’s meaning. In the passage quoted, Luther does not at all speak of what persuaded
God to elect men, he only describes how the elect children of God live on earth. This is
indisputably evident from the foregoing, where Luther speaks of those who say, if salvation were
already determined by the foreordination of God, it would make no difference, how they would
live in the world. In opposition to such thoughts Luther describes, how God’s elect children do
live in the world. That Luther should have taught, the good conduct of men were the cause why
God elected them, or the rule according to which God elected, as E. L. S. T. would make him
teach, this every one acquainted with Luther’s writings will spurn as a slander of that man of
God. In this one solitary attempt to produce evidence E. L. S. T. only succeeds in making his
Synergism the more manifest. If he will read Luther’s sermon once more, he will perhaps find
that Luther was no such Pelagianist as to teach, that God elected unto salvation in view of man’s
conduct.
When E. L. S. T. adds: “If it were necessary we could show that Missouri has used the same
kind of expression (i. e. as quoted from Luther) again and again,” we only answer: Certainly, but
in the same sense Luther used it.
If the Joint Synod is in earnest about teaching that the natural man is dead in trespasses and
sins, how then can it publicly and solemnly confess that God elected in view of man’s conduct
towards the Gospel?
(To be continued.)
(For the “Theological Monthly”.)
The Dates of Dr. Martin Luther’s Birth and Death.
Martin Luther was not born on the 4th of July, as the Lutheran of March 2nd seems to be
willing to believe, nor did he die on Washington’s birth-day, as the Workman holds. In regard to
Luther’s birth-day, Melanchthon writes: “He (i. e. Hans Luther, Martin Luther’s father) whom I
sometimes asked about the time of his son’s birth, answered me that he
[[@VolumePage:2,44]]recollected the day and hour with certainty, but had doubts in regard to
the year. He affirmed that he was born on the 10th of November, in the night, after 11 o'clock,
and that the name Martin was given to the infant because the next day on which it was embodied
in the Church of God by Baptism was dedicated to Martin. But his (Martin Luther’s) brother
Jacob, an honest and upright man, said the family’s opinion of his brother’s age was that he was
born in the year of Christ 1483.” (Praef. Tom. II. Opp. Lat. Witeb.) Respecting Luther’s death,
Dr. Justus Jonas and Magister Michael Coelius plainly relate in their truthful “report of Luther’s
death” that he died early in the morning, on Thursday, February 18th, 1546. “On the 18th of
February the corpse lay in Dr. Trachstet’s house, which was an inn.” The solemn burial took
place February 22nd. (Luther’s Works. Walch’s ed., XXI, 282* to 295*.) Coelius says, besides,
in his “funeral sermon” for Luther: “At a quarter before three o’clock, when we lighted under his
eyes, he drew a deep breath, and thus gave up his spirit with great patience, and with ease, and in
all stillness. And this God knoweth” &c. (Ibid., pp. 316*. 317*.) The authorities here quoted are
considered by all as invincible.
C. S. K.
General Religious Intelligence.
IMMORALITY OF THE STAGE. Excepting our own and some branches of other denominations,
the question “Is the theater an immoral institution?” has always been a subject of warm
discussion. As for ourselves and the truly Old-Lutheran Church of America, we do not hesitate to
answer this question in the affirmative. We do so with all possible emphasis, and, in doing so, it
is not the ballet, nor minstrelsy, nor opera comique which are before our eyes. It would be
wasting words to speak about their immorality With a view of convincing a theater-goer of their
being the very opposite of great moral agents. Why, with this class of dramatic representation,
considered as a class, their very immorality or immoralities are one of their most important parts,
almost an essential constituent, open and bare-faced beyond comparison. No moral, not to say
Christian mind, can and will deny that, taken all in all, on account of their very nature, they
cannot but produce immoral tendencies. If the immorality of the aforesaid department of the
stage does not appear to your mind, at first sight, without any further proof, you will not be
convinced by the longest, and, perhaps, most thorough demonstration. In short, it is not
minstrelsy, ballet, or opera comique (simply clowning on a larger scale) upon which we base our
conviction about the immorality of the stage, for, in that case, we would not be justified to
pronounce an opinion [[@VolumePage:2,45]]about the theater in general. Disregarding all these
inferior, or, perhaps, we had more appropriately said, low branches of the modern stage, let us
cast a glance at the so-called first-class drama or opera. We say, so-called first-class drama, for,
even if psychologists, historians, and artists fill the world with their praises, even if such dramas
and operas, viewed from the artist’s stand-point, be most deservedly called first-class, still, in
reality, this is not the truth, their morals being, to say the least, far below the model standard. In
proof of this, we shall not take to analyzing the character of the manifest rascals and scoundrels
who, in some cases, openly perpetrate the most hideous iniquities,—a class of which every
modern, so-called first-class drama will furnish at least one or two specimens. Should we resort
to that, such as are taken up by the idea of the theater’s being a great moral agent, would be
ready to answer, These bad, low characters are necessary evils, their sole object being to set off
the “noble and the good” in the hero. But how about that “noble and good” in the pretended
hero? To a truly Christian, and, in some cases, I might say to a truly moral mind, it is sometimes
very difficult to detect, sometimes it is badly marred, perhaps, almost covered from his view by
outflows of that very hero’s innate iniquity. To begin with, let us remember that a great many of
the hero’s doings, not being considered sinful, or, as others would say, morally wrong, by the
author of the drama, are represented accordingly as showing no lack of virtue whatever. For
example, there is quite a host of heroes with whom a leading trait of their character is an
irrepressible desire to “avenge that foul murder.” Compare that with Rom. 12. 19, 20. In most
first-class dramas, elopement is considered very excusable, in many cases even laudable and
praiseworthy, just as public opinion in our times considers it perfectly “au fait” that persons who
are of age should be free and unrestricted in going by their own will and judgment, bending all
their energies towards overcoming all obstacles, even if such obstacle should present itself in the
form of the parental will. Compare this with the text of the 4th commandment.—Moreover, even
such actions in the hero as are generally conceded to be immoral, do by no means meet with the
punishment they deserve. And even when they do, the author often uses such a style of narration,
so dexterously depicting the deplorable situation of the hero, that the heart of the unsuspecting
reader or spectator is moved to compassion, instead of plainly seeing that the punishment is well
deserved, and, therefore, approving of it.—And, finally, how few are those cases in which the
follies and vices of the hero are openly and plainly disapproved. And why? Because this is
something which the very nature of the character of a hero cannot admit of. Sometimes, indeed,
the hero’s vices are disapproved, but how? So slightly, so finely, so leniently that it needs more
learnedness and wisdom to reveal it than is required to rival Mr. Schliemann in finding and
laying bare the ancient sites of Troas. The ordinary reader or spectator will hardly ever become
aware of it.—But you say, for the greater part the hero is made up of virtues. Such virtues! Upon
what are his virtues grounded? In other words, why is he virtuous? Because it is in his interest;
the opposite, for instance, being followed by punishment, because it “is the only source of all
true happiness,” because it “will elevate him.” In short, his virtue is based on Utilitarianism,
Eudemonism, Pantheism, &c, Ac, but never the “fear and love of God” which Dr. Luther, in the
explanations of the ten commandments, never neglects to place at the very beginning, thus
indicating the only true basis upon which [[@VolumePage:2,46]]virtue, if it be truly such, will
ever and ever rest. But such basis is foreign to the heroes of even first-class dramas, and all their
virtue, considered from a Christian standpoint, is naught but sham. It is, strictly, scripturally
taken, immoral, as immoral as the theater in general. That the lower order of stage performances
cannot lay claim to a high standard of morality is more or less freely acknowledged even by
candid men outside of the pale of the church. Speaking of a certain opera comique, a secular
paper does not hesitate to say (Chicago Trib., Sunday, Jan. 22nd): “The play is of a character that
does not particularly commend itself to people from whose minds the teachings of early life have
not been wholly eradicated. It is a very Frenchy French play —which is saying a great deal. Of
late years the American appetite for dramas in which the female characters are chiefly
conspicuous for a lack of chastity and the men for a strong desire to measure swords with
somebody on the slightest pretext for a display of belligerency has been whetted by the
importation to this country from France of the plays which on the other side of the water have
been noted for indelicacy of plot and general laxity of morals on the part of the principal
characters.” Such is the opinion of an exclusively secular paper, and what the above lines state
about the French drama, is more or less true with reference to theater performances generally.
The bulk of the Church is still plainer in its united denunciation of the stage. Even the lukewarm, semi-infidel Dr. Talmage, who very seldom stoops down to specifically Christian
preaching, boldly states “that from the play house to hell is one of the shortest journeys on
record.” Dr. Herrick Johnson, Pastor of the Fourth Presbyterian Church in Chicago, is more
explicit in giving his opinion on these matters. After going over a number of plays, considering
their plots and citing a whole series of comments of the leading dailies—comments not very
flattering even to the “first-class drama”—he continues: “The actual stage of this city is a moral
abomination. It is trampling on the Sabbath with defiant scoff. It is defiling our youth. It is
making crowds familiar with the play of criminal passions. It is getting us used to scenes that
rival the voluptuous and licentious ages of the past. Go to Naples, and look on the gathered
proofs of Pompeii’s profligacy and lust, if you would see whither we are swiftly tending… Ever
since Euripides play-writers have delighted in the representation of criminal and unnatural
passions. It is true, villainy is commonly punished in these plays, but the villainy is often given
such dash and daring and bravado, and is so set round with attractions, and is pursued with such
utter abandon and intoxication of delight, that many a youth is led to prefer the way to
destruction and the devil, because the journey can be made in such a blaze of glory. Take ‘Led
Astray’ for example, and, though the crime is followed by the penalty, the whole tone and
coloring show that ‘the treatment is that of a hater of the penalty, and not that of a hater of the
crime.’ Christians of Chicago, moral men and women, lovers of clean homes and pure, sweet
lives, what do you think of all this? Look at the record! Face the facts, and judge ye! I charge that
the theater is often ‘a murderous assault upon all that the family circle holds most holy and
sacred.’ I charge that it strips young women of their ordinary attire, and exhibits them to the
public gaze so clad that to the eye of the audience they seem, and are meant to seem, almost
naked! You do not need to be told why that is done. I charge that the shafts of wit flowing across
the stage are often feathered from very obscene fowl. I charge that the theater is the channel
through which the filth and pollution of lewd and [[@VolumePage:2,47]]lascivious play-writers
is poured into the minds of young men and young women, thus poisoning the very springs of our
social life.’ This is the rather outspoken opinion of Dr. Johnson. Evidently, our well-grounded
opposition to theater-going is not an idiosyncrasy of ours, confined to the realm of the Lutheran
Church. Would to God that the warnings against this evil which are again becoming more
general, would be heeded by the multitudes, inducing them to go to church instead of immoral
theaters.
BEGINNING DECLINE OF CHURCH FAIRS. It seems as though the practice of holding church fairs
is on the point of ceasing to be almost universal, though, with the majority of our American
churches, it has hitherto been almost as regular a feature as the Sunday morning service. In
saying that church fairs are on the decline, we have reference to the Methodists of Rhode Island
with whom church-fairs have of late become a subject of serious discussion. We are sorry to say
that they are greatly at variance in their opinions, or rather, that, we may safely state, they
“agreed to disagree.” Still, at a recent meeting of the Methodist clergy in Providence there were
at least some who zealously opposed church fairs, “because they involved a waste of energy,
destroyed the feeling of sanctity which should pertain to the house of God, and lowered the
whole conception of religious life.” These “some” are decidedly on the right track. They have
most assuredly made a move in the right direction which we can not but approve of, though we
are by no means sanguine as to their inducing their colleagues and the Methodist church in
general, to endorse their opinion and follow their foot-steps.—But we consider it altogether out
of question that, in theoretically and practically opposing church fairs, they are heeding the
manifest teachings of Christ. For It is not merely imaginary, but one of the most real facts that if
Christ returning to the scenes of this world, would witness a church fair of the average kind,
going on for the benefit of the Church and His glory (! ?), He would most assuredly, with no
respect of scribes and pharisees, worldly or ecclesiastical dignitaries, “begin to cast out them that
sold and bought in the temple,” reiterating His divine teaching: “Is it not written, My house shall
be called of all nations the house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves.” (Mark 11. 15.)
And Christ would not let himself be impeded in pursuing this course, even if the number thus
cast out comprised the alleged peers of the christian laity as well as the christian clergy. May
“selling and buying in the temple” and for the benefit of the temple, in short, all church businesslike practices,—may they forever remain foreign to our Lutheran Zion.
ECCLESIASTICAL LIBERALISM. It seems as if Clerical Liberalism was about to take full sway of
the American Church, as a whole. Some years ago every true Lutheran heart was startled at the
recklessness of a Pseudo-Lutheran who avowed that his conscience did not forbid him to take
charge of a Presbyterian church. A similar occurrence took place not so very long ago. A certain
Rev. Cowl of the M. E. Church has actually accepted a call to the Unitarian Church of Chicago.
And the most unexplainable fact of all is that his farewell address to his late congregation
(Sharpsburg, Pa.) contains an open and unveiled declaration to the effect that “the doctrines he
had preached to his Methodist congregation would still be delivered from the pulpit of the
Unitarian Church in Chicago.”—Indeed, we could hardly say which of the two has the best claim
to our surprise,—that hypocrite who cares so little for his Trinitarian belief and the avowedly
[[@VolumePage:2,48]]Trinitarian belief of his Church, as not to shrink from becoming a
Unitarian minister—or those Chicago Unitarians whose Unitarian “persuasion” was not even of
such a degree of strength as to keep them back from calling a minister from among the clergy of
a decidedly Trinitarian persuasion. Query: If Socinus of old should to-day rise from the grave,
what would be his opinion of such Unitarians? And the founder of Methodism, how deeply
would he feel ashamed of a Methodist brother minister of the above description.—Both parties
seem to be unacquainted with the true explanation of 2 Cor. 6. 14. AUGUSTUS.
DENOMINATIONAL STATISTICS. The following table of statistics in regard to the various
religious denominations in the United States is from the New York Observer. Figures preceded
by an asterisk are estimated:
Denomination
ADVENTISTS
BAPTISTS:
Regular
Disciples
Free-Will
Anti-Mission
Tunkers
Winnebrennarians
Mennonites
Seventh Day
Six Principle
CONGREGATIONALISTS
Episcopalians:
Protestant
Reformed
FRIENDS
LUTHERANS
METHODISTS:
M. E. North
M. E. South
African M. E.
M. E. Zion, African
Methodist Protestants
M. Evangelical Association
Colored M. E.
American Wesleyans
Church Organizations
199
Ministers
134
Communicants
14,141
26,060
2,366
1,471
*900
710
*400
*120
84
20
3,745
16,596
*2,000
1,294
*400
1,655
*350
*90
80
12
3,577
2,296,327
*350,000
74,851
*40,000
*90,000
*30,000
*20,000
8,548
2,000
384,332
3,035
54
*800
5,865
3,466
76
3,299
349,580
5,432
*100,000
738,302
17,111
11,630
3,867
1,418
1,500
1,314
893
638
*250
1,700,302
828,301
214,808
190,900
113,405
112,197
112,300
*25,000
Free Methodists
Independent Methodists
Primitive Methodists
Union American M. E.
United Brethren in Christ
MORAVIAN
NEW JERUSALEM
PRESBYTERIANS:
Northern
Southern
Cumberland
United
Reformed
Associate Reformed
Reformed (Dutch)
Reformed (German)
UNITARIANS
UNIVERSALISTS
8,079
*75
*90
5,598
1,957
2,570
814
153
105
507
1,403
346
739
271
24
196
101
2,196
12,642
12,550
3,210
2,550
157,835
9,491
*4,273
5,086
1,061
1,386
704
128
89
653
762
400
736
581,401
121,915
113,933
82,937
10,473
6,686
80,572
161,002
38,048
The Roman Catholic Church reports 5,856 churches, 6,471 priests (bishops included), and
6,377,330 population. [[@VolumePage:2,49]]
THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL
MONTHLY.
Vol. 2. April 1882. No. 4.
Sin and Grace.
A true Christian is a new creation of God, a child of God, being born again of the Spirit of
God, of incorruptible seed, by the Word of God, 2 Cor. 5.17, Gal. 6.15, 1 Pet. 1. 23. This new
nature can never be supposed to give assent to alterations of the doctrines revealed in the Word
of God. Such assent when consciously given would indicate a breaking loose from the guidance
of the Spirit of God, and the consequent loss of the privilege of being among the number of the
children of God, as St. Paul says, Rom. 8. 14.: “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are
the sons of God;” for the revealed Word is the word of the Spirit of truth who is above
correction. The alteration, e. g. of a divine revelation in the interest of an interpretation or of a
solution of difficulties arising from the apparent fact that certain revealed truths cannot otherwise
be reconciled to satisfy the laws of reason, implies the denial of the truth of what the Spirit of
God has taught us in the Scriptures, that the things of God are revealed to babes, and hid from
the wise and prudent, Matth. 11. 25. He who changes or weakens the import of a revealed truth
on the plea that minds which are logically trained require a presentation of the truth which is not
contrary to the laws of reason, and that the true sense of what is revealed is the one conveyed in
that form against which reason can take no exceptions, declares in fact that men are wiser than
God, and places himself in direct opposition to the Word of the Holy Spirit that the foolishness
of God is wiser than men, and that it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them
that believe, 1 Cor. 1. 25, 21. A Christian, therefore, accepts and believes in their
[[@VolumePage:2,50]]full force plain teachings of the Scriptures, although on systematizing
them there should appear contradictions between them which are irreconcilable to reason.
Among such contradictions are those offered in the Scriptural doctrines of man’s sin and divine
grace.
In the present controversy on Election, solutions of the difficulties presented to reason in that
article of the Christian faith are urged upon the Christians, although they are based upon
alterations of what the Scriptures teach concerning sin and grace. When men hold forth to us
that, to be sincere in our rejection of the Calvinistic absolute decree, we must believe that God
converts and saves those persons only who are not corrupted to such a degree as to proceed in the
desires of the flesh and of the mind to a wilful resistance to divine grace, or who at least of their
own accord again withdraw such resistance if it had been offered at all: we decline to follow
their teaching. It involves a denial of some revealed truths concerning sin and grace. Instructed
by the Word of God we concur in the statement of the Confession of our church that, though man
is much worse than a stone or a block which does not voluntarily oppose him who moves it, nor
understands and perceives what is done to it, in the manner in which man strives with his will
against God until he is converted: he may nevertheless be converted through divine grace ([[B.
C. N. M. Edit. p. 622 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:59]]). For the Scriptures, which know
of only two states of sinful man, namely the state of what man is by nature, and what he has been
made by grace, plainly say of converted children of God that they were by nature the children of
wrath even as others who were not converted, and that their conversion was due not to their
having by their own nature and will more suitably conducted themselves toward divine grace
than others, but to the purpose of God to show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness
toward them, Eph. 2. 3—7.
When men tell us that we cannot but believe grace to work irresistibly, unless we suppose that
before the grace of God converts a man he must by his own natural power and will have reduced
his resisting will to a condition which requires no breaking of will, no conversion of will into a
contrary state to be accomplished by the power of God and his grace, because
[[@VolumePage:2,51]]a conversion of wilful resistance into a state contrary to it would require
compulsion, or power exerted irresistibly: we cannot accept of this teaching. It implies some
alteration of the teaching of the Scriptures concerning sin and grace, and is equivalent to a
definition of conversion according to which God, in creating a new will in man, only adds
something to the old will of the unconverted, to the will of our flesh after it has of its own accord
ceased to resist the divine will, but does not break and hinder the old will, as we are taught by
our Catechism in the third petition to pray God would graciously do in us even after conversion.
We reject the doctrine of irresistible grace, and likewise reject as false the disjunction that grace
in producing effects is either irresistible force, or it does not overcome at all resistance in man’s
will. We on the contrary retain with our Confession the distinction that “when we speak of the
mode in which God operates in man, there is a modus agendi or manner in which God operates
in man as in a rational creature, and another mode applicable to an irrational creature, or to a
stone or a block.” ([[p. 623. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:62]])
Our Confession abstained from altering the Scriptural doctrines concerning sin and grace,
although it was apparent that by retaining them unaltered essential parts of its doctrine of
election must exhibit features of contradiction which are irreconcilable to human reason. Thus
we find that it teaches the elect children of God, on the ground of Scriptural testimonies
presented Eph. 1. 5-6. Rom. 9. 11—13. Gen. 25. 23. Mal. 1. 1-2. showing election to be founded
solely in the good pleasure of God’s will and without regard to the natural condition or conduct
of the elect, to consider it a false and erroneous doctrine, when men teach that not the mercy of
God alone, and the most holy merit of Christ are the cause, but that in the elect also there is a
cause of the election of God, on account of which God has elected them to everlasting life ([[p.
726 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:87]]). The Scriptural doctrines of sin and grace made it
impossible for the Confession to explain election by stating that, although the cause of the
salvation of the elect was only the mercy of God and the merit of Christ, the cause why the elect
only were elected was solely and entirely owing to their conduct, which obliged God’s universal
grace to save them, and let the rest [[@VolumePage:2,52]]perish. It is evident that the
Confession enjoins the elect to consider the cause of the preference which they enjoy over others
and which is implied in the divine election, to be solely and alone in the grace of him that calleth,
in the purpose of God to make an election, and an election of grace only, not one forced upon
him by some difference in man’s nature or conduct causing the one individual to be preferable to
the other. In opposition to this truth the theory is set up that it is in man’s choice either to close or
to open his ears and heart to the word of grace so as to receive it and be saved by it, hence grace
has bound itself to this opening of ears and heart on the part of man as the condition he must
fulfill, if grace is to save him. But this theory, satisfying, as it seems, the reasoning powers of
some minds, changes the Scriptural doctrines of sin and grace without satisfying the reasoning
powers of others who take exception against' the way in which this theory treats a divine earnest
desire to save all men which, as reason may well argue, being divine cannot but be as infinitely
great as God’s wisdom and power, and considering that man, though he is but finite in desire and
wisdom and power has, at times, succeeded by proper method to reduce even most refractory
wills to tame submission, and by further influence to positive and joyful willingness, think it
absurd to suppose that there ever existed a difference in man’s sinful state between two parts of
mankind so infinitely great as to overmatch the infinite energy of God’s grace and wisdom and
power.12 Our Confession in accordance with the Scriptures, and to the confusion of the pretended
discoverers of the secrets of divine revelation, leaves the election [[@VolumePage:2,53]]of grace
what it really is, a divine mystery, a stumbling block to some, a foolishness to others, but unto
them which are called it reveals both the power of God and the wisdom of God in Christ.
Our Confession teaches the elect children of God to consider that, when in the case of some
countries or individuals God exhibits his severity, he exhibits the penalties which the elect had
12
Can those who are opponents to all and every inconsistency in religious thoughts meet the above argument on
any other principle than that upon which the theory of Pelagius is based? This principle is stated in the following
words: “It being the will of God to present his rational creature with the gift of voluntary good and with the power of
free will, he by implanting in man the capacity of being either (good or bad), made it an innate and permanent
characteristic of man to be what he wills to be: so that being fit for good and evil he can by nature do either, and turn
his will to one or the other.” (Volens namque Deus rationabilem creaturam voluntarii boni munere et liberi arbitrii
potestate donare, utriusque partis possibilitatem homlnl inserendo proprium ejus fecit, esse quod velit; ut boni ac
mali capax, naturaliter utrumque posset, et ad alterutrum voluntatem deflecteret. August. Epist. ad Demetr. c. 8.)
also deserved, and of which the elect were worthy, in order that they, being thus admonished,
might live in the fear of God, and by comparing themselves with those who are punished as they
deserve, and by discovering their own great similarity to them, the elect may see and praise with
so much the greater diligence the pure, unmerited grace of God manifested to the vessels of
mercy, Rom. 9. 23. ([[p. 721. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:60]]) These directions clearly
import that the elect children of God must not suffer themselves to be misled into the pernicious
error of thinking that, when the causes are described which prevent the conversion of those who
are eternally lost, when the sins are enumerated which work their perdition, when the
presumption is rebuked which lays the blame of the eternal fate of the despisers of the divine
grace on God and his election: the elect may from these explanations and charges infer the cause
which induced God to elect them, that the reason why they obtained grace and salvation before
the rest of mankind was shown to consist in their having by their own natural powers and the
condition of their will either entirely or at least temporarily kept free from those very sins which
cause the damnation of the others. Disregard of the Scriptural doctrines of sin and grace has
induced men to support a false theory of election by misunderstanding and misapplying passages
like the followiug. “Now, the text Matt. 22. 14.: ‘Many are called, but few are chosen’ does not
imply that God does not desire to save all men, but the cause (of the damnation of the wicked) is
that they either do not hear the Word of God at all, but obstinately contemn it, closing their ears
and hardening their hearts, and thus obstruct the ordinary means of access of the Holy Spirit, so
that he cannot perform his work in them; or, if they have heard it, they again neglect and
disregard it; of which neither God nor his election, but their own wickedness is the cause,
[[@VolumePage:2,54]]2 Pet. 2. 1ff.; Luke 11. 49, 52.; Hebr. 12. 25ff.” ([[p. 584. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:12]]) According to that false theory the words quoted are
understood to prove that it must be a false and perverse practice if the elect children of God
attribute to God’s grace and election, and not to themselves as their own merit that conduct
which agrees with the gracious will of God, and which distinguishes them from those who are
lost, namely, that they did hear the Word of God, did not obstinately contemn it, did not close
their ears and harden their hearts, did not obstruct the ordinary means of access of the Holy
Spirit, so that he could perform his work in them; that when they had heard the Word of God,
they did not afterward neglect and disregard it; and to deny that of this neither God nor his
election, but their own natural will and conduct was the cause, must consequently be a wicked
opposition to a plain truth revealed by the Holy Spirit. Now, if that theory of election is correct,
the description of God’s electing grace given in Ezek. 16. must be thoroughly false and
misleading. If that theory states the facts as God revealed them, it is a mistake though wellmeant, indeed, but made through ignorance, a repetition of which, however, would be impossible
in the life to come which precludes the idea of mistakes, when the elect children of God give all
the honor of their conversion and salvation to God alone, knowing that God never assumes and
accepts an honor except that which is his due; that he delights in truth and hates hypocritical and
misapplied praise. There is then at least something, however little it may appear to be, though it
decides an eternal fate, of which some flesh may justly glory in the presence of the Lord, against
1 Cor. 1. 29. It scarcely requires a moment’s reflection to perceive that this theory, if suffered to
take root in the heart of a Christian, must be destructive of his religion.
Our Confession teaches the elect children of God to restrain their tongue, and repress their
thoughts, as St. Paul does, whenever they in their investigations approach the secret of the divine
election of individuals unto eternal salvation, and to abstain from searching out what God has
reserved unto his hidden wisdom concerning this mystery; for God’s judgments are
unsearchable, and his ways are past finding out ([[p. 721 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:6364]]). This admonition, which we follow in spite of the continual [[@VolumePage:2,55]]sneers
of our opponents, warns the elect children of God against the presumption to deprive election of
its mystery, without which what we may please to call election can be nothing but a delusion. A
disregard of the unfathomable depths of both sin and grace, which the teaching of the Scriptures
reminds us of, has dared by way of illustrating election to present a figment of human reason,
according to which there is a certain peculiarity in the nature, use, and power of the human will
which transcends nature with its laws, so as to be subject to no motives except will itself, and
which with some men exhibits a certain aptitude for conversion and salvation found by God not
to be present in all men. In consequence of this fact God saw himself bound to be satisfied with
the result which that difference, he encountered when graciously viewing mankind, forced upon
him, as it were. To this difference, then, the elect owe it that they were elected. The election of
the children of God, therefore, does not depend on, is not determined by his grace, but
necessitated by a sort of fate, i. e. by the mysterious development of man’s nature, so that,
indeed, the only mystery in election is man himself. It must, therefore, be considered ridiculous to
believe that there is something mysterious respecting the ways of God in election; psychology
alone can solve what still appears in it dark or doubtful.— Attempts like these which treat the
mystery of the election of grace as if it was a thing held sacred only by superstition, like an
image enshrined in a heathen temple the doors of which only need to be daringly thrown open to
make it apparent that there is nothing within, worth adoring, the Scriptures forbid us to imitate or
applaud.
As man’s sin and divine grace are at the basis of every religion, so the Scriptural doctrines of
sin and grace are among the fundamental principles of the Christian religion. Since the Christian
religion, which is as old as mankind, is a revelation from heaven, it condemns all other religions
as being the offspring of man’s corruption and natural opposition to the true God, and consisting
of a corruption of and opposition to divine revelation. And since divine revelations concerning
sin and grace were necessary for man to understand both sin and grace, neither of them will ever
be truly and correctly understood [[@VolumePage:2,56]]without the Spirit of God. To those who
treat of them without the Holy Spirit they are, as Luther says, mere names, or, as it were, like
dreams, some traces of which are left in the mind, while the whole thing has slipped from their
mind and eyes. It cannot be otherwise, as the true knowledge of both sin and grace is not born at
our own homes, in our hearts, but is given from heaven, and therefore depends not on the
knowledge and wisdom of human reason. The knowledge of sin, or the fear of God, and the
knowledge of grace, or the trust in God’s mercy, make up that work of the Holy Spirit which
brings eternal salvation to man, and which is called repentance without which there is no
Christian religion. In the use of these divine doctrines, Luther says, even the prophets themselves
remained disciples with us, as all men however enlightened by the Holy Spirit remain disciples
of the Word of God, never come up to it, but experience that they are scarce able to draw a drop
from the unfathomable sea of the Spirit. The true knowledge of sin, as it has its origin in the
Spirit of God, is no mere speculation, thought, theory, or notion, but sense, experience, and a
most severe struggle of the heart, a feeling of the intolerable burden of the wrath of God, a
sensation of death, and hell, and eternal damnation. Neither is the true knowledge of grace a
thought and notion only, but the practical acquaintance with, and the sensation of, that mercy of
God in Christ through which the revelation is made to the penitent sinners that as all their life
before God, when he is met and viewed without his promises, is sin, and death, and damnation,
so again all their life through the knowledge of God’s promises is posited, and inclosed, and shut
up in the bosom of divine mercy.
We cannot wonder, then, that there are things in those fundamental principles of our religion
which are incomprehensible to reason, and apparent contradictions which man is incapable of
harmonizing. Sin and grace are revealed to us by the Spirit of God as posited in the strongest
possible opposition to each other, in their logical bearing contradictory beyond any hope or
possibility of a solution, in their effects continually striving against and undoing each other; and
God himself is presented as contradicting himself, his own nature and will,
[[@VolumePage:2,57]]his own words and truth. That prayer, which the Spirit of God himself
teaches the penitent sinner: “Have mercy upon me, O God,” sounds, Luther says, as if directly
spoken against the decalogue with all its menaces. By such prayer the ungodly, the sinner
condemned by the word of the law is led by the Spirit of God himself to set aside the divine truth
that God is a consuming fire to him who has sinned, jealous and taking vengeance on his
adversaries, and will not at all acquit the wicked, Nah. 1. 2-3. These contradictions and
incompatibles are united not in man’s head, but in man’s heart, in true repentance, and by the
Spirit of God alone. These incompatible things the Spirit of God keeps in their full and entire
opposition above all the harmonizing attempts of human reason in those who are truly repentant,
and only hides the unapproachable majesty of God’s wrath against the sinner, behind the
gracious promises with which God has clothed himself to be seized by the penitent. He who does
not experience anything of the awful struggle produced by these Scriptural doctrines, knows
neither sin nor grace, and is no Christian. And he who falls to modifying these doctrines in order
to satisfy reason by way of removing the contradictions inherent in them, is engaged in framing a
false religion. The contradictions which appear in sin and grace are so repugnant to human
reason that philosophers have discarded these ideas altogether as untenable. It is only minds
satisfied with a work being half-done, minds that are neither warm nor cold in reason, that feel
called to mix reason and revelation, and are, consequently, neither warm nor cold in religion, too.
Every attempt to reconcile what to reason is a manifest contradiction in the Scriptural truths that
the grace of God is universal and that but few men are saved, can be shown to be based upon a
sophistication and perversion of the Scriptural doctrines of sin and grace, or, at least, of either the
one or the other. But to falsify these fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion means to
pervert true repentance and, consequently, the heart and center of the Christian religion itself. All
the false religions are founded upon false thoughts concerning man’s sin and divine grace. The
Scriptural doctrines of sin and grace reveal the truths that it is grace alone which both leads to
conversion and converts, so that salvation [[@VolumePage:2,58]]is entirely the work of God,
and that the cause why not all men are saved is in man alone, so that damnation is entirely the
guilt of man. All the efforts of Calvinists, Pelagians, Semipelagians, and Synergists, to subvert
either of these truths, are refuted by clear Scriptural testimonies. May God in his mercy grant that
his revelations concerning his gracious election, the incomprehensible nature of which he
deigned us to experience in true repentance, be always kept pure and unsophisticated by us
amidst the attacks of scoffers who know not what they do.
(For the “Theological Monthly.”)
God without His Promises of Grace and God the Promiser of Salvation.
The distinction between God without the promises of grace and God the Promiser of salvation,
which our beloved father Dr. Martin Luther was accustomed to make in his writings, is a most
consolatory one for us Christians. By nature we know not only that there is a great God who has
made us and to whom we are responsible for all our doings, but also that we are sinners and
offenders of this great God. His Law is written in our hearts and condemns us every moment of
our lives. But, O unspeakable comfort, the God whom we have offended stands before us in His
revealed Word as the Promiser of all salvation! We would be lost forever, and not be saved, if
God had not promised to save us. Our whole salvation—its beginning and continuance in this life
and its consummation in the life to come—is nothing else but that God keeps His promises.
Without His promises we would have to remain in our forlorn and most unhappy state. We are
redeemed by Christ, we are called out of the world by the Holy Spirit, and our sins are forgiven
us or we are justified by God, which is the same thing, for Christ’s sake, in consequence of the
divine promises given us. Thus also our glorification in eternal life will be a gift of God’s free
and gracious promise. His promises to save us are promises and nothing more or less. They were
dictated, if we may so speak, by His infinite mercy to lost mankind. As soon as we were to take
away divine mercy from the idea of these divine promises, we would destroy the idea, and as
soon as we were to mix a requisite on our part into the idea of these divine promises, we would
destroy the idea of divine mercy. In these promises God is [[@VolumePage:2,59]]revealed to us
in His mercy. He says, as it were, to the penitent sinner: Know who I am and what My mind is
toward you; I have given you My promises of grace in which I am clothed. These promises are
the form in which I will be seen of you. But God not only announces salvation unto us by His
promises, but they are at the same time also the means by which He works faith in the hearts of
men and makes them partakers of the promised salvation; so that it is a word of promise when it
is said: He that believeth shall be saved. God performs the whole work of saving us Himself by
fulfilling His gracious promises. None of our omittings or doings assist Him in saving us. On the
other hand, some people are inclined to think, since God’s Law says: Thou shalt have no other
gods before Me, you will be saved, if you fulfill this commandment by believing in Christ; if you
prepare your hearts for the reception of My grace, if you cease, in your nature, to resist My
Word, if you allow yourself to be converted, you will live. By this Law of God the sinner is
condemned. For every sinner must confess that he cannot believe in Christ; he must confess that
he cannot prepare his heart for the reception of God’s grace, that he cannot cease to resist the
Word of God, that it is an impossibility for him to allow himself to be converted. These words of
the Law are therefore no comfort for the sinner who is conscious of his depravity and sinfulness,
but rather render him exceedingly comfortless. The great and holy God than whom none other is
known to him without the promises, is standing before him as a majestic and dreadful judge who
requires in His Law that the sinner be perfectly holy and return, of his own power, to the blessed
state in which he was originally created, which, however, he is totally unable to do. Being thus
without the divine promises, he must fall in despair and perish. Therefore, all those who say that
man can cease to resist the grace of God, have taken the Law in exchange for the Gospel and
God the Judge for God the Promiser of grace. It is ridiculous to hear men say that we
Missourians are teaching the election of an absolute God. We are confessing an election of
divine mercy and good pleasure in Christ, the Saviour of all mankind, but they place the sinner
before God without His promises of grace, and say to him, as it were: Now woe unto you,
because you cannot do anything to save yourself. We beg to let the poor sinners whom mercy has
caused to despair of themselves by the Word of the Law, hear the glad tidings that it is divine
mercy, and that simply, that puts a stop to their hearts’ resistance against grace by the divine
promises, or, in other words, that it is God the Promiser of grace who changes the heart by the
quickening power of His promises. [[@VolumePage:2,60]]
One of the passages in which Dr. Luther closely distinguishes between God without His
promises of grace and God the Promiser of salvation, is the following, on Ps. 51. 1. (“Be
merciful unto me, O God”): “Here, in the beginning, because David nameth God and maketh no
mention of Christ, ye must be admonished not to think that he speaketh of God like a
Mohammedan or any other gentile man. For he speaketh with the God of his fathers or with God
the Promiser, because the people of Israel had not God absolutely considered, so to say, as an
ignorant class of monks ascend up into heaven in their speculations and think on God absolutely.
This absolute God all must flee who will not perish, because human nature and the absolute God
(we make use of this known appellation for the sake of teaching) are most hostile enemies of
each other, and human infirmity cannot but be oppressed by so great a majesty; as the Scriptures
several times admonish. Therefore, no one should understand David as speaking with the
absolute God, but he speaketh with God vested and clothed with His Word and promises, so that
Christ, concerning whom a promise was made by God unto Adam and the other patriarchs, is not
excluded from the name of God. This God, not bare, but vested with and revealed by His Word,
we must apprehend, else despair will be sure to oppress us. And this distinction between the
prophets, who speak with God, and the Gentiles, must continually be made. For the Gentiles
speak with God beside the Word and promises, according to the thoughts of their heart; but the
prophets speak with God as clothed with and revealed by His promises and Word. This God,
clothed with so mild a form and so pleasant a mask, so to say, namely with His promises, can be
apprehended and beheld with joy and trust, whilst, on the contrary, the absolute God is like a
brazen wall against which we cannot strike without perishing. Therefore, Satan is making
endeavors day and night to put us in opposition to the bare God, so that we, forgetting the
promises and the beneficence shown in Christ, may think on God and the judgment of God.
When this is done, we perish at once, having fallen into despair. David doth not speak with the
absolute God in this manner, but with the God of his fathers, that is, with God whose promises
he knoweth and whose mercy and grace he feeleth. If, therefore, a Turk, a hypocrite, or a monk,
saith: ‘Be merciful unto me, O God,’ it is the same as if he said nothing, because he
apprehendeth not God, whom he nameth, as veiled in such a person or form as is attemperate to
us, but apprehendeth and invadeth God in His absolute power, where despair and Lucifer’s fall
out of heaven into hell necessarily follow. The reason, therefore, why the prophets thus relied
upon the promises of God in [[@VolumePage:2,61]]their prayers, is because the promises
include Christ and make God to be, not our judge or foe, but a benign and favoring God, who
will restore to life, and save, the damned.” [[Opp. Lat. Erl. ed., vol. 19, pp. 21 to 23. >>
logosres:lw12;ref=VolumePage.V_12,_pp_312-313;off=358]]
Let us be satisfied with God’s merciful promises in Christ and beware of contemplating on the
absolute God. C.S.K.
(For the “Theological Monthly.”)
Review of Comments on our Reasons for suspending Membership in the Ohio
Synod.
(Concluded.)
In our two first reasons for withdrawing from the Joint Synod we stated the false confession
and false doctrine of that body. In the third we give a brief summary of the true doctrine which is
condemned by the Joint Synod. In his comments E. L. S. T. mixes this up as it is generally his
custom to jump from one thing to another. We will, therefore, here give a brief sketch of his
comments on our doctrine in general and then rest our pen in regard to him. Our third reason
reads thus:
One of the reasons given for withdrawing from the Synodical Conference is, because the
Synod of Missouri had set up a doctrine of election which the Ohio Synod could not accept. Now
the doctrine of Missouri may be summed up in these sentences: 1. God desires and seeks the
salvation of all men;
2. Those that will be lost are lost on account of their unbelief;
3. Those that will be saved were, before the foundation of the world from pure grace for the
sake of Christ’s merits, ordained unto salvation and all that is necessary to obtain it. I hold, that
this is the doctrine of God’s Word and the Confessions of our Church, and can not consent to
condemn the truth.
The import is briefly this: Missouri teaches the doctrine of the Confessions; the Joint Synod of
Ohio condemns that doctrine. So then to go with the Joint Synod is to condemn the doctrine of
the Confessions on election and conversion.
The XI. Art. of the Form. of Concord holds the middle between Calvinism on the one and
Synergism on the other side. It rejects and condemns both extremes as false. ([[See B. of C. 2nd
Ed., p. 586. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:17-21]]) For this reason both Calvinists and
Synergists criticise our Confessions. For the Calvinists there is not enough absolutism, and for
the Synergists not enough humanism in them. That both Calvinists and Synergists criticise the
Lutheran doctrine is, therefore, not surprising to any [[@VolumePage:2,62]]one, who has learnt
to understand the Lutheran doctrine on election. Therefore, every one criticising the doctrine of
the Confessions, or in any way twisting them to a meaning, which they in their “natural,
grammatical construction and sense” do not convey, makes himself suspicious of being either a
Calvinist or Synergist. That the name by which such a man calls himself, whether Presbyterian,
or Methodist, or Lutheran, is of very little consequence, that, certainly, even E. L. S. T. will not
deny. Not the name, but only the doctrine will show, whether the man is a Calvinist, Lutheran, or
Synergist. He who advocates an absolute election or an election of sovereignity and not in Christ
is a Calvinist, he who advocates an election of grace only and grace fully is a Lutheran, and he
who advocates such an election, in which the election of the individuals elected finally depends
on something in man, is a Synergist, though he may perhaps call himself a “legitimate son” of
the Lutheran Church-fathers.
Now the sum and substance of E. L. S. T.’s comments is, to represent our doctrine as
Calvinistic. But what does he prove? Does he prove that our doctrine is Calvinistic, or does he
prove that his doctrine is Synergistic? Let us see what he has to say in regard to our doctrine.
He writes: “Pastor Kuegele says, the mystery of election lies in the will of God. He says God
wills to save all men, but at the same time He wills only to elect a few. The mystery then is that
to our minds God contradicts himself, God has become a liar. Is that any better than Calvinism
and blasphemy? Both God’s Word and our Confessions spurn such a solution of the mystery in
election.” Where do we say that? It was indeed lucky for E. L. S. T. that he did not attempt to
demonstrate this by quotations from our writings. The fact is, we have never and nowhere said
any such a thing. Let E. L. S. T. produce the words, where we have said this, or let him, like an
honest man, revoke his calumny. We have said, that God wills to save all men and that He has
elected only a few, but where did We ever say, that God wills only to elect a few? Our doctrine
is, that God wills to save all men, and that few are chosen.
By thus falsifying our doctrine, E. L. S. T. would also make it appear, as though we attempted
to solve the mystery of election whilst it is well known to him, that we reject and condemn all
attempted solutions, whether they proceed from Calvinists or Joint Synod men. What we have
said concerning this is the following: “Thus we have seen that the two ways in which an
explanation of the mystery of election might be thought possible by reason, and in which it has
been attempted, result in the gravest errors; for whilst Calvinism makes God
[[@VolumePage:2,63]]the author of damnation, Synergism finds in man a cause of salvation.”
(See Sermons on Pred., p. 16.) Again (p. 25): “What the mystery of predestination is, that we
know, that the Scriptures tell us very plainly; but the how is hidden. That it is the will of God to
save all men, and that He chose unto salvation before the foundation of the world, that we know;
but how God, whilst wanting all saved, could choose unto salvation, that we can not comprehend
to make it agree with our understanding. Shall we, with the Calvinists, deny the one, or with the
other sects say, that the cause of election is in man? Then, indeed, the mystery is away, but it is
put away by denying the plain Word of God.” Let E. L. S. T. mark well that we do not, as he
falsely accuses us, say, that God “wills only to elect a few,” but we say: Whilst wanting all saved
God chose unto salvation. By the will of God we do not understand a fictitious will, but a real,
actual, serious will to save all men, and by the choice of God we do not understand a fictitious
choice, not a blind grab as Calvin, nor a mere judicial act, a judging between worthy and
unworthy, as E. L. S. T., but a real actual election of grace, without any merit or worthiness in
the person chosen. That is the mystery to us: “How God, whilst wanting all saved, could choose
unto salvation.” How God, whilst wanting both Adam and his children saved, could choose from
amongst them unto salvation, that is to us the incomprehensible thing, of which we say: “This
doctrine is misapplied, or rather misused, if we, giving way to our natural curiosity, seek to
search out and to comprehend its mysteries.” (See Sermons, p. 24.)
So our commentator also represents us as denying the will of God to convert all men, when he
writes: “We will never say the reason why many are not converted is because God did not will to
elect them.” He would have the reader believe our doctrine were, that the cause of nonconversion lies in the will and election of God, but the direct contrary is the case. If he will turn
to p. 8 of our Sermons he will find the following: “Our Church teaches concerning them that will
be lost, that they are lost not because they had been fore-ordained to damnation. God has
predestinated no one to death; they are lost, not because God had not desired their salvation, not
because they had not been redeemed, not because salvation had not been effectually offered them
in the means of grace, nor because God in His eternal election had passed them by with His
grace, but simply and only because they pass by God’s grace, or although they accept it for a
while cast it away again.”
These are a few examples of how E. L. S. T. prevaricates our doctrine. We think it
unnecessary to enlarge on his misrepresentations. It would certainly have been troublesome for
[[@VolumePage:2,64]]him to examine, what we do say and teach, and it was his interest to
make our doctrine appear Calvinistic.
To his comments on our third reason E. L. S. T. also attaches his order of election thus: “The
order that God has revealed to us in His Word respecting election is this: His will to save all, the
redemption of the world by Christ, calling of the world through the Gospel, giving of faith to
those who do not wilfully resist the call, the election of each and every one who truly believes
unto everlasting life.” That he calls the order revealed to us, but St. Paul, Romans 8. 29-30.,
writes: “Whom He did foreknow, He also did predestine to be conformed to the image of His
Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He did predestinate,
them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them
He also glorified.” The reader will see, that E. L. S. T. inverts Paul’s order, besides making
man’s non-resistance the pivot on which election depends.
The comments on our reasons close with the words: “We can only say, Lord, have mercy upon
him (Rev. K.) and open his eyes to see from whence he has fallen.” Yea, Lord, have mercy upon
us and open our eyes to see ever more, that we are not sufficient of ourselves to think any thing
as of ourselves, but that our salvation is alone in Thee. Amen. F.K.
General Religious Intelligence.
THE English revisers of the Old Testament have completed the second revision of Jeremiah as
far as chapter 46.
MORMONISM is advancing into Arizona. Some of its most valuable land has been taken up by
Mormon settlers and stocked with large herds of cattle.
A PASTORAL staff, whatever that may be, has been presented to the Bishop of Central
Pennsylvania. Price, $500.
ROME. The pope has addressed an urgent letter to the Italian Bishops, commanding them, in
view of the dangers surrounding the church, to increase their activity, to encourage Catholic
societies among the laity, to develop the Catholic press, and to advocate boldly the temporal
independence of the pope.
ON a recent Sunday a count was taken in Edinburgh, by which it appeared that the total
attendance at two services out of a population of 228,000 was 101,713. In the case of the Free
and the Established Churches the attendance was smaller than the membership, showing that a
considerable proportion of the communicants were not at church.
THE United States Bureau shows that the number of churches built in the country has steadily
increased from the first till now, and never was increasing so rapidly as now. Church property in
1850, in the United States, was worth about eighty-seven millions of dollars; in 1860, one
hundred and seventy-one millions; in 1870, three hundred and fifty-four millions. The number of
church organizations in 1850 was thirty-eight thousand; in 1860, fifty-four thousand; in 1870,
seventy-two thousand. There were church accommodations in 1850 for fourteen millions of
people; in 1860, for nineteen millions; in 1870, for twenty-one millions. The census statistics for
1880 are not yet accessible. ALPH. [[@VolumePage:2,65]]
THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL
MONTHLY.
Vol. 2. May 1882. No. 5.
(For the “Theological Monthly.”)
“Perfection.”
“If God does not forgive us continually, we are lost.” ([[L. Cat. 5th Pet. >>
BookOfConcord:Large Cat.:iii:v:91]])
With the manifold errors which rob God of His glory, disgrace the merits of Christ, and do
harm to immortal souls, ranks the sectarian doctrine of perfect sanctification or sinless perfection
in the present life. This presumption of a complete holiness of life as an essential part of true
Christianity, is not at all of a recent date. Even in the days of the ancient church some false
teachers labored to disseminate that haughty notion, so that it became a necessity to contend
against them and to excommunicate from the Church those that persisted in defending their
aberration. Thus, for instance, the Valentinians, a branch of the Alexandrian Gnostics in the
second century, amongst other peculiar, idle fables maintained that when God took possession of
the heart of man, its carnal passions were altogether annihilated and man restored to perfection.
Of the same type were the Marcites, a sect of heretics cotemporary with the Valentinians.
Following their chief, a fanatic by the name of Marcus, they claimed that in holiness of life, they
excelled even St. Paul and St. Peter. They went so far as to call themselves “perfecti.”—About
the last of the fourth, and the beginning of the fifth century, perfectionism was again advanced
by Pelagius and Celestius, who, contrary to the clear Word of God, asserted that man could live
perfectly holy, without sinning, if he only decided to do so,—a heresy, which found its way into
the monasteries, schools and pulpits of the antichristian Church of Rome, where it ever since
[[@VolumePage:2,66]]has been, and continually is proclaimed, however different the wordings
of that doctrine may be. For what else but perfectionism is the absurd doctrine of supererogation,
which was invented in the 12th century and embellished by Thomas of Aquinas in the 13th,
according to which the “saints” do beyond their duty and beyond what is necessary for their own
salvation?—
In later years the false doctrine of perfect holiness in man was served up and introduced in
England by John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist sect, with whom it was a favorite idea, as
it still is with a large portion of the Wesleyan faction. In proof of a fancied perfect state in the
present life Wesley referred to the Savior’s words: “It is enough for the disciple that he be as his
master” (Matth. 10. 25.). But that this text of the Scriptures was grossly misapplied, is evident
from the fact that it has no relation whatever to freedom from corruption and sin. Other scriptural
passages have been brought in support of the conceited notion that converted Christians can and
actually do attain to a perfect obedience to the divine law, so as to become innocent and guiltless
inwardly and outwardly. Now, if we inquire into the matter in order to ascertain, whence it
comes that the perfectionists embrace and defend such an error, the fact will present itself before
our eyes, that they have not yet learned what the Bible teaches concerning justification and
sanctification; they did not yet learn to judge rightly between the Law and the Gospel.
Disregarding the great difference between the righteousness of grace (the free and full
forgiveness of sins) and the righteousness of life (good works by faith), they maintain that, as
justification is perfect, sanctification also must be perfect. They identify the fruit with the root,
because they do not submit to the truth, by which we are taught that justification entirely
excludes good works on the part of man, whereas in sanctification the justified Christian’s good
works are included. In the act of justification God forgives sins and imputes to the penitent the
righteousness of Christ. In sanctification the true believer’s new will and spiritual faculties serve
God and the neighbor through the strength and guidance of the Holy Ghost.—To be saved from
sin in this life is, to the [[@VolumePage:2,67]]perfectionists, not only pardon and deliverance
from the dominion and penalty of sins, but at the same time the extermination of what the
Scriptures express by the terms “flesh” and “the lusts of the flesh”. Hence the heinous error and
wicked presumption that Christians can “be as completely saved from sin in this life as Christ
was free from sin”, and that “they can love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength, and
their neighbor as themselves”,—an out and out Pelagian heresy, as it is set forth and contended
for in A. Clarke’s Commentary, in an explanatory note to 1 John 3. 3.
God, the giver of the Law, tells us that, because sin dwells in us as long as we live in the
present world, it is impossible for us that we should fulfil the law in such a manner as required
by the Law itself and that, moral perfection can not be attained to in this life. It is not true that
our motions, thoughts and deeds are pure from all sin, for though we, through the operation of
the Holy Spirit, are inflamed with love both towards God and the neighbor, this love is not yet
perfect and will be short of perfection as long as “the flesh lusteth against the Spirit”. True
Christians, however, will never excuse their shortcomings, no more than they do despair on
account thereof. They are convinced not only that they are poor sinners, but also that their
infirmities do not condemn them, because Christ Jesus is their “wisdom, righteousness,
sanctification and redemption”. Their frailty is covered with the cloak of that righteousness
which their Savior has purchased for them. Their joy and consolation is this that they are
accounted perfect, being justified through faith for Christ’s sake.
With reference to our daily infirmities and offences M. Luther has set forth the pure Scripturedoctrine over against the dangerous errors of the popish and all other fanatics who boast that they
can live without sinning in this world, thus claiming for themselves a state of perfect holiness.
Luther, it is true, firmly believed and with great rejoicing taught that true Christians are holy, or,
the saints upon earth. “Whosoever believe in Christ, are all saints.” This truth neither the pope
nor the devil could wrest out of his heart. Applying this cheering truth to himself, he said, “God
has given me to [[@VolumePage:2,68]]see not only one, but countless saints, not such as I have
heretofore imagined them to be, but such as Christ Himself and His apostles describe them, of
which number I myself am one by the grace of God. For I am baptized and I do believe that my
Lord Jesus Christ by His death has redeemed me from my sins and has given to me eternal
righteousness and holiness. And cursed be all they that do not give this honor unto Christ, to
believe that they are delivered from sin, justified and saved through His death and resurrection.”
This is the Gospel-truth! But it is no less true, that the saints, yea, none but they, daily ask for
forgiveness of sins, because they know and feel their shortcomings. Concerning this highly
important matter, Luther preached and wrote extensively. The following lines contain some of
his instructive and consolatory remarks on “daily sins”, or the sins of infirmity:—
All the saints have experienced this battle of the flesh against the Spirit, and so do we feel it
too. For whoever searches his own conscience, if he be not a hypocrite, shall perceive and must
confess that, within his heart, he finds it to be true what St. Paul here has written, that the flesh
lusteth against the Spirit. All saints confess and deplore the fact that their flesh resists the Spirit
and that these two are so contrary one to the other, that the Spirit can not do what he is willing to
do. Thus the flesh hinders us that we do not keep the commandments of God, that we do not love
our neighbor as ourselves, much less love God with all our heart etc., and for this reason it is
impossible for us to become righteous by the deeds of the law. The good will is there, indeed,
and must be there, for it is the Spirit itself that resists the flesh and would cheerfully do all that is
right and good; it would gladly fulfil the law and love both God and the neighbor etc., but the
flesh disobeys the good will and goes counter to it. God, however, does not impute such sins to
us, but is merciful to us for Christ’s sake.
But from this it does not follow that you may make a light matter of your sin, because God
does not impute it to you. That He does not impute it, is most certainly true. But to whom, and
for whose sake, does He show His mercy? Most assuredly not to the obstinate, impenitent and
secure sinners, [[@VolumePage:2,69]]but to those that repent and by faith lay hold upon Christ,
the Mediator. As unto these all sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, even so the remnants of sins,
which are in their flesh, are not laid to their charge. But they do not consider their offences
trifling and small; on the contrary do they look upon them as great and burdensome, wherefore
they, according to St. Paul’s admonition Col. 3. 9., strive to put off the old man with his doings,
withstanding the evil passions and all other sins.
This I say lest anybody should think that, after he had received faith, sin were to be looked
upon as a trifling matter. Sin is truly sin, odious in the sight of God and deserving punishment,
whether you commit it before or after you have learned to know Christ. Yea, every sin secundum
substantiam facti, that is, as it is in itself, is certainly mortal. That the believer’s sins are not laid
to his charge unto death, is from no other cause than Christ the Reconciliator and the Mediator,
who has blotted out the sins by His death. To him that does not believe in Him, not only the sins
but all his good works are damnable, as it is written Rom. 14. 23.: “Whatsoever is not of faith, is
sin.” It is, consequently, a pernicious error of the sophists, that they distinguish sin secundum
substantiam facti (according to the facts themselves) and not according to believing or
unbelieving persons. As far as the sins in themselves are considered, they are alike great with the
believer and the unbeliever; but to the believer they are forgiven and not laid to his charge, to the
unbeliever they are retained and imputed. What is a venial sin to the believer, is a mortal sin to
the unbeliever,—not that there be a difference in the sin itself and that the believer’s sin be
smaller and more trivial than that of the unbeliever, but on account of the difference of the
persons. For the believer is, by faith, assured that his sins are pardoned for Christ’s sake, who has
given Himself for it. Therefore, although he has sins, he nevertheless continues to be a godly
man, whereas on the other hand the unbeliever is a wicked man. And such is the true wisdom and
the comfort of the godly, that they know that, though they have and commit sin, it is not imputed
to them for Christ’s sake, in whom they believe. This I say for the consolation of the godly, for
they alone do feel that they have sins and [[@VolumePage:2,70]]commit sins; that it; to say, they
do not so fervently love and trust God as they should do; they often doubt whether God in
heaven cares for them, they are impatient in adversity and murmur against God and so forth. All
this is the cause of those vehement complaints uttered by the holy men in the Scriptures and
especially in the Psalms. For this reason St. Paul complains Rom 7. 14. that he is sold under the
sin, and here he says, the flesh lusteth against the Spirit. But because the godly mortify the deeds
of the flesh by the Spirit, Rom. 8. 13., and crucify the flesh with the affections and lusts, Gal. 5.
24., therefore such sins can do them no harm nor condemn them. Those, however, that yield
submission to the will of their flesh in fulfilling the lusts thereof, lose both faith and the Holy
Ghost and must die in sin, unless they return to Christ, who has given the keys to the Church, by
which to assist and to raise up the fallen, that they may again receive faith and the Holy Ghost.
We, then, do not here speak of those that only imagine that they have faith whilst they continue
to live in sin, for the sentence of death is passed upon them, that they that live after the flesh,
must die, Rom. 8. 13. And again Gal. 5. 19—21.: “The works of the flesh are manifest, etc.,
whereof I have told you, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”
Thus, then, do we see who are the saints indeed. They are not dead sticks or stone images,
insensible and insusceptible of carnal lusts, as the perverted sophists and nonsensical monks have
dreamed, but the saints are those, according to St. Paul, whose flesh lusteth against the Spirit,
wherefore they have sin and can sin. Even so does the [[32. Psalm (5, 6.) >> Ps 32.5-6]] plainly
testify that the saints confess their unrighteousness, praying that the iniquity of their sins may be
forgiven them: “I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and Thou forgavest the
iniquity of my sin. For this shall every one that is godly pray unto Thee” etc. Likewise the whole
Church, which is holy indeed, prays for remission of sin and believes the forgiveness of sin. And
in the 143. Psalm David prays: “O LORD, enter not into judgment with Thy servant: for in Thy
sight shall no man living be justified.” Again Psalm 130. 3, 4.: “If Thou, LORD, shouldest mark
iniquities, O LORD, [[@VolumePage:2,71]]who shall stand? But there is forgiveness with Thee”
etc. In this manner the greatest saints, as David, Paul etc., do speak and pray, and it is beyond
question that all holy men speak and pray the same thing with the same spirit, which they would
not do, if there were no sin in them. The sophists do not read the Scriptures, and if they read
them they, like the Jews 2 Cor. 3. 13., have a veil before their eyes, so that they neither
understand nor profit by what they read, and therefore they know of sin and holiness no more
than of any other thing taught in the Scriptures. [[(Luther. Com. Gal. 5.17 Germ. Ed. >>
logosres:lw27;ref=VolumePage.V_27,_pp_75-77;off=3327]]
To the above we add the words of the Form. of Conc. ([[Art. III. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:iii:22]]): “When we teach, that we are born anew and justified
through the operation of the Holy Ghost, it must not be understood, as if no unrighteousness
whatever adhered to the justified and regenerate in their essence or in their conduct after
regeneration; but that Christ with His perfect obedience covers all their sins, which still adhere to
nature in this life.”—
G. R.
(For the “Theological Monthly”.)
Those Innovations.
These are the rather unfriendly words, used by the leader of the Ohio Synod when speaking of
the labors of the Missouri Synod which are termed by him innovations of the Missouri leaders,
which have always given rise to controversy. The disparagement conveyed by this term induced
us to give this matter a little meditation.
Before we begin, however, we take pleasure in stating that we are no so-called “St. Louis
man,” nor, by any means, among the so-called “leaders” of the Missouri Synod, and,
consequently, if anything in these lines should seem to be written in particular praise of “St.
Louis men” and “Missouri leaders,” we are not, on that account, liable to that old common-place
objection of having sung our own praise. Still, as it was not by us that those “innovations” were
called to the front, we can not but feel inclined, time and space of the [[@VolumePage:2,72]]ST.
LOUIS MONTHLY permitting, to give our readers something like a panorama of the history of
those “innovations,” by way of an historical sketch, based upon generally conceded historical
facts. Of course, if, in this as in other cases, history proves to be greatly in favor of Missouri, we
are not to blame.
We begin our remarks with quoting a sentence contained in a leader of the Lutheran Standard
of October 19th, 1881, entitled, “What the trouble is about,” and which is as follows: “But the
leaders of the Missouri Synod, whose innovations gave rise to the controversy, accustomed to
have everything their own way in the organization to which they belonged and irritated at the
opposition which confronted them in this case, resorted to measures which rendered a peaceable
adjustment of the difficulty impossible.” We shall not waste time in exposing what in this
sentence every well-informed person knows to be a falsehood; we shall here only treat the
quotation as a curiosity. For by simply changing controversy into controversies, you will have a
short expression for an historical fact, viz., that the leaders of the Missouri Synod always made
innovations, i. e., they brought forth something which, though thoroughly, genuinely Lutheran,
was still unknown to the rest of the American Lutheran Church, thus giving rise to controversies.
For illustration’s sake, let us retrace our steps some 30 or 40 years. A generation or so ago, what
a pity to view the picture the so-called Lutheran Church of that time presented. The General
Synod, whose congregations for the greater part had lost the language of their fathers, was what
the General Synod is now, a sham without a body, nothing of the Lutheranism of Muhlenberg
and his co-laborers left, no more Lutheranism about them than about the Methodist Ecumenical
Council, while they were thoroughly infected by Methodism,—in a word, naught being left but
the Lutheran name, even this being merely traditional. We don’t like to display everything the
old so-called Lutheran periodicals disclose in that line. Surely, in the time when “the leaders of
the Missouri Synod” came to be part of the Lutheran Church, there was more than one thing to
mar its appearance. Look at the Lutheran churches of that time, what would you behold? All
“new measure” appliances, mourners’ seats, &c., in the best [[@VolumePage:2,73]]of style;
preachers hallowing at the top of their voices to bring down the Spirit; a Reformed brother to the
right, a Methodist to the left, ever ready to help their brother in his arduous task; at the
communion table bread and wine, and mere bread and wine, for both Lutherans and Reformed;
union churches, union services, union funerals; in short, a perfect conglomerate of everything unLutheran. But behold, who are those bold innovators fearlessly stepping up to clear the altars of
their church from these desecrations? Who are those preaching that there is no means of grace
except the Word and sacraments? Who are those denouncing all syncretism without respect of
persons? They are the leaders of the Missouri Synod. They were making their first “innovations,”
and tireless were they in their exertions. To sustain their “innovations” they referred to the
confessions of the Lutheran Church. But who knew them? Who knew the Book of Concord? Not
to say anything about the laity, Lutheran ministers, the bulk of Lutheran ministers, were more
ignorant about the Book of Concord than about the Chinese language, and still they claimed to
know Lutheranism, and be thoroughly Lutheran. But “the leaders” of the Missouri Synod with
their innovating tendency were not so easily baffled, they kept on importing copies of the Book
of Concord until they had it published under their auspices; but, above all, they kept on
inculcating that axiom, which to us seems so familiar and selfevident, viz., if you wish to be truly
Lutheran, you have to know the Lutheran confessions and embrace the doctrine they contain.
Behold the first great innovation of “the leaders” of the Missouri Synod, and the belief that this
was a grand innovation, is a belief not confined to the realms of the Missouri Synod. It had a
wide-felt influence, even where it is not acknowledged. It gave rise to controversy, but it was
followed by victory. New measures and unionism vanished from a great many churches, and the
Book of Concord ceased to be an unknown treasure.
An other phase. In those old times, students ( !?) who very often had to spend the first year on
very, very elementary studies, after staying and studying two years with a minister, were licensed
to preach and administer the sacraments, no [[@VolumePage:2,74]]reference being taken to the
scriptural fact that the license to preach ([[according to Art. XIV of the Augsburg Confession >>
BookOfConcord:AC:I:XIV]]) is contained nowhere but in the call of the congregation. Then,
after a year or so, they were ordained and the character indelibilis put upon them, in virtue of
which they (according to the views of the German Lutheran Church of that time) remained
ministers from the very moment of ordination unto their last breath, and all this in the face of the
explicit statements of the [[Smalcald Articles. >> BookOfConcord:Smalcald: Power and Primacy
of the Pope:67]] Finally, it was an established and approved custom for congregations to engage
their ministers by the year, just as a farmer hires his hands by the season, notwithstanding synods
deposed ministers; for who knew that, the right of calling a minister belonging to the
congregation, it also remains with the congregation to depose their minister from that office they
bestowed upon him?
Then came the leaders of the Missouri Synod and in a little German paper, then appearing in a
very plain garb, preached “the second series of innovations.” They gave rise to controversy and
controversies. We guess, at least a part of the Ohio Synod knows a good deal about that. But
what was the result of the controversies? Victory. Truth carried the day and, thanks to God, last
but not least, in the very ranks of the Ohio Synod.
The same was the case with reference to the lodge question. Those grand institutions, based on
the principles of charity, of inter human fraternity, embracing the highest principles of morality
and religion, some thirty years ago what Christian Church would be fool enough to cross their
course, discourage its sheep from membership? Least of all the then Lutheran Church. Not
counting a few old-school ministers, there was nobody in the Lutheran Church to oppose those
societies, of whose oaths President John Quincy Adams once said a common cannibal would be
ashamed. Only that little German paper took a different course. The “leaders” of the Missouri
Synod gave rise to controversy, and (we may safely add) again, by the grace of God, carried the
victory, and, thanks to God, last but not least, within the ranks of the Ohio Synod which has
become truly Lutheran inasmuch as it is a zealous champion against secret societism.
[[@VolumePage:2,75]]
And thus we may, even in the present time, talk about “innovations of the leaders of the
Missouri Synod,” inasmuch as they have brought forth something which, though truly Lutheran,
in spite of its not being clearly seen by some of the pillars of the Lutheran Church of two
centuries ago, is new to a part of the Lutheran Church of our country. In this sense, it is equal to
honoring them, if anybody says they are again giving rise to controversy. And the present
controversy, because it involves divine truth, will again be followed by victory even within the
ranks of the Ohio Synod, in direct proportion to the number of men of piety, honesty, and
principles it embraces. And even in this present time a great many more Ohio men would side
with the plain truth of the Word of God and the [[XI. Article of the Formula of Concord, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi]] i. e., the newest innovation of the leaders of the Missouri
Synod, if they would go by the classical principle: Amicus Plato, amicus Aristoteles, magis
amica Veritas.
So much for “those innovations.” Perhaps we shall, some other time, continue our comment
on that long period crowded with information, i. e., if we don’t lack time and— inclination.
AUG .
(For the “Theological Monthly”.)
Dr. M. Luther on the Christian’s Certainty of Predestination and Salvation.
(Translated from [[Walch’s Ed. of Luther’s Works, II, 255—270. >>
logosres:lw05;ref=VolumePage.V_5,_pp_42-46;off=27]])
It is with pleasure that I here take occasion to treat of doubt—doubt concerning God and His
will. For I hear it said that here and there, among those of the nobility and among other great
lords, evil words are uttered and spread abroad concerning God’s predestination or
foreknowledge. For they are said to speak thus: If I am predestinated I shall be saved, whether I
do good or evil; but if I am not predestinated I shall be damned, notwithstanding my works.
Against these wicked words I would like to write a long disputation, if my health of which I
am now not very certain would allow it. For if these words were true, as they imagine, the
incarnation of the Son of God, His suffering and resurrection, arid all that He did for the sake of
the world’s welfare and salvation, would be entirely destroyed, and taken away by
[[@VolumePage:2,76]]them. Of what use then would the prophets and the whole Sacred
Scriptures be to us? Of what service were the Holy Sacraments then to us? Therefore let us just
reject all this and tread it under, foot.
They are devilish and poisoned darts, and it is original sin itself, whereby the devil seduced
our first parents, when he said: Ye shall be as God. Gen. 3. 5. For they were not satisfied with the
godhead revealed to them, by the knowledge of which they were saved persons, but they wanted
to penetrate into the depth of the godhead. For they thought there must be a secret, concealed
cause, why God forbade them to eat of the fruit of the tree which was in the midst of the garden;
this cause they wanted to know.
Just as these men at the present time also speak: What God hath predestinated must come to
pass, therefore it would all be uncertain and in vain if we were much concerned about religion
and the soul’s salvation. But thou art not commanded to judge thereof; for God’s sentence or
judgment is unsearchable. Why dost thou doubt, or reject the faith which God hath commanded
thee? For of what service was it that God sent His Son to suffer and be crucified for us; of what
use was it for Him to institute the Holy Sacraments, if it is all uncertain and vain in order to our
salvation? For otherwise, if any one were predestinated, he were saved without the Son and
without the Sacraments or the Holy Scriptures. Therefore, according to the blasphemy of these
people, God must have been amazingly foolish to send His Son, give the Law and Gospel, and
send the apostles, if He only wanted us to be uncertain and doubt whether we shall be saved or
damned.
But this is the devil’s phantom and deception, by which he ventures to make us doubtful and
unbelieving, whereas Christ hath come into this world for the purpose of making us quite certain
of salvation. For this blasphemous opinion must necessarily be followed at last either by despair
or by contempt of God, of the Holy Bible, of Baptism, and all divine benefits, by which it hath
been His will to strengthen us, that we should by no means be uncertain of our salvation. For
these blasphemers will at last say with the Epicureans: Let us live a jolly life; let us eat and drink,
we must die to-morrow any way. They will wickedly and boldly fall upon their swords and cast
themselves into the fire, as the Turks are wont to do, because, in their opinion, the hour hath
already been appointed in which thou wilt either be knocked down and killed, or escape.
But against these thoughts the true and certain knowledge of Christ must be held, as I often
remind that it is above all things useful and necessary that the knowledge of God in us
[[@VolumePage:2,77]]be quite certain, and that we embrace it in the heart with certainty and
cling to it with firmness, else our faith will be in vain and for nothing. For if God is not sure to
keep His promises, then our salvation is entirely at an end. Over against which our comfort is
this: Although we are changed, He is our refuge who is not changed, but always remaineth the
same. For thus He saith of Himself in the prophet Malachi, 3. 6.: “I am the Lord, I change not”
[Luther: I lie not]. And St. Paul saith, Rom. 11. 29.: “The gifts and calling of God are without
repentance.”
Therefore I have taught in my book De Servo Arbitrio (against Erasmus), and in other places,
that a distinction must be made when the knowledge of the godhead (or I would rather call it
subjectum Divinitatis) is being treated of. For one must treat either de Deo abscondito, that is, of
God concealed, or de Deo revelato, that is, of God revealed to us. Concerning God, as far as He
is not revealed, there is no faith and no knowledge, and of such a God nothing can be known;
and here we must follow the proverb: “Quae supra nos, nihil ad nos”, i. e., whatever is above us,
with that we have nothing to do (we are not to trouble ourselves about it). For such thoughts as
would search for something higher above or aside of the revelation of God, are real devilish
thoughts, with which we can accomplish nothing else but plunge ourselves into perdition; for
they, in return, hold up to us a counter-argument that is unsearchable, namely, God who is not
revealed. It is much better to let God keep His decrees and mysteries secret. We need not trouble
ourselves so very much about having them revealed to us.
Moses, Ex. 33. 18., also desired God to let him see His face or glory; but the Lord answered
him thus, [[v. 23.: >> Ex 33.23]] “Thou shalt see My back parts; but My face shall not be seen.”
For this curiosity is original sin itself, by which we are driven and incited to seek a way to God
by natural speculation. It is, however, a great sin, and useless, and in vain, to venture upon such a
thing. For thus Christ saith, John 6. 65, 14. 6.: “No man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.”
Therefore, when we approach the God who hath not revealed Himself, there is no faith, no Word,
or, no knowledge whatever. For it is an invisible God, whom thou wilt not make visible.
Then, God hath also quite earnestly forbidden to covet the knowledge of His godhead in such
a manner; just as Christ said to the apostles, Acts 1.7., when they asked Him: Lord, is it not so
predestinated that at this time the kingdom of Israel shall be restored again?—“It is not for you to
know the times or the seasons,” &c. Let Me, saith God, remain concealed where I have not
revealed Myself to thee, or else thou [[@VolumePage:2,78]]wilt be thyself a cause of thine own
perdition, just as Adam horribly fell. For the searcher of majesty will be crushed by glory.
And in the beginning God, indeed, wanted to obviate this curiosity at once. For He held up to
us His will and counsel, saying thus: Behold, O man, I will gloriously reveal unto thee my
predestination, but not by the way of thy reason and carnal wisdom, as thou dreamest and
thinkest. I will do it in this wise: I, a God, who is not revealed, will become a revealed God, and
still remain the same God. I will be made man, or, I will send My Son; He shall die for thy sin
and arise again from the dead; and thus I will fulfill thy desire, that thou mayest know whether
thou art predestinated or not. Behold, this is my Son, hear Him, Matth. 17. 5., look at Him how
He lieth in the manger and at His mother’s bosom, besides also, how He hangeth on the cross;
behold what He doth, what He speaketh; there thou wilt surely apprehend Me; for Christ saith,
John 14. 9.: “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.” If thou hearest Him, and art baptized in
His name, and, besides, lovest His Word, then thou art surely predestinated and quite certain of
thy salvation. But if thou blasphemest or despisest the Word, thou art damned; for “he that
believeth not shall be damned,” Mark 16. 16.
The other thoughts and ways which thy reason, or thy flesh, suggesteth to thee, thou shouldst
kill. For God is hostile to them. Only let this be thy concern that thou receivest My Son, that
Christ be acceptable to thee in thy heart in His birth, miracles, and cross. For here is the Book of
Life, in which thou art written. And this is the only and most certain advice against this
abominable disease in which men always want to keep .on searching God in His supreme
Majesty, according to their speculation and high thoughts, and, in doing so, finally fall in despair
or contempt of God. Now, if thou wilt flee despair, enmity and blasphemy of God, let the
speculation and high thoughts concerning God concealed fly, and stop desiring and striving in
vain to see (in this life) the face or glory of God, else thou wilt for ever and ever keep hanging in
unbelief and damnation, and be lost. For he that doubteth believeth not, and he that believeth not
will be damned.
Therefore we are to be hostile to, and beware of, those shameful, evil words made use of by
the Epicureans, when they say: If this must of necessity thus occur, let it occur. For God did not
come down from heaven in order to render thee uncertain of predestination and to teach thee to
despise the Sacraments, absolution, and other divine ordinances, yea, He hath instituted all this in
order to make thee quite certain and to take away out of thy heart the great deficiency and fault—
[[@VolumePage:2,79]]doubt—, so that thou mightest not only believe in the heart, but also see
with bodily eyes and apprehend with the hands. Now, why dost thou reject all this and complain
of not knowing whether thou art predestinated to salvation? Thou hast the Gospel, art baptized,
hast absolution, art a Christian, and thou still doubtest and sayest thou dost not know whether
thou believest or not, whether thou holdest it to be true what is said and preached to thee in the
Word and Sacraments!
But thou wilt perhaps say: “I cannot believe;” as there are many who are plagued with this
affliction. And I recollect that at Torgau a poor woman came to me complaining with bitter tears
that she could not believe. When I then rehearsed the articles of the Creed one by one and asked
her in regard to each in particular whether she thought it was all true and that it had so occurred,
or not, she answered me and said: I really take it all to be true, but I cannot believe it. That was a
devilish deception. Therefore I said to her: If thou takest all this to be true, thou hast no reason
for complaining about thy unbelief; for, if thou dost not doubt that the Son of God hath died for
thee, thou believest surely. For believing is nothing else but taking this (to wit, that the Son of
God hath died for us) to be certain, indubitable truth.
(To be concluded.)
General Religious Intelligence.
THE forcible use of a Methodist parsonage for dancing by the members of a donation party
occurred recently in a country town. The minister protested against the indulgence in such
amusement, but the dancing was kept up, and on the following Sunday he returned the money
which had been presented to him, with the request that it be redistributed among the donors.
THE statements made concerning the probable departure of the Pope from Rome should be
accepted with many qualifications. The notion that Pope Leo will make his future home in
Canada may be readily dismissed. It is within the range of possibility that the idea has been
discussed at the Vatican of organizing a great religious emigration scheme in Europe, and, under
such condition, Canada might be the place chosen for a new papal state. But such a scheme was
analogous to that of the now exploded Union Generale Company. By the failure of that
speculative association, which had received the blessing of the Pope, not only have a large
number of the clergy and the faithful among the laity lost their money, but the prestige of the
church has suffered in consequence of the close connection which its prelates allowed to be built
up between it and the financial company. The event must have opened the eyes of Pope Leo and
his advisers, and they will wholly belie their reputation for shrewdness if, after this sorry
experience, they allow the Roman Catholic church to risk its future on the success of a Canadian
emigration scheme. If the Canadian colony broke down, and the Pope were compelled to return
to Europe, the church of which he is the head would suffer a terrible blow. Even if the religious
colony proved successful, it is questionable whether Pope Leo could carry his European
influence with him [[@VolumePage:2,80]]across the Atlantic. The entire plan may be set aside
as chimerical. It is not likely that Pope Leo will leave Rome unless he is forced to do so by
difficulties not now anticipated. In this connection it may be said that there is a curious and
apposite tradition which, it is understood, has great influence on the papal mind. On one of the
roads leading from Rome is a chapel which bears the name of “Domine quo vadis?” (Lord,
where goest thou?) The tradition is that St. Peter, when about to be seized by the Roman
authorities, became alarmed and hurried from the capital. On the spot where the chapel now
stands he met the Saviour going toward the city. To Peter’s question, “Lord, where goest thou?”
the Saviour replied: “As my apostles desert my cause to save their lives, I go to Rome to be again
crucified.” The tradition then goes on to say that, stung by this reproach, St. Peter turned back
and met his death with a resolute heart. The chapel built in commemoration of the vision is of
necessity a standing rebuke to the so-called successor of St. Peter who contemplates departing
from the Holy city. ALPH.
“NOEDTVUNGET FORSVAR.” The first numbers of “Noedtvunget Forsvar” (Necessitated
Defense) has made its appearance. For its Motto it has the words of the apostle 1 Cor. 13. 4—7.
concerning charity. In “recommending itself to its readers”, this paper has the following
language. “In spite of all our own infirmity it will prove to our church people, that we are
wrongly attacked, that we do not teach a new Calvinistic doctrine, nor intend to introduce the
same, but that our doctrine is well grounded in the holy word of God and the Confessions of our
Church and is also, in all essential parts, defended by those renowned teachers of our church who
have used a more recent form of doctrine without stigmatizing the older form.” In another place
it says: “In publishing this paper, we do not intend to arouse strife in any place whatever, but on
the contrary, to quench it wherever it has been aroused or might be aroused, as far as we believe
that the truth can do so in all charity. We, therefore, do not request you to work for the
circulation of our paper in such places where there is no dissension about these things. But there
is one thing we do expect, viz., that every conscientious christian who reads and knows the
attacks made upon us, would also hear our defense, before he passes judgment.” The paper costs
50 cents per annum (12 Numbers, each at least 16 pages) and is to be ordered from Rev. H.
Halvorsen, Westby P. O., Vernon Co., Wis.” Thus the Ev. Luth. Kirket.: “We suppose that this
new enterprise on the part of our Norwegian brethren among whom we have many friends, has a
great claim on our support, though all we can do in that line is to warmly recommend it to all
such among our clergy who understand the Norwegian language if not fully, at least to some
extent. The appearance of the paper needs no apology. It is as its name says, nothing else but a
“Necessitated Reply” to the semi-pelagianizing views and theories of Prof. F. A. Schmidt who
some time ago, not satisfied with crypto-calvinizing and calvinizing the doctrine of the XI.
Article of the Formula of Concord in “Altes und Neues”, started a new paper (Samle og Nye
Viduesbyrd) with a view of disseminating his rationalizing erroristic predestination doctrine
among the clergy and laity of the Norwegian synod in their vernacular tongue. Such being the
circumstances, it was the sacred duty of the orthodox among the Norwegian clergy to oppose
these efforts with all available means. Thus it is that they started “Necessitated Defense”, with
the view of showing that “we do not teach a new, Calvinistic doctrine nor do intend to introduce
the same.” We pray that the blessing of God may rest upon this new enterprise so as to let it
promote the glory of God and the spiritual welfare of our fellowmen, enlightening such of our
Norwegian brethren as should chance to need a little light concerning the true predestination
doctrine of our Lutheran Standards. And resting ourselves on the promises of God’s Word (Is.
55.10.) we rest assured that through the instrumentality of this new periodical, many a soul will
be internally convinced that, even in this point, Missouri is doing nothing new, but the very same
thing it has been doing by the Grace of God, for these 30—40 years, viz., zealously defending
the banner of true Old Lutheranism. AUGUSTUS. [[@VolumePage:2,81]]
THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL
MONTHLY.
Vol. 2. June 1882. No. 6.
Quenstedt on Synergism.
In the following we present to our readers those errors which according to Quenstedt have
been condemned by the Lutheran Church as Synergism. We think the perusal of a representation
of Synergism as given by Quenstedt will not be found void of interest at a time when those very
errors which Quenstedt condemned are clandestinely, that is by a change of phraseology,
disseminated among the unwary under color of the authority of Quenstedt and other
dogmaticians of the Seventeenth Century, by a new race of battologists who delight in noisily
proclaiming themselves the legitimate offspring of those “old heroes, their fathers.”
A few remarks by way of introduction will not, perhaps, be out of place. Synergism has its
roots in Pelagianism, that heresy which Luther terms “the chief heresy, which from the beginning
of the world at all times has intermeddled with the pure doctrine and stuck to it like mud to a
wheel, and in which the world was thoroughly drowned under the pope.” (Erl. Ed. 19, 184.)
Synergism was that sacrifice of divine truth which was offered to the popish idol of Pelagianism
at the time of the Interim, by faithless Lutherans for the favor of being allowed a further
enjoyment of peace, property and life. But at all periods of the Church of God there will be found
men who yield to this error of Synergism, it belonging to the tribute exacted of human nature by
reason when it is permitted to engage in removing what appear to be “inconsistencies” in
revelation. “The strife against this error,” Luther [[@VolumePage:2,82]]says ibid., “shall and
must continue incessantly. We must be resigned, therefore, seeing that though some sect
declines, soon many others arise so as to prevent a firm state of purity. The cause of it is this, that
it is impossible for reason to submit to faith alone. If a person is to believe solely and purely
because of the Word of God, the Holy Spirit must work and accomplish it in the heart, nature is
incapable of doing it by its own powers.”
That part of divine revelation over which Synergism spreads its bane in a direct manner, is the
doctrine of Conversion. An obvious practical consequence of the destruction of the divine
doctrine of conversion is that true and genuine conversion itself, and consequently eternal
salvation, are impossible. According to divine revelation man, in conversion, is in a state of pure
passiveness, for it is he himself, i. e., his mind, his will, that is to be converted, that is, brought
into a state contrary to that which is his own, from a state of spiritual death into a state of
spiritual life, from a condition in which his will is resisting the change to a condition of willing
compliance. This change is, according to divine revelation, solely and wholly the work of God;
man is totally excluded from this work in so far as if he exerted an influence so that he be
brought into the state of conversion; both his intellect and his will are wholly and merely
subjectum convertendum, wholly and merely subject to the work of the Holy Spirit.
Both Pelagianism and Synergism reject this revelation on the basis of the demands of human
reason. They both deny that conversion is solely and wholly the work of God; that man exerts no
influence whatever in being brought into the state of conversion; that in the act of conversion
man’s state is that of death changed into life; that it is not in the natural powers of man to cause
the absence of resistance to the change. In the positive parts of their respective doctrines,
however, they vary greatly. Nor are the Synergists of one accord in their opinions. Still they all
concur in holding a co-operation of both God and man in conversion so that the Holy Ghost is
not believed to be a CREATOR in the work of salvation, but only man’s assistant and helper.
Quenstedt in his Syst. de Libero Arbitrio, Quest. II, [[@VolumePage:2,83]]Antithesis A,
having enumerated among the number of those who are opposed to the true doctrine concerning
the powers of man in conversion, the Pelagians, the Semipelagians, the Schoolmen, the Papists,
the Jesuits in particular, the Socinians, the Arminians, the Anabaptists, the Enthusiasts and
followers of Weigel: he concludes Antithesis A, as follows: .
“IX. The Lutheran Synergists, who set up a synergy or co-operation on the part of both the
human powers and grace in the work of conversion. For they pretend ‘that man is not entirely
dead to every thing that is good in spiritual things, but that he is seriously wounded, and half
dead. Wherefore, although freewill is too feeble to make the beginning, and by its own powers to
convert itself to God and to be obedient to the law of God from the heart; yet, when the Holy
Spirit shall have made the beginning, and called us through the Gospel, and offered us His
grace, the forgiveness of sins, and eternal salvation, that then man’s freewill, by its own natural
powers, is able to meet God, and to a limited extent, to contribute somewhat, though feebly,
towards this conversion, to aid and cooperate, to fit and apply itself to the grace of God, to
apprehend and accept the same, and to believe the gospel, and also by its own powers to cooperate with the Holy Ghost in continuing and maintaining this work;’ as the Declaration of the
Formula of Concord sets forth the opinion of the Synergists pag. 677 ([[New Market Edition, p.
626 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:77]]). Cf. Epitome, pag. 581 ([[New Market Edition, p.
558 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:ii:11]]). The seeds of this Synergistic error, which proved
sufficiently prolific, were sowed by Philip Melanchthon in various writings and books of his. For
since both Pelagianism respecting the powers of nature in spiritual things, and Semipelagianism
respecting a synergy of the human will were as by the standard plainly condemned by the
[[XVIII. Article of the Augsburg Confession, >> BookOfConcord:AC:I:xviii]] he distinctly
writes in the same article of the altered and adulterated Augsburg Confession, that ‘we are aided
by the Holy Spirit in effecting spiritual righteousness in us.’ And again, that ‘the Holy Spirit aids
our hearts in effecting internal motions.’ So we also read in the former edition of the German
Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Vol. VI., Jen. fol. 474, that ‘in spiritual things freewill and
intellect can do NOTHING;’ and farther on, that [[@VolumePage:2,84]] ‘to be regenerated
inwardly in the heart, to be renewed in mind and sense, this is SOLELY worked by the Holy
Spirit.’ But in the corrupt edition of the German Apology we read Vol. IX, Witteb. f. 361: ‘We
affirm, however, that in spiritual things freewill and reason can do nothing ALONE.’ And
somewhat farther on, ‘to be regenerated inwardly and to be renewed in heart and sense, to
believe in, and fear, God, this is worked by the Holy Spirit.’ Here, in the first place, the exclusive
particle: SOLELY by the Holy Spirit, which we read in the former edition, is omitted; in the
second place, the negative NOTHING, which in the first edition thoroughly denies to human
powers all ability to act, is restricted in the later corrupt edition by the particle ALONE being
added, namely, that in spiritual things freewill can do nothing ALONE. Every body sees that by
this very method the Synergistic error is established. In the third edition of Philip’s
(Melanchthon’s) Loci Communes which appeared two years after the demise of the sainted
Luther, and which was inserted in the Corpus Doctrinae,13 there is the following definition of
freewill, which the sainted Luther rebuked in Erasmus as erroneous: ‘Freewill in man is the
facultas applicandi se ad gratiam (the power of adapting oneself to divine grace): that is, it hears
the promise, and endeavors to give its assent, and discards sins against conscience.’ In the same
place we also meet with these words, which do not obscurely confirm Synergism: ‘Thou wilt say,
I cannot obey the voice of the gospel, cannot hear the Son of God, cannot acknowledge the
Mediator;’ to which Philip answers: ‘Yes, indeed, thou canst in some sort, and when thou
sustainest thyself by the voice of the gospel, thou ought to pray to be aided by God, &c.’ Hence
Dr. Chemnitz, as Dr. Hutter relates in his exposition of the Formula of Concord, Article II. of
Freewill, pag. 231 margin, expressed himself somewhere in these words: ‘Der Heilige Geist ist
Philippo nur ein Mithelfer’ (according to Philip the Holy Spirit is only a worker together with
us). In his Examen Ordinand, in the article on Freewill he laid down three causes of conversion,
saying: ‘In conversion [[@VolumePage:2,85]]these causes concur: the Word of God, the Holy
Spirit who is sent by the Father and the Son to incite our hearts, and our will when assenting to
and not resisting the Word of God.’
“The footsteps of Philip Melanchthon were afterwards stubbornly followed, and the idol of
Synergism daubed, by Dr. Johann Pfeffinger, inasmuch as he in the year 1555 at Leipsic
proposed a disputation concerning Freewill, in which he in thesis 13. asserted three causes of
conversion, declaring them to be co-operative: namely, ‘the Holy Spirit who moves through the
Word, the human mind which cogitates, and the will which obeys the Holy Spirit when He is
moving it, and petitions God’s aid.’ In his 12th proposition he says: ‘Men, before they receive the
Holy Spirit, already have the power not to despise God, they have the power to assent to Him,
indeed even with sighs implore God’s aid.’ Dr. Georg Major also professed a co-operation of
unregenerated man with the Holy Spirit and the Word of God in man’s conversion to God. For in
his Homilies on the Epistles for Sundays, pag. 233, he condemns that sentence which the sainted
Luther had contended for in his book concerning Freewill against Erasmus, ‘as a diabolic
madness, that man in conversion brings to the actions of God a nature resisting up to the time at
13
The Corpus Doctrinae was published 1560 by the Cryptocalvinists as their confession of faith.—Ed.
which the Holy Ghost through the Word corrects that evil nature and renders willing the
unwilling.’ He also asserts ‘that the faculty of discerning and choosing things is, indeed, most
sadly disturbed and disordered; still there is some liberty left for judgment and choice, and that
the Son of God heals these wounds in our mangled and disordered nature, and aids it by the
Holy Spirit through the Word.’ Finally Victorinus Strigel, at first professor at the university of
Jena, then of Leipsic, and lastly of Heidelberg, arose as the chief defender of this error. Partly in
his two Declarations and in his Commentary on the Psalms, partly however and principally in the
Disputation concerning this article instituted between him and Matthias Flacius Illyricus at
Weimar in the year 1560, he by mouth and in writing defended this proposition ‘that there was
still left to man before his regeneration so much of natural power that he is able in some manner,
though indeed feebly, to prepare himself for the grace of God, to apply it to himself,
[[@VolumePage:2,86]]and to assent to the divine promises.’ He also asserted that there were
three efficient causes of conversion, God, the Word, and the Will of man. In that same time,
namely, about the year 63 of the preceding century, Dr. Johannes Stœssel, then professor of
theology and superintendent at Jena, who afterwards, having become a base apostate, went over
to the camp of the Calvinists, undertook the defence of Synergism for Strigel, maintaining that
‘the will and intellect of man are a joint or secondary cause of our conversion.’ In consequence
thereof a great number of pious pastors in Thuringia, who did not assent to the figments of the
Pelagianism of Victorinus and Stœssel, were removed from office. The history of the Synergists
may be read in Schlusselburg’s seventh book of the Catalogue of Heretics. Compare also the
Confession of Mansfeld and Gera, Heshusius on Freewill, Wigand, and others.”
“X. The modern errorists, who also maintain that freewill, when incited by the Holy Spirit,
may co-operate with Him in the act of conversion. For Dr. Conrad Hornejus, part II, Disputat.
Theol. Disput. Ill, Sectio I, § 45, thus expresses himself: ‘Our will, therefore, becomes a worker
together with God, that is, it co-operates with divine grace, not only when man already
converted, regenerated and justified increases in faith and love, and performs the works of piety
through justifying and inhabiting grace, but also when through the aid of prevenient, preparing
and assisting grace he is converted to God and justified at first.’—Dr. Dreyerus in his
Praelection. super 1 Cor. XV. 10. hesitated not to publicly defend the following subjects:
‘Natural liberty is facilitated through spiritual grace coming upon it; both natural and spiritual
powers concur in man’s conversion.; In his Erœrterung (disquisition) pag. 647, he says: ‘Es ist
wohl in Acht zu nehmen, dass wir wirken kœnnen und sollen, nicht nur, wenn der Heilige Geist
die ganze Bekehrung schon vollendet hat, sondern wenn er die Wiedergeburt und Erneuerung
[conversion he had called it before] nur angefangen hat.’ (We must well observe that we are able
to operate, and ought to operate, not only when the Holy Spirit has accomplished our whole
conversion, but when he has only commenced our regeneration and renewing [conversion he had
called it before].)—Johannes Laterman in his [[@VolumePage:2,87]]exercises concerning
Predestination, performed at Helmstædt under the presidency of Dr. G. Calixt, advanced the
following paradoxes, thes. 32.: ‘That the grace of God is offered in order that by its being offered
it might be in man’s power to execute through this grace all the things necessary to his
conversion and salvation, and in case he should be willing to yield to his depravity, not to
execute them: we now demonstrate in this manner, &c.’ Again he says, thes. 33.: ‘All men are
able to convert themselves in case they are willing.’ And thes. 34.: ‘It is in the power of man to
be willing to convert himself, and to be not willing to convert himself.’ Thes. 35.: ‘Man converts
himself freely, &c.’ And finally, thes. 42.: ‘If it be conceded that (divine) exhortations are not for
nothing, as indeed they are not, every thing at once will depend upon the cooperation of man,
that is, upon man who, by the power of grace, operates freely, believes freely, perseveres freely.’
The theologians at Strassburg in their judgment concerning the words and deeds of Joh.
Laterman, pag. 8, comment on the above quoted words of Joh. Laterman in this manner: 1. He
asserts nothing that has not been asserted and maintained also by Bellarmin, Greg. de Valentia,
Becanus, Tanner, and others, who were nevertheless with great unanimity pronounced guilty of
Pelagianism or Semipelagianism by the theologians. 2. He asserts nothing that has not been
asserted by the Synergists. For they aim added the benefit of grace, and in the plainest manner
protested: ‘We put the will as prepared by the Lord, and assert that as such it freely converts
itself to God, not in the sense as if the free will of man did so by its own powers, but that by the
power of grace divinely bestowed upon it, this will converts itself in such manner as to be able
also not to convert itself.’ This could be proved (the Strassburg theologians continue) by a great
many testimonies of Victor Strigel’s, if it were not perfectly known to everybody.—Compare Dr.
Calov’s Harmonia Calixtino-Papistic., cap. V, de Conversion, § XVI.” [[@VolumePage:2,88]]
(For the “Theological Monthly”.)
Dr. M. Luther on the Christian’s Certainty of Predestination and Salvation.
(Translated from [[Walch’s Ed. of Luther’s Works, II, 255—270. >>
logosres:lw05;ref=VolumePage.V_5,_pp_46-51;off=8760]])
(Concluded.)
God saith to thee: Behold, there thou hast My Son, hear Him and receive Him; if thou doest
that, thou art now already certain of thy faith and thy salvation. Yes, sayest thou, but I do not
know whether I can abide in faith. Oh, then accept the present promise and predestination, and
take care lest thou curiously and too closely search into the secret decrees of God. If thou
believest in the revealed God, and receives His word, by and by the concealed God will also be
revealed to thee. For Christ saith, John 14. 9.: “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.” But
he that rejecteth the Son, loseth with the revealed God the concealed God, also, who hath not
revealed Himself. But if thou, with a firm faith, adherest to the revealed God in such a manner,
that thou art so disposed in thy heart that thou wouldst not lose Christ, even if thou shouldst be
robbed of everything else that thou hast: thou art surely predestinated and wilt understand the
concealed God, yea, thou now understandest Him already; if thou knowest the Son and knowest
that He will reveal Himself unto thee and be thy Lord and Saviour, thou art certain that God will
also be thy Lord and thy Father.
Behold, in how friendly and gracious a manner God delivereth thee from this abominable
affliction, which Satan is making use of with force beyond measure at the present time, in order
to render the people doubtful and uncertain and finally also to turn them away from God’s Word
altogether. For why wouldst thou hear the Gospel, the Epicureans say, as all depends upon
predestination? Thus Satan forcibly taketh predestination away from us, of which we are assured
by the Son of God and by the Holy Sacraments, and maketh us uncertain, whilst we were quite
certain before. And when he attacketh the poor, terrified consciences with this affliction, they die
away in despair; just as it also would almost have happened to me, if Dr. Staupitz had not
liberated me, as I had the very same affliction. But if they who are thus afflicted be despisers,
they become the most wicked and shameless Epicureans.
Therefore we must much rather conceive the meaning of these passages in our hearts, as, when
Christ saith, John 6. 44.: [[@VolumePage:2,89]] “No man can come to Me, except the Father
which hath sent Me draw him.” But by whom doth He draw him? Answer: By Me. For “he that
hath seen Me hath seen the Father.” And to Moses God saith, Ex. 33. 20.: “Thou canst not see
My face: for there shall no man see Me and live.” Again, in the [[Acts of the Apostles, 1.7., >>
Acts 1.7]] Christ saith to the disciples: “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which
the Father hath put in His own power,” but go ye and do what I have commanded you. Again,
[[Sirach saith, 3. 21—23.: >> Sir 3.21-23]] “Seek not out the things that are too hard for thee,
neither search the things that are above thy strength. But what is commanded thee, think
thereupon with reverence; for it is not needful for thee to see with thine eyes the things that are in
secret. Be not curious in unnecessary matters: for more things are shewed unto thee than men
understand.” God saith: Hear My Son who hath been made man, then predestination will come,
of itself.
Dr. Staupitz comforted me with these words: Why dost thou thus torment thyself with these
speculations and high thoughts? Look thou at the wounds of Christ and at His blood which He
hath shed for thee; out of them God’s predestination will shine forth unto thee. Therefore, the
Son of God must be heard, who was sent in the flesh, became man, and was manifested, that He
might destroy this work of the devil (1 John 3. 8.), and render thee certain of predestination. And
therefore He also saith to thee: Thou art My sheep, for thou hearest My voice, and no one will
pluck thee out of My hand. John 10. 28.
There are many who have not resisted this affliction in this manner, and have been precipitated
into perdition and eternal damnation. The hearts of godly-minded persons must, therefore, be
strengthened diligently, that they may always be prepared for this affliction. Thus a hermit, in
“vitis patrum,” admonished his hearers to avoid and abstain from such speculations and high
thoughts; and said: If thou seest that any one hath put his foot into heaven, draw it back again.
For thus the saints or Christians who are yet novices, are wont to think of God outside of Christ;
and it is these who dare to climb up into heaven and put both feet there; but they are soon cast
down and sunk into hell.
The godly-minded should, therefore, be on their guard and endeavor only to learn to cleave to
Jesus, the Child and Son of God, who is thy God and became man for thy sake: thou shalt know
and hear Him, delight also in Him and thank Him. If thou hast Him, thou also hast the concealed
God together with the one revealed. And this is the only way, the [[@VolumePage:2,90]]truth,
and the life; outside of this way, truth, and life, thou wilt find nothing but perdition, damnation,
and death.
Therefore He hath manifested Himself in the flesh in order to release and redeem us from
death, from the flesh, and from the devil’s power. Out of such knowledge must surely come great
joy and pleasure at this, that God is immutable, and that He worketh according to immutable
necessity, and cannot deny Himself, but faithfully keepeth His promises.
Therefore we are not free to occupy ourselves with such high thoughts, and doubt of
predestination; but those thoughts are godless, wicked and devilish. Hence, if the devil afflict
thee with them, say thou only: I believe in Jesus Christ, our Lord, who I doubt not hath been
made man, suffered and died for me, in whose death I am baptized. At this answer the affliction
will vanish and Satan will turn his back to thee. As I have in other places often related the
remarkable example of a nun, who also had the very same affliction. For under popery there
were also many godly-minded persons, who felt these spiritual afflictions, which are real devilish
thoughts, and thoughts of the damned; for there is no difference between a doubter and a damned
person. Therefore, as often as that nun felt that she was attacked with the fiery darts of Satan, she
said nothing else but: I am a Christian.
So we must also do over against him. One must abstain from disputing, and say: I am a
Christian, that is, the Son of God was made man and born into this world, He hath redeemed me,
and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and is my Saviour. In this manner drive the devil away
from thee with as few words as thou canst, and say: “Get thee hence, Satan,” Matth. 4. 10., cause
me no doubt: the Son of God is come into this world to destroy thy work and doubt. Then the
affliction ceases and the heart returns to the peace, rest and love of God.
To doubt of the will of any man, is no sin, as Isaac doubted whether he would remain alive, or,
whether he would have a pious host. Of a man I may and shall doubt; for he is not my Saviour.
And in the [[146th Psalm, v. 3, >> Ps 146.3]] it is written: “Put not your trust in princes.” For
“all men are liars,” Ps. 116. 11., and cannot help. But with God one cannot thus deal in doubt.
For He will, and can, not be mutable or a liar; but the highest service of God which He required
and will have is, that thou esteem Him true. For on that account He hath given such powerful
evidences and tokens of His truth and that with Him all things are quite certain. He hath given
His Son to be made flesh and to die, and, in addition thereto, hath instituted the Sacraments, in
order that thou shouldest know He is no liar, but true. [[@VolumePage:2,91]]
And this He proves and confirms, not with spiritual, but with comprehensible arguments and
tokens. For I see the water (in Baptism); I see the bread and wine (in the Holy Supper); I see the
minister of the Word: which all are bodily, indeed; in which bodily figures or images He
revealeth Himself. When one must deal with men, he may doubt what and to what extent he is to
believe and how others may be affected towards him; but, concerning God, thou shalt hold it to
be certain and indubitable that He is gracious unto thee for Christ’s sake and that thou art
redeemed and made holy by the precious blood of the Son of God; and thus thou wilt also be
certain of thy predestination; thou wilt relinquish all curious and dangerous questions,
concerning God’s secret decrees, to which the devil ventures to lead thee, as He led and brought
Adam, our first father, to them.
O how great would his salvation have been on the other hand, had he diligently kept God’s
Word before his eyes and eaten of all the trees with the exception of the only one of which he
was forbidden to eat! But he wanted to search out what God had meant by the command not to
use, and eat of, that one only tree. Besides, Satan, the roguish master, came, who augmented and
aided the curiosity. Thus Adam was plunged into sin and death.
God revealeth unto us His will through Christ and the Gospel. But this we despise and,
following Adam’s example, we also covet the forbidden tree above all other trees. This fault we
all have by nature. When paradise and heaven is closed, and the angel is placed there to keep it,
we venture in vain to get into it. For Christ hath rightly said, John 1. 18.: “No man hath seen God
at any time.” And yet, God hath revealed Himself unto us from unmeasurable grace, to fulfill and
satisfy our desire. He hath placed before us a visible image, and saith: See, there thou hast My
Son; he who heareth Him and is baptized, is written in the Book of Life; this I reveal to thee
through My Son, whom thou canst apprehend with the hands and see with the eyes.
This I have wanted to say by way of admonition with diligence. For, after my death, many will
produce my books and quote from them, and endeavor to prove from and confirm by, them all
kinds of errors and their own fancies. Now I wrote, among other things, that everything is, and
must come to pass, of necessity; but I also, at the same time, added that the God who hath
revealed Himself shall be looked at; as we sing in the [[45th Psalm: >> Ps 45]] He is called Jesus
Christ, the Lord of hosts, and there is no other God; and in many other places. But they will pass
by all these places and accept those only in which the concealed God is treated of.
[[@VolumePage:2,92]]
Therefore think of it, ye who hear me now, that I have taught this, to wit, that the
predestination of the concealed God shall not be searched for, but that we shall be satisfied with
the predestination that is revealed through the call and the office of preaching. For there thou
canst become certain of thy faith and salvation, and say: I believe on the Son of God who hath
said: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life;” therefore, no damnation or wrath, but
God the Father’s pleasure is on him. And the very same have I also publicly taught in my other
books, and teach it now yet with a living voice. I will therefore be excused. (Of the year 1545.
Translated by C. S. K.)
(For the “Theological Monthly”.)
THE BOOK OF CONCORD; or, the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical
Lutheran Church.
Translated from the Original Languages, with Notes. By Henry E. Jacobs, D.D.,
Franklin Professor of the Greek Language and Literature in Pennsylvania
College, Gettysburg, Pa.
(A new translation.)
This translation is no reliable one, as it does not give the exact sense of the original. In order
not to be too lengthy, the writer of this will substantiate this judgement by showing especially
how some words, clauses and whole sentences contained in the Declaration of the second article
of the Formula of Concord have been translated. “Allersinnreichsten” (Latin:
“ingenlosissimi”), [[§ 9, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:9]] is translated “most able”; “die
gefallene böse Geister in Ewigkeit verworfen (in aeternum abjecerit)”, [[§ 22, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:22]] “eternally casts away the fallen evil spirits”; “der Mensch
durch den Heiligen Geist… gezogen wird”, [[§ 24, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:24]]
“man is… led by the Holy Ghost”; “Block oder Ton”, [[§ 24, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:24]] “block of clay”; “das wirket (opus est) allein der Heilige
Geist”, [[§ 26, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:26]] “this only the Holy Ghost effects”; “für
sich selbst (ex sese) mitzuwirken”, [[§ 32, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:32]] “for itself
co-operating”; “Denn vorhin, ehe wir dazu, zur christlichen Kirche, kommen (sind), sind
wir gar (penitus) des Teufels gewesen”, [[§ 37, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:37]] “for
formerly, before we had attained to this, we were of the devil”; “und es (das Gute) ihnen
liebet (eoque delectentur)”, [[§ 39, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:39]] “and love it (what is
good)”; “steht also (sic) geschrieben”, [[§40, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:40]] “it is
also written”; “bei ihm (Christo) erhalten werden”, [[§42, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:42]] “upheld in him”; “unsern freien Willen preisen
(praedicant)”, [[§43, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:43]] “extol our free will”; “daß der
Mensch verblendet und gefangen allein des Teufels Willen… thue”, [[§44, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:44]] “that man is blinded and held captive, to do only the devil’s
will”; “ist (est) kein Gedanken”, [[§44, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:44]] “the thought…
cannot arise”; “Sache”, [[§44, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:44]] “position”; “verdammt
werde”, [[§49, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:49]] “perish”; “von seinem ewigen
Sohn”, [[§50, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:50]] “of his dear Son”; “in das Herz
gegeben”, [[§54, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:54]] “given to the heart”; “in der
Finsternis seines Unglaubens stecken und verderben lässet”, [[§58, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:58]] “he be allowed to remain in the darkness of his unbelief and
to parish”; “in diesem Fall mag man wohl sagen”, [[§59, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:59]] “in this respect it might well be said”; “widerstrebt dem
nicht, der ihn bewegt”, [[§59, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:59]] “does not resist that
which moves it”; “die Wiedergeburt (regeneratio) nicht vollkommen, sondern in uns
allein angefangen”, [[§68, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:68]] “the new birth is not
complete, but only begun in us”; “in wahrhaftige (vera) Bekehrung”, [[§70, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:70]] “in genuine conversion”; “Gott… uns zuvorkomme”,
[[§71, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:71]] “God…comes first to us”; “gottselig (pietatis)”,
[[§71, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:71]] “divine”; “können nun auch zum letzten die
eingefallenen Fragen…geurteilt…werden”, [[§73, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:73]]
[[@VolumePage:2,93]]“we can now judge also with respect to the last of the questions”;
“allerdings (prorsus)”, [[§ 77, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:77]] “absolutely”; “daß da
keine Bekehrung geschehe (fieri)”, [[§ 83, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:83]] “there no
conversion has occurred”; “annehmen (apprehendere)”, [[§ 83, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:83]] “receive”; “lasset allein Gott in ihm (in ipsa” sc.
voluntate) “wirken”, [[§ 90, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:90]] “allows God alone to work
in him”.
The incorrectness of the translation in these examples, becomes obvious as soon as what is
here given in English is translated back again into the German. Yet, some may be of the opinion
that as a translation will seldom come up to the original in every respect, it is nothing else but
syllable-hunting when such faults as the above are here shown. But this is not the case. “Amid all
the misunderstandings and errors which have prevailed”, as B. M. Schmucker, D. D., lately
expressed himself in the Lutheran (No. 1074) in regard to the new translation, “there is great
need of clear, precise, unmistakable utterance on the part of the confessing Church.” It is more or
less, in every case, a misrepresentation of the Lutheran confession if its exact sense is not
retained in a translation. By enlarging upon some of the examples given above we hope to be
able to snow a little more clearly what importance is attached to this matter. It is said above that
“ist (est) kein Gedanken”, [[§ 44, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:44]] is translated “the
thought… cannot arise.” The whole sentence, in the original, in which these words occur, reads
as follows: “Darum ist hier kein Mitwirken unsers Willens in der Bekehrung des
Menschen, und muß der Mensch gezogen und aus Gott neu geboren werden; sonst
ist kein Gedanke in unsern Herzen, der sich zu dem heiligen Evangelio, dasselbe
anzunehmen, von sich selbst wenden möchte.” The new translation says: “Therefore here
there is no co-operation of our will in the conversion of man, and man must be drawn and be
born anew of God; otherwise the thought of turning one’s self to the Holy Gospel for the purpose
of accepting it cannot arise in our hearts.” According to this translation the Formula of Concord
seems to imply (especially as the words “von sich selbst” have been omitted in the translation)
that if man be drawn and born anew of God, the thought of turning one’s self to the holy Gospel
for the purpose of accepting it can, indeed, arise in our hearts, as, it is here said, otherwise this
thought cannot arise in our hearts. But, according to what the Formula of Concord teaches in
other places, concerning man’s conversion, the thought of turning one’s self to the Gospel for the
purpose of accepting it cannot even then “arise” in the heart when man is drawn and born anew
of God, there being nothing in the heart from which it could possibly “arise”. Then, indeed, the
thought of turning one’s self is there, but it is put there by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel. By
the use of the word “arise” instead of “is” in this place, “the utterance on the part of the
confessing Church” is made to be neither “clear”, nor “precise”, nor “unmistakable”. Another
example. It is said above that in [[§ 58 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:58]] the word
“lässet” is translated “he be allowed”. In the original we have the following sentence: “Da aber
ein solcher Mensch Verachtet des Heiligen Geistes Werkzeug und will nicht hören, so
geschieht ihm nicht unrecht, wenn der Heilige Geist ihn nicht erleuchtet, sondern in
der Finsternis seines Unglaubens stecken und verderben lässet, davon geschrieben
steht: Wie oft habe ich deine Kinder versammeln wollen, wie eine Henne versammelt
ihre Jungen unter ihre Flügel, und ihr habt nicht gewollt. Matth. 23.” The new
translation has this instead: “But where such a man despises the instrument of the Holy Ghost,
and will not hear, no injustice befalls him if the Holy Ghost do not enlighten him, but he be
allowed to remain in the darkness of his unbelief, and to perish; for of this is written (Matth. 23.
37.): ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her
chickens under her wings, and ye would not!’” By this translation our confession is made to say
that God allows some men to remain and perish in the darkness of their unbelief. “Lässet” in the
German does not always signify as much as “allows”. The proof-text here quoted plainly shows
that one is not allowed by God to remain or perish in unbelief, but that Christ, moreover, rebukes
the Jews for so doing. A third example. It is said above that “Lässet allein Gott in ihm (in
ipsa” sc. voluntate = in the will) “wirken”, [[§ 90, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:90]] is
translated “allows God alone to work in him” (?). Here Melanchthon’s error that the Word of
God, the Holy Ghost and the will of man concur in man’s conversion, is, to a certain extent,
approved of in the translation. The Formula of Concord says in the original: “Zu welchem
Werk des Menschen Wille, so bekehrt soll [[@VolumePage:2,94]] werden, nichts thut,
sondern lässet allein Gott in ihm (in ipsa) wirken, bis er wiedergeboren.” The translation:
“for which work the will of man who is to be converted does nothing, but allows God alone to
work in him, until he is regenerate.” If the will of man allows God alone to work in it (the will),
until it is regenerated (i. e. before regeneration), it is obvious that it thereby concurs in its own
conversion. What more must it do than allow the same in order to concur? But then its enmity
before conversion is not really “widerspänstig” ([[cf. § 22 >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii.22]]), and the Formula of Concord is wrong in saying in the
same breath, as it were, according to the new translation: “The understanding and will of the
unregenerate man are nothing else than the subjectum convertendum, i. e. that which is to be
converted, as the understanding and will of a spiritually dead man, in whom the Holy Ghost
works conversion and renewal”; for our confession then proceeds by saying, according to the
faulty translation: “for which work” &c. Did Lazarus while he was dead allow Christ alone to
work in him until he was made alive? Surely not. Why? Because he was dead until Christ made
him alive. Indeed, if the Formula of Concord contained the idea that the will of man allows God
alone to work in him (or: it) until he is regenerated, or spiritually brought to life, it would not
give to God the honor of His being our sole converter, and would deserve the flames. But, thanks
be to God, it is not so. “Lässet allein” in the sentence quoted last, is only translated “patitur”
(suffers) in the Latin edition, because “allein”, grammatically, belongs, not to “Gott”, but to
“lässet”, and both express one idea. Therefore “lässet allein” is here as much as “leidet” or
suffers, so that our pious fathers here again say what they had said before, to wit, that before
regeneration the will of man does nothing, but suffers God’s working in it, until it is regenerated.
The second article before us has not been preserved complete in the translation. Among the
several omissions we find the very important one: that man is by nature “des Teufels
Gefangener, davon er getrieben wird”. [[§ 7. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:7]]
Further. In the translation we find to desire, to wish, to be willing for the German wollen.
“Wie und durch was Mittel der Heilige Geist in uns kräftig sein und wahre Buße
wirken und geben wolle (velit)”, [[§ 48, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:48]] is translated:
“How and through what means the Holy Ghost is efficacious in us, and is willing to work and
bestow (?)… true repentance.” “Und will Gott… die Menschen zur ewigen Seligkeit
berufen, [[§ 50, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:50]] is translated: “God desires to call men
to eternal salvation.” “Durch welche er kräftig wirken… will”, [[§ 52, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:52]] “through which he desires to work efficaciously.”
“Welchen er bekehren will (quem convertere decrevit)”, [[§ 60, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:60]] is translated: “Whom he wishes to convert.” “Daburch der
Heilige Geist solches Bekehrung… in uns wirken… will (vult)”, [[§ 71, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:71]] is translated: “Whereby the Holy Ghost desires to work…
in us this conversion.” “Dadurch der Heilige Geist solches anfangen und wirken will
(vult)”, [[§ 72, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:72]] is translated: “Whereby the Holy Ghost
desires to begin and work this.”
Again. When the Formula of Concord says our nature and will are “widerspänstig
(rebellavit, contumaci natura)” before regeneration, [[§ 18, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:18]] the translation only says they are “perverse,” and when the
Formula of Concord declares the enmity of our nature before regeneration to be
“widerspänstig”, [[§ 22, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:22]] the translation again only
pronounces it to be “perverse.” For: “Und aus einem widerspänstigen Willen ein
gehorsamer Wille wird”, [[§ 60, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:60]] we have in the
translation: “His will, in place of perverse, becomes obedient.” In another place, [[§ 24, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:24]] “widerspänstig (rebellis)” is translated “rebellious.” In [[§
60 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:60]] “widerspänstig (rebellis)” is again translated
“perverse.” Then, when the Formula of Concord says: “Und zwar alle die, so des Heiligen
Geistes Wirkungen und Bewegungen, die durchs Wort geschehen, widerspänstig,
beharrlich (contumaciter et perseveranter) widerstreben, die empfahen nicht… den
Heiligen Geist”, [[§ 83, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:83]] the translation runs thus: “And
indeed all those who obstinately and persistently (?) resist the operations and movements” (in [[§
89 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:89]] we find “emotion” for “Bewegung”) “of the Holy
Ghost, which take place through the Word, do not receive… the Holy Ghost.” Again, where the
Formula of Concord says: “Nun bleibet gleichwohl auch in den Wiedergebornen eine
Widerspänstigkeit (rebellio quaedam),” [[§84, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:84]] the
translation has: “There remains, nevertheless, also in the regenerate a refractoriness.” Again, in
[[§ 88, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:88]] the “Widerspänstigen” (rebelles) are
“stubborn.”
It is evident that, partly, it was not the Doctor’s intention to give to the public a strictly literal
translation of the Book of Concord, partly, that he [[@VolumePage:2,95]]was not quite master
of the situation. The Declaration of the second article of the Formula of Concord comprises just
19 pages, say a little over one thirtieth part of the whole work. The old New Market (Henkel and
Bros.’) edition of the Book of Concord (of the year 1854) contains exact translations of the
majority of the words and passages translated wrong by Dr. Jacobs in the Declaration of the
second article before us, and is decidedly preferable to the new one in this article, at least. It, for
instance, translates the omitted words spoken of above, as follows: He, man, is “the captive of
Satan, by whom he is led.” The old translation of the whole Declaration of the Formula of
Concord bears witness throughout that Rev. J. R. Moser, the translator of this part of the
Lutheran symbols, did all in his power, in all Christian simplicity and with Lutheran devoutness,
to give the exact sense of the original in as literal a translation as possible, although he was not
always successful; but the new translation does not make this impression. It seems as if it had
been prepared in another spirit and for sectional purposes.
It will certainly not be uninteresting to the reader to hear B. M. Schmucker, D. D.’s, opinion
on the Apology of the Augsburg Confession in its new English dress. Having corrected “a few
mistakes” occurring “in the signatures to the Smalcald Articles” and “to the Appendix,” he
writes, among other things, the following in the number of the Lutheran referred to above: “In
the examination of the Apology an interesting question has arisen. Both the German and Latin
texts have symbolical authority, and yet they differ from each other so much that they may
almost claim both to be originals. The Latin is the original of the author, Melanchthon, and
therefore has rightly (?) been taken by Dr. Jacobs. But the German is so much fuller that it is not
a mere translation, but to an important extent a new work on the same topics. It was prepared by
Jonas with the co-operation of Melanchthon himself… While the concise, precise statements of
Melanchthon may suffice for the exact scholar, the fuller statements of Jonas are so admirable
and add so much of value to the original that we are sorry to miss them in so complete (?) an
edition of the Confessions.”
Luther’s Large Catechism which “was translated,” as the Editor of the new translation says in
the preface, “for this work by Rev. A. Martin, Professor of the German Language and Literature
in Pennsylvania College,” and which has been compared in many places by the writer, is a much
better translation throughout, although it has also been adorned with some odious features on
account of which orthodox and intelligent Lutherans cannot adopt it. They may, however, be
owing, to some extent, to the fact that “some changes have been made” in it “to conform it as
nearly as possible to the plan of translation adopted (by the Editor) in the rest of the volume,” as
is said in the preface.
The new translation of the whole Book of Concord is recommended in the Lutheran by Dr.
Krotel, the editor of this church paper, in these words: “While those members of our church who
are familiar with the English language only, have had the New Market translation, referred to
above, and have had great reason to be thankful to the publishers and translators of that
volume,—they cannot fail to welcome this new volume, containing the same noble Confessions,
and presented to them in a form which was not within the reach of the publishers of 1854…The
reputation of Dr. Jacobs as a scholar And translator is so great, and deservedly so, that we are
confident, before attempting an examination of the pages before us, that this edition will be
looked upon as the Standard edition… The Editor and Publisher… have rendered a most
acceptable service to the church, and we trust that it will meet with general recognition, and that
too in the most substantial form.” No. 1070. To which, for conscience sake, we must reply: Quod
non!
We are now no better off than we were before, worse rather. For we now have two English
translations of the Book of Concord which do not supply the Church’s present wants as they
should. That is a burden! It is surprising and deplorable, that as yet our Evangelical Lutheran
Church, the Church of the Reformation, the true visible Church of God on earth, the Church of
the pure Word and unadulterated Sacraments, the real Mission Church — has no exact and
reliable English translation of her precious Symbols! C. S. K. [[@VolumePage:2,96]]
Literature.
THE LUTHERAN WITNESS, published semi-monthly under the auspices of the Cleveland District
Conference, and devoted to the interests of the Joint Synod of Missouri and its friends. C. A.
Frank, Editor. $1.00 per year in advance. All communications to be addressed to “The Lutheran
Witness,” 16 Harvey St., Zanesville, O.
It is with sincere joy and satisfaction that we find occasion to announce the appearance of this
new periodical. We are convinced that it will not be slow in gaining readers who will consider
each of its successive numbers a welcome guest in their homes. For it is the earnest purpose of
those who have by a sense of sacred duty been prompted to send it forth, to have its work
faithfully performed, which work is no other than the offering of aid in the knowledge of the
precious truths of the everlasting gospel which never fails to impart new heavenly light, joy and
peace to those who are willing to receive it in its original divine purity. A work like this,
however, must entirely fail of its desired object unless it be favored with God’s gracious help.
And since it is His divine will that we shall supplicate the gifts of grace He intends to bestow,
lest they be unknown and unheeded, we desire all those of our readers who wish well to the
affairs of our Lutheran church to unite with us in petitioning God to grant His blessings to this
undertaking, that this Witness may ever be found faithful in the service it is to perform, that it
may be strengthened and supported in its wants, continually increase in usefulness, have the field
of its labors more and more widened, and effectually assist our church in bringing forth much
fruit which shall remain.
General Religious Intelligence.
A SECT called the “New Israel” has arisen among the Jews of Russia. It abandons
circumcision, abstinence from certain viands, changes the Sabbath from the seventh to the first
day of the week and abolishes usury.
“LE TEMOIN,” the organ of the Waldenses, shows that an earnest, intelligent, and even learned
Protestantism is advancing in Italy. A new evangelical chapel has been established at Florence,
which, with the residence and garden, becomes the property of the Vaudois by virtue of an act of
sale registered. The evangelical Protestants own now no fewer than seven places of worship,
without reckoning those possessed by foreign Protestants. The pastors of all these churches are
spoken of in very high terms, with reference especially to their good knowledge of the Scripture.
ALPH.
THE summaries of the Roman Catholic church in the United States for 1881 show some
growth in that church during the year. There were 75 prelates, an increase of 6; 6366 priests, a
decrease of 64; 1532 ecclesiastical students, an increase of 362; 5975 churches, an increase of
119; 1145 chapels, an increase of 184; 1568 stations, a decrease of 155; 79 colleges and 513
academies; 2476 parochial schools with 399,188 scholars, a decrease of 24,195; 248 asylums;
126 hospitals; and 6,370,858 Catholic population, a gain of about 3,500. [[@VolumePage:2,97]]
THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL
MONTHLY.
Vol. 2. July 1882. No. 7.
(For the “Theological Monthly”.)
Investigation of the Causes producing the Decline of Orthodoxy.
It is an open fact that orthodoxy is on the decline. It has been on the decline for more than a
century. Even the words “orthodoxy” and “orthodox” have lost their full import. As long as a
Church holds to the doctrine of salvation through Christ Jesus, as long as it thus has a good claim
to be called Christian, as long as it is not Mormon, Spiritualistic, Unitarian, Universalist,
Swedenborgian, &c., it is still considered an “orthodox” Church. This is a deplorable sign of our
times. Such views were not in vogue in the golden age of Lutheranism, nor will they be
cherished by true confessional Lutherans of our days. We will not let ourselves be swept away
by the tide of our times, by the popular indifferentistic views of our era. For, “we ought to obey
God rather than men.” We will not give ourselves up to popular theories and love of popularity
in preference to divine revelation which is by no means in favor of indifferentism. By the grace
of God, we shall oppose the progress of syncretism in its old and newest forms. We shall work
against the decline of orthodoxy whenever and in whatever way we may be able to do so. This is
our duty.
This is also the object of this essay. We shall show that the reasons why a great many are
opposed to orthodoxy are futile, and that, at the same time, most of those who are affected by
syncretistic views, are so because they, in a manner, permit themselves to be products of our age.
In short, we shall try to present to our readers an investigation of the causes, producing the
decline of orthodoxy. [[@VolumePage:2,98]]
The causes of declining orthodoxy can safely be divided into ideal and real causes. The former
exist merely in the mind of men. They are made up of unscriptural opinions, unhistorical views
and illogical reasoning. One of these so-called causes (for in reality they are no causes) is the
theory that orthodoxy, like scholasticism and orthodoxism, will be the cause of spiritual death.
Such as hold this hypothesis as a basis upon which to wage war against orthodoxy, claim that
a sure attendant upon orthodoxy is spiritual death. To strengthen their position, they will say that
orthodoxy is very nearly essentially of the same nature as scholasticism and orthodoxism, and,
therefore, will have the same or at least a similar effect, viz., spiritual death.—But this is a wrong
supposition. Scholasticism and orthodoxism on the one hand, and orthodoxy on the other hand
are essentially differing. For proof’s sake we shall compare each of the former with that
orthodoxy now on the decline.—
We openly confess we see the faults of Scholasticism as well as the indifferentistic opponents
of orthodoxy. Still we do not concur with the bulk of modern theologians, leaving to the
scholastics hardly any merit whatever. We can not but give them credit for making at least a
good start towards setting forth theology in systematic order, in the general anatyzing division
into Theology proper, Anthropology, and Soterology, or, as the old Latin standards have it, finis,
subjectum et media salutis.14 That this is a real and noteworthy merit will be acknowledged by
“The Aristotelic-Scholastical method which was initiated by Petrus Lombardus and Thomas de Aquino, is the
most common. Its characteristic trait is that theology, in accordance with the precepts of Aristotle, is treated of as a
practical discipline which, 1st, treats of the objective and formal aim, to wit, God and the salvation of men, 2nd,
about the subject (or, as we would now say, the object), 3rd, of the means by which the end is obtained, all the
14
all who are not satisfied with [[@VolumePage:2,99]]superficial, unsatisfactory vague, lecturelike sketches of dogmatics, though they will not, on that account, fail to see that this method has
its disadvantages as well as all other methods. At the same time we are convinced that
scholastical theology, in general, was, in some respects, a mere parody of that true orthodoxy
which we advocate against the noisy claims of the indifferentism now so greatly prevailing. It
was more a philosophy, dealing in matters theological, thus being to a certain degree a
counterpart of Gnosticism. This does not imply that the scholastics were men of inferior intellect
and little culture. By no means, but the very fact that this was not the case, gives us the reason
why they, more or less deviating from theology proper and the true prrinciples of scriptural
Exegetics, basing their opinions preeminently upon logical, physical and metaphysical
principles, and treating the Scripture very lightly (cf. Annotat. *), became the authors of very
abstruse dogmatical systems, comprising a great deal of errors, and (sometimes even very
ridiculous) superstitions. As a general thing, the truths of the Bible were lost sight of on account
of too much Realism, Platonic or Aristotelian Nominalism, too much of battology a la Peter
Abaelardus, too much Thomistry and Scotistry, too much vain debating about the meritum ex
congruo, or condigno, about the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, in our times
sanctioned by papal infallibility; not to say anything about that question of unspeakable
importance, whether a mouse, eating a wafer, in fact ate the body of Christ. To this question
which in our times hardly anybody who had some knowledge of the Catechism would fail to
answer, great scholastici were at variance, giving evidence that they were lacking in truly
theological knowledge of the nature of the Sacraments. Therefore the Apology justly says that
the “sophists (viz., going by the context, the scholastics) have disputed in their schools against
the plain and open Scriptures,” “conceived in their own imagination FROM PHILOSOPHY their
own dreams and opinions.” (Symb. Bb. Ed. by Müller, p. 85, 45.) And Quenstedtius calls their
whole theology a “mixture of philosophy and theology.”15 [[@VolumePage:2,100]]
So much for a sketch of that scholasticism which Indifferentists delight in holding up as a
good means of scaring men from giving themselves up to orthodoxy in theory and practice by
trying to make it appear that orthodoxy and scholasticism were essentially similar, and, hence,
productive of the same effect—spiritual death. But they are essentially greatly different. We shall
restrict ourselves to showing that they are essentially different in their respective basis. For what
is orthodoxy? Orthodoxy consists in a faithful heart’s firmly holding to everything that the God-
articles of faith being proposed according to the different classes of causes and expressed by metaphysical terms.
(Der Methodus Aristotelico-scholastica ist der gemeinste, dazu Petrus Lombardus und Thomas de Aquino den
Grund geleget. Das Vornehmste darin ist, dass nach der Vorschrift des Aristoteles die Theologie als eine disciplina
practica also practizieret wird, dass 1. de fine objectivo und formali, namlich Gott und der Seligkeit des Menschen,
2. de subjecto, 3. de mediis quibus finis obtinetur gehandelt wird, und dass alle Glaubensartikel secundum genera
causarum exhibiert und mit terminis metaphysicis exprimieret werden.)” (Rambach, Dogm. Theol. I, 144; cf. Baier,
Comp. de Dogm. ed. Walther I, p. 77.)
“Quenstedtius: Antithesis I. Scholasticorum, quorum tota theologia nihil aliud est quam theologiae et
philosophiae mixtura, sive Erasmi judicio. in Eucomlo Moriae, ‘ex divinis eloquiis et philosophicis rationibus
tanquam ex Centaurorum genere biformis mixtione quadam conflata disciplina.’ In summis enim fidei mysteriis
Scholastici ex principiis logicis, physicis ac metaphysicis, praetermissis vel levi manu tactis Scripturae dictis,
conclusiones suas accersunt.” (Th. did.-pol. Lib. I. P. II. c. 2. f. 57; cf. Baieri Comp. Theol. ed. Walth. I. p. 82.)
15
inspired Scriptures reveal about God, Fallen Man and the Means of salvation. Orthodoxy
consists in a believers firmly believing that everything that is necessary towards our salvation, is
contained in the divinely inspired Scriptures, either expressly, or by analogy, or explicitly, or
implicitly, or γενικῶς, or εἰδικῶς, or αὐτολέξει, or κατὰ πρᾱγμα. It consists in holding to all
theological knowledge thus arrived at, not to be saved thereby, but because it is the contents, or
the necessary outcome of the divine, firm, unchangeable, infallible Word of God. Such is true
orthodoxy. The basis of orthodoxy is the Word of God. What communion has it with the
scholastical theology and its objectionable features of dryness and spiritual death? Can the latter
be called an abominable outgrowth of the former? By no means, for they have nothing in
common. They rest upon two different bases. While orthodoxy means adhering to the divine,
infallible Word of God, the scholastic theologians, according to the Apology, have “disputed
against the plain and open Scriptures.” According to the Apology, the scholastic theologians
“conceived from philosophy in their own imagination their own dreams and opinions.” And so it
was. Their main stronghold was philosophy, their work tending towards making theology an
Aristotelic christian philosophy, their proofs were decrees of the Ecumenical Councils,
sententiae of the Fathers, traditions and fragments of traditions,
[[@VolumePage:2,101]]Aristotelian and Platonic logical, psychological and metaphysical
axioms. (Cf. Note p. 99.) And thus it came to pass what will always come to pass wherever
speculation takes the place of revelation. As it was with the heathen of old, not excepting those
of ancient Egypt and Greece, the result will not be knowledge of God and Christ the Saviour, but
wandering away from God and—spiritual death. But though this was, to a great extent, the
natural consequence of scholastic theology, we should never forget that orthodoxy and
scholasticism are essentially dissimilar, particularly as to the respective basis, and that therefore,
orthodoxy being not essentially similar to scholasticism, it will not produce the same effect, viz.,
spiritual death.
Nor is it logical to make inferences about orthodoxy and its supposed inevitable consequences
from the state of things attending orthodoxism. Speaking of orthodoxism in this connection, we
have no reference to any intermediate states whatever. All we have in view, is orthodoxism
strictly speaking, orthodoxism (quatenus talis). For, though to the superficial observer,
orthodoxy and orthodoxism may present some very striking points of similarity, still they are
essentially very dissimilar in their individual source and nature. For what is true orthodoxy?
Orthodoxy is the firm adherence of a true believer to everything which is revealed in the divinely
inspired Scriptures which inform us about everything, the knowledge of which is directly or
indirectly necessary unto our eternal salvation. In a word, to be truly orthodox presupposes a
faithful heart. And whosoever in seeming orthodoxy adheres to doctrinal positions devoid of that
only basis of all true orthodoxy,—a faithful heart which, being constrained by the love of God
and of fellow-men, will not, for that very reason, deviate from the Will of God, as revealed in the
Scriptures, in any seemingly ever so unimportant details, is no representative of true orthodoxy.
In short, true orthodoxy flows forth from spiritual life, and, hence, is indicative of spiritual life,
and favorable unto spiritual life, true orthodoxy is the climax of spiritual life. Just the reverse
holds good with reference to orthodoxism. While orthodoxy is justly defined in the words of the
definition of true theology, as an habitus[[@VolumePage:2,102]] PRACTICUS ΘΕΟΣΔΟΤΟΣ,
orthodoxism is essentially nothing more or less than ars MENTALISque facultas disputandi de
rebus theologicis.
While true orthodoxy is deeply rooted in a believing heart, orthodoxism is merely a product of
a fertile and genial intellect. A man of great talents, if he apply himself diligently to reading
theology, as a medical student will give himself to reading medicine, may in the course of time
become a representative of orthodoxism, a brilliant disputant in matters theological, though his
heart be unregenerate and without living faith. But being devoid of this living faith, all his
orthodoxistic knowledge of theology will never make him an orthodox theologian. For all he can
boast of, is spiritual death and such a pseudo-theology which can be produced on such barren
soil, a dead ars disputandi de rebus theologicis, which will never supply that only source of all
true theology, of all true orthodoxy, that habitus practicus ϑεοσδοτος which formally constitutes
a theologian.
So grandly different in their individual source, orthodoxy and orthodoxism can not but be
greatly dissimilar in their nature. It is the nature of orthodoxy to hold that which is necessary to
our salvation, as revealed in the Scriptures, induced not by speculative, philosophical interests,
but by a devout and reverent regard for God, as addressing us in His Word. The advocates of true
orthodoxy are induced to search the Scriptures (Acts 17. 11.), to hold fast the faithful word, so as
to be able by SOUND both to exhort and convince the gainsayers (Tit. 1. 9.), not permitting
themselves to be “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine,” by the firm
belief that the divine authors of the Scriptures, as Paul himself declares 1 Cor. 2.13., have
spoken, “not in the WORDS which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which THE HOLY GHOST
TEACHETH.” Orthodoxy will always remember that God’s ways and nature are, to a great extent,
inscrutable and a great many things pertaining to the knowledge of God and His Will, are
unrevealed and, therefore, past finding out. Orthodoxy will not delight in trying to find out minor
matters that have no bearing to our eternal salvation. In holding fast to the Word, orthodoxy
“brings into captivity every thought to the [[@VolumePage:2,103]]obedience of Christ,” never
trying to explain the teachings of infinite Wisdom according to the dictates of the finite intellect
of man.—Orthodoxism will do the very opposite. Instead of, according to 2 Cor. 10. 5., in a
child-like manner expounding and adhering to revelation, even if this in some respects should be
far superior to human reason, it will correct God’s teachings so as to suit the limited capacity of
human intellect. It will systematize, no matter whether the matter in question, as divinely
revealed, will admit of this or not. Where true orthodoxy will keep silence, saying: Malo ἐπέχειν,
orthodoxism will delight in propounding questions not pertaining to salvation and, therefore, not
revealed; it will speculate on them even professing to be able by empty speculations to solve
difficulties the solution of which God has refused to reveal. The reason why orthodoxism firmly
embraces and valiantly defends its own unrevealed, empty speculation is to be sought for in its
acting “through strife and vain glory” (Phil. 2. 3.), surely a sign of spiritual death, surely to
produce spiritual death, wherever it exerts its influence.
In fact, we are well aware of the spiritual decay attending orthodoxism and that from this fact
the general public, not excluding indifferentistic theologians, make conclusions as to a similar
state of things to accompany and follow orthodoxy. But these conclusions are arrived at by very
illogical logic and unobserving observation. Though a great English poet says: What’s in a
name? even similarity of names sometimes contain the germ of causes with far-felt and widespread effect. Thus orthodoxy and orthodoxism sounding so near alike, will prompt a great many
who know about the spiritual decay attending upon orthodoxism to enter upon the war-path
against true orthodoxy, choosing for their motto: Pereat orthodoxia. That this way of arguing is
faulty, is among others the opinion of Dr. Guericke, one of the most renowned of church
historians of our times. He says: “Though such fleshliness of dead orthodoxy did, indeed, cause
great calamities to the church, nothing were more unjust than to make pure doctrine, orthodox
theology and a zeal for it accountable for these calamities; the fault lay in the abuse to which
things pure are exposed also.” (Kirchengeschichte, 9. Edit. III. p. 298.) [[@VolumePage:2,104]]
Such as argue in the manner above referred to are the victims of a logical fallacy, taking for
granted the false hypotheses that orthodoxy either is of the same, or very nearly the same, nature
as orthodoxism, or that it will inevitably result in orthodoxism, thus being a cause of spiritual
decay. Either of these hypotheses is wrong. Orthodoxy and orthodoxism are decidedly
heterogeneous. For proof, we refer our readers to the preceding sketch of their source and nature.
Carefully considering the points there adduced, they will be convinced that, while orthodoxism is
carnal, orthodoxy is spiritual, and hence not produced nor accompanied nor followed by spiritual
decay, but spiritual life. Nor is orthodoxism a product of orthodoxy, much less an inevitable
consequence. No, orthodoxy truly and properly such, can not generate orthodoxism. The latter is
not a species of the former. They are generically differing. While orthodoxy is based upon an
ardent desire of a faithful heart to know and preserve the revealed will of God in all its purity,
orthodoxism is the outcome of a perhaps ever so talented, still carnal mind. Orthodoxy (a state of
spiritual man) embraces with all its heart the teachings of the Word of God and only these,
because they are the Word of God which we are (Tit. 1. 9.) commanded to hold fast.
Orthodoxism (to be looked for nowhere else but in carnal men) will merely by way of an
historical faith embrace the teachings of the Word of God and his own speculations therefrom
derived, because he has found the contents of the Word of God historically true and finds
enjoyment in its own systemization and speculations in matters theological. Thus, orthodoxism
is, properly speaking, neither a sister of orthodoxy, nor outgrowth of orthodoxy. No, indeed, it
grows on an entirely different soil. Orthodoxism is merely a parody of orthodoxy, having no
affinity whatever except in the similarity of their names. And just as little as “abusus tollit
usum,” just as little should that parody of orthodoxy make friends for indifferentism, and bring
true orthodoxy into disfavor. Yet it is a fact that the decline of true orthodoxy is, to a great
extent, due to the inferences as to the imaginary attendant evils of true orthodoxy, illogically
derived from the state of things cotemporary with orthodoxism and the imaginary; close affinity
between orthodoxism and orthodoxy.
In fact, orthodoxy is not essentially the same as scholasticism and orthodoxism, nor is it the
parent of spiritual death. Of course, we are well aware that this is affirmed by a host of
theologians of our times, and more particularly in our country, some of whom even go so far as
to usurp the Lutheran name, though they would shrink back with horror from using, even
[[@VolumePage:2,105]] overagainst the grossest errorists, such plain, outspoken, unmistakable,
unambiguous, stern, stalwart Lutheran language as Dr. Luther did at the diet of Worms. They
seem to have entirely forgotten that genuinely Lutheran motto of true confessional Lutherans:
“Here I stand, I can not otherwise, God help me. Amen.”16 They are like unto walls which are
gradually bending and, in part, have given way to the tide of our time. As in olden times, by a
miracle of God, the walls of Jericho fell down flat at the sound of the trumpet and the shout of
16
Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders, Gott helfe mir. Amen.
the approaching enemy, so are they giving way to the presumptuous claims of the popular, and in
some respects we might be justified to say, vulgar indifferentism of our day. If the fathers of the
Lutheran church of this country, that lived about the middle of the preceding century, could
return and behold their epigoni, they would be very much aggrieved beholding with great
sadness some of the fruit that sprung from the good seed they had planted. There are so-called
Lutherans whose whole Lutheran orthodoxy would be overthrown, if any body would object to it
on the following grounds: You Lutherans are always at hand with your confessions, your
Standards.—You are ever ready in your theological schools to dissect all doctrines, to explain
them logically, show how they are logically derived from the Scriptures.—Wherever possible,
you are going back to the original Greek or Hebrew, applying principles derived from Grammar
and Comparative Philology, &c. You are so particular about every little καὶ, the position of the
article, of the adjective, of the moods, of the tenses, of the context, &c.—In short, you are laying
too much stress on the dead letter, and that is what you are forbidden to do, 2 Cor. 3. 6., for the
letter killeth, but the spirit giveth live. This objection is so common now-a-days, we suppose all
our readers have heard it more than once. Still it is as groundless as a great many other things
that are now considered “scientifically” infallible. But it won't stand its ground if attacked by the
dry logic of the Fathers which is greatly ahead of the superficial, pseudo-scientific flutter by
which involuntary feats of illogical sophistry are kept from the eyes of a scrutinizing public. As
to 2 Cor. 3. 6. a careful observer will notice that two things are contrasted in that and the
following verses, viz., the ministration of the New Testament, of the spirit ([[vs. 6. >> 2 Cor
3.6]] and [[8. >> 2 Cor 3.8]]), the ministration of righteousness ([[v. 9. >> 2 Cor 3.9]]) on the
one hand, and the ministration of the letter ([[v. 6. >> 2 Cor 3.6]]), the ministration of
condemnation ([[v. 9. >> 2 Cor 3.9]]), the ministration of death ([[v. 7. >> 2 Cor 3.7]]) on the
other. The context which some claim belongs to the letter by which they mean what may,
according to their [[@VolumePage:2,106]]notions, safely be called the dead matter of the Bible,
plainly gives evidence that letter, as used in [[v. 6., >> 2 Cor 3.6]] has reference merely to a part
of the Bible, viz., the law. But then, there is no reason whatever to infer that that letter, i. e., law,
is dead. All the above passage tells us is that it “killeth,” condemning us on account of our sins
([[v. 9. >> 2 Cor 3.9]]), pronouncing us to be heirs of eternal death ([[v. 7. >> 2 Cor 3.7]]). Still,
though the “letter” (law) “killeth,” it is by no means dead, for whatsoever killeth, can not be
dead. On the contrary, it is “quick and powerful” (Heb. 4. 12.), as all the Scriptures are.
(Compare Dietrich, Institutiones, translated to German by Dr. F. W. A. Notz, p. 40.)
So much for that old objection against orthodoxy derived from that stale “dead letter” theory
which Luther has so admirably refuted in his sermon on the epistle lesson of the XIIIth Sunday
after Trinity. (Compare Dr. Luther’s Church Postill. Translated from the German. New Market,
Va. II, pp. 119, &c.) That “dead letter” theory does not prove that orthodoxy is productive of
spiritual death. On the contrary, it is the parent of spiritual life.
This becomes evident to all who closely and impartially consider what true orthodoxy consists
in. Orthodoxy is the firm adherence of a true believer to everything which is revealed in the
divinely inspired Scriptures which inform us about everything, the knowledge of which is
directly or indirectly necessary unto our salvation. Hence it is a believer’s firm adherence to the
Scriptures and whatsoever it reveals. Such as are truly orthodox will steadfastly hold to the
revelation of God as contained in His Word. For “how shall they believe in him of whom they
have not heard,” and how shall they firmly hold to what they have not read nor accurately
studied? In other words, all who would become truly orthodox, must diligently search the
Scriptures, and being truly orthodox, presupposes the most exact and detailed scrutiny as to what
the Scripture or rather God in the Scriptures has revealed about Himself, Fallen Man and the
Means of Salvation. It presupposes obedience to the passage: “Search the Scriptures, for in them
ye think ye have eternal life. And they are they which testify of me.” It presupposes having
followed the example of the Bereans, “searching the Scriptures daily whether those things were
so.” It presupposes going by the scriptural axiom: “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, a light unto
my path.” In short, orthodoxy implies diligent study of the revelation of God, as contained in His
Word. And this very Word of God, so diligently studied by all who would become truly
orthodox, by all who are truly orthodox, is [[@VolumePage:2,107]]productive of spiritual life.
For, “the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword.” (Hebr. 4.
12.) It will not lull us into spiritual indolence. Spiritual indolence is merely a result of not using
that two-edged sword of the Word of God. Nay, the Word of God is quick and powerful. It is
quick, i. e. living (ζῶν), and so are all who truly cling to the living Word, so are all that are truly
orthodox. It is powerful, i. e. operative (ἐνεργής). And what else can be the object, the result of
its operations than to make us “quick”, i. e. living, spiritually living? The words which Christ,
which God, which the Bible speaks unto us, “they are spirit, they are life.” (John 6. 63.) As far as
the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit working through them are concerned they can and will work in
us faith (Rom. 10. 19.), true faith, faith unto life eternal, living faith, faith which worketh by love
(Gal. 5. 6.), true living faith, which is the very principle of spiritual life. Now, orthodoxy is in its
very nature tending towards making all its advocates and adherents thoroughly conversant with
the Word of God and its contents, even in respect to details and seemingly unimportant matters.
For how can we “hold fast the form of sound words,” if it is not thoroughly known by us.
Therefore it is evident that if we would do so, if we would be truly orthodox we are bound to
diligently and prayerfully (for to become truly orthodox, our understanding must be enlightened
by the Holy Spirit 1 Cor. 2. 14. f. Luke 11. 13.) study the Word of God, the word of life, which
will work in us true faith and, that which is unseparably connected with true faith,—spiritual life.
And the more we shall, by the grace of God, exert ourselves to “hold fast the form of sound
words” (2 Tim. 2. 13.), the more ardent we shall be to “affirm constantly” (Tit. 3. 8.), i. e. to
affirm most firmly and strongly (cf. δια-βεβαιοῡσϑαι) what we derive from divine revelation, as
contained in the “more sure word of prophecy,” which is as firm and reliable as its divine
Author, the more we “give attendance to reading,” so as to by the help of God, receive an inward
δια-βεβαιότης, so as to be fitted to be truly orthodox—the more will the Word of God have an
opportunity to work on our hearts towards producing that unto which it is sent, viz. faith and—
spiritual life.
Thus it is that Dr. Walther in his lectures on Pastoral Theology when he discourses on the
necessity of good sermons being doctrinal, uses the following language:
“Still others perhaps may be induced to treat very little of doctrine, because they have the false
idea that detailed expositions of doctrine were too dry, would not move the
[[@VolumePage:2,108]]hearers, nor be apt to produce awakening, or conversion or true, living,
active, heart-felt christianity. But this is a great mistake. Those very eternal thoughts of the heart
of God, revealed to man unto his salvation, these very truths, decrees and mysteries of faith kept
secret since the world began, but now made known to us by the scriptures of the prophets, they
are the heavenly seed that must be implanted in the heart of men, if the fruit of true repentance,
of faith unfeigned, of true, active charity should grow therefrom.” (See Amer.-Luth.
Pastoraltheologie by Dr. C. F. W. Walther, 2d ed. p. 81.) And what we said about orthodoxy
being the parent of spiritual life, he has admirably set forth in a sermon on Titus III. 8., the theme
being, If we would promote truly christian life, it is absolutely necessary with great earnestness
to give heed to pure doctrine. The third reason which is there adduced in proof of the position
promulgated in the theme is, because nothing but pure doctrine imparts inclination and power to
lead a truly christian life.
In the closing paragraph of this part Dr. Walther says:
“Therefore, even if all who are thoroughly anxious to retain pure doctrine, are designated as
dead orthodoxists, even if their congregations be despisingly looked down upon as upon a mass
of unconverted sinners, even if every offense which we confess comes to pass also within
congregations of pure faith, is used to prove that anxiously holding to pure doctrine would not
permit spiritual life to spring forth: still nothing but pseudo-orthodoxy is dead, true, pure
doctrine is always full of spirit power, life, light, and fire. As false doctrine is a prolific seed of
tares, viz. a fertile parent of false (i. e. not genuinely christian, not spiritual) works and life, so
true, pure doctrine is a prolific seed of wheat, viz. a fertile parent of truly good works, truly good
life (rechter Werke, rechten Lebens). It has frequently been stated that the Lutheran reformation
was a reformation of doctrine only, not a reformation of life. But this is nothing but the verdict of
blind reason. Every true reformation of doctrine is also a true reformation of life. As often as
pure doctrine came into favor and was generally acknowledged, true christian life began to
bloom, so that thousands again were ‘careful to maintain good works’ (Tit. 3.8.), for the Word of
God will never return void. (Is. 4. 11.)” (See Dr. Walther, Brosamen. p. 416.)
That true orthodoxy, theoretically considered, in its very essence and nature is productive of
spiritual life, will be evident to all who impartially read and carefully meditate on the contents of
the preceding argument, giving special consideration to that selection from Dr. Walthers
Brosamen. [[@VolumePage:2,109]]
We shall take a brief survey of the practical aspect of the matter with a view of showing that
firm adherents of orthodoxy have given unquestionable evidence that they had their eyes open to
the necessity of spiritual life.—Thus Dr. Luther in his explanation of the first petition of the
Lord’s Prayer tells us that “God’s name is hallowed,” if the Word of God is preached in all its
purity, and we, as the children of God live accordingly. Now, he would have us daily pray
Hallowed be Thy name, implying a prayer for having the Word of God, preached in all its purity.
He would have us give heed not to “teach otherwise than the Word of God teacheth.” He wants
us to do all we can to preserve the Word of God in all its purity. He is very severe on those that
lie and deceive by his name. (Compare 2d Commandment.) Still he knew Romans, still he was
so thoroughly convinced of the necessity of spiritual life so as to embody this conviction in his
Smaller Catechism, so as to give it expression in the last question of the IVth Part of the
Catechism in the answer to the question: What does such baptizing of water signify?—Moreover,
Dr. Baier in his Compendium Theol. Pos., treating of the office of the ministry, states that it
belongs to that office to plainly propose and solidly substantiate (solide confirmentur) the true
doctrine of the Scriptures, and to distinctly point out the opposite errors (distincte monstrentur)
and prove them to be contrary to the Word of God and injurious (et tanquam cum verbo Dei
pugnantes atque noxii arguantur. See Baieri Comp. Theol. Pos. ed. Preuss. p. 630). Still Dr.
Baier knows that regeneration is necessary (see p. 408) and that its final object (terminus ad
quem) is spiritual life (p. 404).—Among us Dr. Walther is very often decried as an orthodoxist
by such who don’t know his writings, nor take pains to know his writings with a view of
correcting their to a great extent hereditary prejudiced ideas. But, though Dr. Walther is
zealously and vigorously “holding fast to the form of sound faith,” still he is as thoroughly
convinced of the necessity of spiritual life, as will be easily seen from a sermon of his on the
question: Have ye received the Holy Ghost? preached from the gospel of Whitsunday. (See Mag.
für Ev.-Luth. Homiletik IV, pp. 129—136.) We select from Part I (see p. 132). It reads (p. 132):
“I therefore ask you, Can you tell of a time when the Holy Ghost again entered into your hearts?
Can you, dear hearers, say, Alas, for a long time I passed life in fleshly security without any care
for my salvation. God did, indeed, follow me, and did knock at the door in sundry ways, but,
alas, I did not open to Him, but again and again suppressed and stifled the good motions rising in
my conscience. At [[@VolumePage:2,110]]length, however, God was too strong for me. At
length the Word of God pierced through my soul like a sword. At length I perceived with dismay
that I was on a wrong way to eternity, that the wrath of God was upon me, that such as I was I
could never be saved. Even then I did not at once follow the drawing of grace, but still conferred
with flesh and blood; but God did not let me go, hence my disquiet and anguish concerning
perdition increased constantly. At last I began to sigh wheresoever I was. My sins stood before
my eyes like mountains incapable of being passed over. Then I would with tears throw myself
down upon my knees before God in the silence of my chamber, ardently beseeching grace and
mercy. And behold, after a severe inner struggle I lastly felt as if the sun was rising within my
heart. I remembered the precious passages of comfort which I had often before read or heard
without being moved by them; e. g. ‘Jesus receiveth sinners,’ ‘He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved’ and the like. To such passages I now clung as a man in danger of drowning clings
to the boat that will rescue him. The consequence was that a new light and a new power were
pouring into my heart, that the Spirit of grace and of supplications came upon me, entered within
me, made his abode with me and from this time changed me into another man, into a new
man.—I ask you, beloved hearers, did I in these words describe the experience of your hearts? If
not, you are not as yet true Christians. It is true, men are not converted in a manner the same
throughout. Some, like Saul, pass quickly and immediately from darkness into light, from death
to life, from wrath to grace. Others, like Nicodemus, first pass through continued resistance and
consequently through many violent struggles with the flesh, world and Satan, sometimes for
weeks, months, and even years, before they fully open their hearts to the Holy Spirit and are fully
assured of having obtained grace and salvation. Some, like David, are seized with great anguish
and the terrors of hell on account of their sins, before they feel comforted; others, like many of
the hearers of Peter’s sermon on Pentecost, taste but little of this bitterness and immediately on
being pricked in their heart when hearing the Word, feel the sweet consolation of their sins being
forgiven them. Some, like the Galatians, stumble repeatedly after their first awakening, and as
often rise again, before making firm steps on the narrow way to heaven; others again, like the
jailer at Philippi, are brands plucked out of the fire at once, and immediately shine as lights in the
Lord. But, my dear hearers, different as the ways are on which God leads men in order to make
their hearts His habitation, no man [[@VolumePage:2,111]]becomes a temple of the Holy Ghost
without some experience of true repentance. He who knows nothing of it, is still dead in his sins;
whatever he may do, without such experience he remains a hypocrite during his life, and is on
the way to eternal perdition.
Finally we refer to our Symbolical Books. Passages in which the necessity of spiritual life is
earnestly inculcated, are numerous. We select one from the Apology: “And surely there is no
true repentance in our hearts, if we do not externally show good works and christian patience.
And this is what St. John means when he says: Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance,
what St. Paul means, saying: ‘Yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.’ And
when Christ says: ‘Repent’, he is surely speaking of the whole repentance and of the whole new
life and its fruits.” (Symb. Bücher, Muellers ed. p. 191, 35.) Thus the Apology. At the same time
the Epitome most especially is by no means slow to denounce false doctrine (errores oppositi) in
seemingly rather too vigorous terms. It rejects and damns the errores oppositi, calling them
blasphemous and horrible doctrines. It is full of vigorous orthodoxy. And at the same time these
orthodox Symbolical Books give evidence that their authors were thoroughly convinced of the
necessity of spiritual life.
Now we could go on recounting how truly orthodox theologians have given evidence of their
having spiritual life. But this is a subject which we could not do justice to, in an essay, like the
one we are now writing. It would be a long essay of itself which would include a great many
things from the church history of the preceding centuries. In this connection we can merely touch
upon this subject, restricting ourselves to outlining one particular point.
It is generally known that particularly the orthodox theologians of the XVIIth century very
closely adhered to what they knew was the doctrine of the Scriptures. Sometimes kings and
emperors, principalities and powers tried to make them give up at least some particle of their
faith. They were told that, if they would not give up certain particular points, they would lose
their professorship, their fortunes, their homes, they would be ostracized or thrown into
dungeons of the most terrible description. What did they do? Did they give way unto false
doctrine even for a moment? No, never; they left their professorships, homes, enduring ostracism
or prison life, for they would rather suffer for the cause of their Lord and be truly orthodox than
deviate from the Word of God in any particular whatever. Now, by what was this accounted for,
spiritual death or spiritual life?—Considered in [[@VolumePage:2,112]]the way of the world it
would not have been so very difficult to evade all those troubles. They might have recanted with
some Jesuitical reservatio mentalis. Why did not they do so? —The answer is, because that
could not be harmonized with their true faith, with their true inward piety. And their way of
acting was a de facto demonstration of what we have hitherto endeavored to prove, viz., that
orthodoxy is not the parent of spiritual death, but the very stronghold of spiritual life.
General Religious Intelligence.
THE Prince of Wales, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Duke of Albany, and nearly all the members
of the government voted with the minority in the British House of Lords on the motion ordering
the bill legalizing marriage with a deceased wife’s sister to its second reading. The bulk of the
Conservatives and all the bishops voted with the majority.
MODERN IDOLATRY. During the great reception of Italian pilgrims at Rome recently many
persons were taken severely ill on account of the intense fatigue of waiting their turn to see the
Pope. Delicate women and small children stood in long rows from eleven in the morning to
seven in the evening for the purpose of kissing the hem of the Antichrist’s garments and
presenting to the priests attendant their offering to St. Peter.
DR. N. G. CLARK of the American Board of Foreign Missions protests against the proposed
Baptist mission in Turkey, for the reason that the Congregationalists have long had the ground.
The editor of the Congregationalist thinks it would be lamentable to send missionaries of
division to “preach a gospel of immersion as necessary to salvation.” In reply to both the
WatchTower says: “It is enough to say that Baptist missionaries would not preach such a doctrine
that Turkey is already occupied by more than one denomination and that we have waited until we
have been sent for, not by a vision, but by living men from ‘Macedonia.’ This certainly goes to
show how little real unity exists among those who pride themselves in calling everybody
‘brother’.”
THE CAMPBELLITES. The doctrinal faith of the “Disciples of Christ,” with which society our
lamented President was connected, is stated in the following declaration of faith which is taken
from a synopsis of their belief, as drawn by Alexander Campbell, one of the founders of the
society, from whom the name “Campbellites” is taken. Vid. American Cyclopaedia, 1. c. “I
believe in one God, as manifested in the person of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
who are, therefore, one in nature, power, and volition. —I believe that every human being
participates in all the consequences of the fall of Adam, and is born into the world frail and
depraved in all his moral powers and capacities; so that, without faith in Christ, it is impossible
for him, while in that state, to please God.—I believe that the Word, which from the beginning
was with God, and which was God, became flesh and dwelt among us as Immanuel, or ‘God
manifest in the flesh,’ and did make an expiation of sin ‘by the sacrifice of Himself,’ which no
being could have done that was not possessed of a superhuman, superangelic and divine
nature.— I believe in the justification of a sinner by faith, without the deeds of the law, and of a
Christian, not by faith alone, but by the obedience of faith.—I believe in the operation of the
Holy Spirit, through the Word, but not without it, in the conversion and sanctification of the
sinner.” ALPH. [[@VolumePage:2,113]]
THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL
MONTHLY.
Vol. 2. August 1882. No. 8.
(For the “Theological Monthly”.)
Investigation of the Causes producing the Decline of Orthodoxy.
(Continued.)
Again, there are such who will say: Orthodoxy, as you define that term, claims to be infallible,
but this is simply absurd. This is the second objection generally raised against orthodoxy, no less
futile than the preceding objection about orthodoxy being a source of spiritual death. This
objection we shall now investigate, showing its futility in all its parts.
Some affirm, it is absurd because so many churches differ from the Lutheran Church.
Indifferentists who try to make capital out of the imaginary absurdity of orthodox infallibility
will argue: Why? We can't see how you Lutherans of the orthodox shade can claim that you have
the true and strictly unadulterated doctrine of the Scriptures. There is Dr. So and So, he is a very
learned baptist, there is Dr. X., he is a thoroughly educated Methodist theologian and a devout
christian, how can you dare say, he is lacking in orthodoxy, you, and nobody but you have the
pure and unadulterated doctrine of the Word of God. But still we can not but, in this respect, hold
fast to what is unspeakably absurd not to sound theologians, but to such as permit themselves to
be mercilessly swept away by the current of the unionistic tide of our times.
To begin with, we shall state that, judging and rejecting all unscriptural un-Lutheran doctrine,
we do not judge the hearts of those that may be its advocates and standard-bearers. “The Lord
knoweth them that are his” (2 Tim. 2. 19.), and “the Lord searches the heart, tries the reins,
even gives every man according to his ways and according to the fruit of his doings. (Jer. 17. 10.)
Still, though we are to refrain from judging men (which we will explain more fully in a later
article of this series), we have a solemn duty to judge all [[@VolumePage:2,114]]doctrine by the
infallible standard of the Scripture. Thus it is that we can not but claim that the true doctrine of
the Word in all its parts is held by no other church than the Lutheran, and laid down nowhere but
in her incomparably grand Confessions, though, within the bounds of the General Synod, “there
they stand,” “more to be admired than used.” This so-called exclusivism does, by no means,
enjoy the favor of the indifferentistic theology of our times. It is looked down upon as a relic of
mediaeval darkness, of old school orthodoxism which, in the opinion of the present
indifferentistic theological world, should have no place in our enlightened century. This
prejudice against orthodoxy is so universal and so deeply rooted with all that cherish
indifferentistic views so common in our age, that they will not even listen to an argument, the
object of which is to prove that our own Lutheran Church has the truth, nothing but the truth, and
all there is of it. It has all there is of it. We don’t believe in that historico-philosophicodogmatical development of theology that is the idol of the supposed scientific philosophical
theology that almost everywhere has taken the place of the chaste theology of former golden
eras. If the Lutheran theology, or rather theology in general, need development, we are very
sorry for Timothy who did not partake of that blessing and, hence, must have been a very inferior
theologian. The Lutheran Church has nothing but the truth, for it rejects everything besides the
only real source of truth, viz., the Word of God. The Lutheran Church alone has nothing but the
truth, and all there is of it. For it is evident that the Lutheran Church differs from other churches
in a great many particulars. Now, in each individual case, only one party can have the truth,
either the Lutheran Church, or that church which in such and such a particular respect may
oppose its doctrine. Now, we openly and most emphatically claim that in each individual case
the truth will be found on the side of the Lutheran Church and its official doctrine, as embodied
in the Lutheran Confessions.
The internal reason of this fact we cheerfully give in, we do not know. All we know is that “if
God gives His Word in one place, but declines to do so in another, if God takes away the Word
(and we may well add, the pure doctrine of His Word) and permits it to remain in another, we
should remember that God owes us nothing and His judgments are just.” (See Rom. 11. 22., also
Book of Concord, ed. Müller, 716, 57.) If, however, He gives us anything, it is grace, and
nothing but grace. (See Rom. 9. 33, Rom. 11. 22, Rom. 9. 20.) We know that God says: “Who
maketh thee differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou
[[@VolumePage:2,115]]didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?” (1
Cor. 4. 7.) And thus the Lutheran Church knows that it has no merit on account of which it could
have received the pure doctrine of God, and that, therefore, it has no reason to glory on account
of something God has bestowed upon the Lutheran Church out of mere grace. “It was nothing
but free grace that God opened the door of Luther’s heart that he gave heed to the Word. It was
nothing but free grace that He put His Word into his mouth, preparing unto this Word an open
door that many accepted it… It was given (See 1 Cor. 4. 7.) to the Lutheran Church to adhere to
the Word and not to permit itself to be led astray therefrom. It was grace. We know of no merit.
It is grace, that God in our times has made our hearts willing to entirely and absolutely subject
ourselves to His Word and not to deviate from a single word of Holy Writ.” (See Populäre
Symbolik, by Rev. Prof. M. Günther, publ. by L. Volkening, 1872, p. 5.)
The external reason why we, and we alone, have the full truth, and nothing but the truth, is
because we strictly adhere to the Scriptures, and to the Scriptures exclusively, and in all
particulars. The Lutheran will always bear in mind Rev. 22. 18, 19., where it says: “If any man
shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And
if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his
part out of the book of life.” The Lutheran Church, on that account, is very careful not to act
against that divine command. “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither
shall ye diminish ought from it.” (Deut. 4. 2.) And this is the external reason accounting for
every difference of the doctrine of the various denominations from that of the church of the
Reformation, our own dear Lutheran Church.
In the first place, we never make traditions a principle of theology. For us, there is but one
source of true doctrine, nothing but the Word. We don’t acknowledge traditions, sayings of the
Fathers, &c., as being an integral part of that from which we should derive our theology. This,
however, was done, and is still done, by the Church of Rome. They are constantly adding to the
Word of God by tradition. Thus it is that they have a purgatory, indulgences, the monastery
system, celibacy of the clergy, secular power of the church, the episcopal system, the Pope as the
visible representative of Christ, papal infallibility, &c. All of these things rest principally on
traditions, and on the sayings of the Fathers, in short, on the word of man. Hence it is that we
don’t acknowledge all these things because they are based upon the
[[@VolumePage:2,116]]word of men which, by no means, should be added to the Word of God,
nor regarded, revered, and followed as the Word of God. As, in our times, however, very few
besides regular bigotted Romanists are inclined to permit themselves to be influenced by
traditions, and sayings of the Fathers as added unto the Word, the sole principle of all true
theology, we shall not enter upon illustrations showing that particular errors of particular
churches can be safely traced to tradition. If we would, our readers would join in with the words
of William of Bavaria, which he said to Dr. Eck at the diet of Augsburg, when Dr. Eck stated
that he could refute Dr. Luther’s doctrine though not with the Scriptures, still with the church
fathers. They are: “Well, I perceive, the Lutherans are in the (fort of the) Scriptures, while we are
outside.”
Still, adding to the Scriptures from tradition is not confined to the church of Rome. Thus a
great many sects of our country add unto the Scriptures by holding that baptism is not baptism
except it be performed by immersion. They, argue, for instance, from Matthew 3. 16. that Christ
went up straightway out of the water. From this they infer in support of their traditional error,
that hence Christ and John must have been in the water, that is, entirely immersed in the Jordan,
and then they went straightway up out of the water In this, as in other cases, tradition adds unto
the Bible, for, consulting the original, we find that it reads: ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος, i. e. away from the
water. This may be safely expressed by “went up straightway out of the water,” just as a mother
will persuade her child to “get out of the water,” when it, after a rain for instance, has been “in
the water” merely with its bare feet. Immersionists add unto the Scriptures, in support of their
theory, what directly militates against the Word of God and strictly scriptural exegetics. For
Titus 3. 5 baptism is called a washing of regeneration (διὰ τοῦ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας). Ephes. 5.
26. it is called the “washing of water, by the word” (τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος ἐν ῥήματι). Luke 11.
38. we read: “And when the Pharisee saw it he marvelled that he (Christ) had not first washed
before dinner” (ἐβαπτίσθη). Mark 7. 4. it reads: “And when they (the Pharisees) come from the
market, except they wash, they eat not” (βαπτίσωνται). In both of these passages we find the
original root of the word baptize, and what must we conclude it signifies? Can we imagine that
the general custom of the Pharisees was to bathe in the strictest sense, that is, to be immersed
before every meal? Is this the meaning of βαπτίζειν? Certainly not. This supposition would be
the climax of absurdity. On the contrary, it simply refers to those manifold washings before meal
and [[@VolumePage:2,117]]after meals, as the Mohammedans and the orientals of our present
time are even now accustomed to. This becomes still more evident, if we bear in mind that (Mark
7. 4.) “many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing (i. e.,
according to the original, the baptizing [βαπτισμούς]) of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels and
tables.” The Scriptures do not force me to believe that, every time they washed them, they had to
immerse their tables. (See also Acts 1. 5., comp. to Acts 2. 15, 16. Hebr. 10. 22.)
Chiliasm may also be counted one of those things in which tradition is added unto the
Scriptures, as Chiliasm in its first beginnings rests upon Jewish ideas about the time following
the coming of the Messiah. The Lutheran Church, however, also in this case rejecting all
traditions, adheres strictly to the Word of God, which says (Hebr. 9. 28.), that as TWO things are
“appointed unto men”, viz., “once to die” and “thereafter the judgment”, so Christ is to come but
TWO times, once FULL OF SINS, in as much as he was to be “once offered to bear the sins of
many” (ἅπαξ προσενεχθεὶς εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας), “the second time WITHOUT SIN”
to appear unto them that look for him unto salvation (ἐκ δευτέρου χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας ὀφθήσεται
τοῖς αὐτὸν ἀπεκδεχομένοις εἰς σωτηρίαν).
We take liberty to refer to another instance in which traditions have influenced some churches
to detract from the Scriptures. We have reference to their still insisting that we are bound to
keep, at least, some parts of the ceremonial law, inconsistent though it be, for “consistency is a
jewel,” and as rare as a jewel too. With regard to this, however, the Scriptures plainly declare
that we “should stand in the liberty wherewith Christ had made us free,” and be not entangled
again with the yoke of bondage (Gal. 5. 1.). For we are no more under the law, servants of the
law, sons of the bondwoman, but under the gospel, servants of the new covenant, sons of the free
woman. (See Gal. 4.) This is a point of scriptural doctrine from which some would detract,
influenced by tradition. They would have us keep the ceremonial law, as we said before, at least
in part. Thus the claim that the Sunday is a divine institution, that it is a divine command to keep
one day out of seven, and that for this purpose Sunday was appointed by God. Though they
cannot adduce divine proof for their assertions, still they persist in their endeavors to detract
christian liberty by zealously trying to uphold the divine institution of the Sunday on the basis of
tradition. Hence the difference between all the host of churches that hold that doctrine, on the
one hand, and our own, on the other. In our efforts to oppose their endeavors to take away from
the [[@VolumePage:2,118]]Scriptures, in this particular respect, we appeal to Rom. 14. 6.,
where it says: “He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not
the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.” Thus it is that the [[XXVIII. article of the Augsburg
Confession >> BookOfConcord:AC:II:xxviii:53]] says: “What, then, be held concerning Sunday
and other similar church ordinances and ceremonies? To this we make the following reply:—
That the bishops or pastors may make regulations, so that things may be carried on orderly in the
church,—not to obtain the grace of God, nor yet to atone for sins, or to bind the consciences of
men to hold these regulations as necessary services of God, and to regard them, as if those
commit sin who break them without offence to others. Thus St. Paul to the Corinthians ordains,
that the women in the congregation should cover their heads, 1 Cor. 11. 5. Again, that the
preachers should speak in the congregation, not all at the same time, but in order, one after
another.
“It is proper for a Christian congregation to observe such regulations for the sake of peace and
love, and in such cases to be obedient to the bishops and pastors, and to observe these regulations
so far as that one offend not another, that there may be no disorder or unseemly conduct in the
church; yet that the consciences of men be not encumbered with the idea that these observations
are held as necessary to salvation, and that those commit sin who violate them even without
offence to others: as, no one says that a woman commits sin in going abroad bareheaded, unless
thereby she offend the people. In like manner such is the case with the institution of Sunday, of
Easter, of Pentecost, and the like holidays and rites. Those, then, who are of opinion, that such
institution of Sunday instead of the Sabbath, was established as a thing necessary, err very much.
For the holy Scripture has abolished the Sabbath, and it teaches that all ceremonies of the old
law, since the revelation of the Gospel, may be discontinued. And yet as it was necessary to
appoint a certain day, so that the people might know when they should assemble, the Christian
church ordained Sunday for that purpose, and possessed rather more inclination and willingness
for this alteration, in order that the people might have an example of Christian liberty, that they
might know that neither the observance of the Sabbath, nor of any other day, is indispensable.
“There are many unwarrantable disputations relative to the change of the Law, to the
ceremonies of the New Testament, to the alteration of the Sabbath; all of which have sprung
from the false and erroneous opinion, that there must be in the Christian church a divine service
corresponding with [[@VolumePage:2,119]]the Levitical or Jewish service of God, and that
Christ had commanded the Apostles and bishops to devise new ceremonies, which should be
necessary to salvation. These errors obtained in Christendom when the righteousness of faith was
not clearly and purely taught and preached. Some also argue, that Sunday must be kept, although
not from divine authority, prescribing in what form and to what degree labor may be performed
on that day. But what else are such disputations, but snares of conscience? For although they
presume to modify and mitigate human traditions, yet no ἐπιείκεια or mitigation can be attained,
so long as the opinion exists and continues, that they are necessary. Now this opinion must
continue, if men know nothing of the righteousness of faith, and of Christian liberty. The
Apostles have given the command, to abstain from blood and things strangled. But who
observes this now? Yet those do not sin who do not observe it, because even the Apostles
themselves did not wish to burden the conscience with such servitude, but they prohibited it for a
time to avoid offence. For we must have regard, in view of this ordinance, to the chief article of
the Christian doctrine, which is not abrogated by this decree.”
And Dr. Walther says: “Hence there cannot be any doubt that the keeping of Sunday is no
commandment of God, but a free regulation of the Christian church in memory of the
resurrection of Jesus Christ and the institution of the holy ministry, appointed for the holy
assemblies of the Christians. Sunday, it is true, is mentioned in the Holy Scriptures, but nowhere
commanded; it is a part of Christian liberty.” (Brosamen p. 190. 191.) Moreover, other churches
claim that for the purpose of hallowing the Sabbath day it is a divine command and, therefore,
essential to abstain from all manual labor. Such as hold this erroneous view cannot but keep all
the old Jewish ordinances as contained in the ceremonial law; for example, to abstain from
everything that requires bodily exertion. Some of these consistently go by this, don’t cook meals
on Sunday, don’t by any means take a pleasure ride, etc. Some even go as far as the Blue Laws
of a century or so ago, which found it wrong to walk a distance exceeding a Jewish Sabbath way,
even pronouncing it desecration of the Sabbath, if a father would kiss his child. All such views
are due to proneness to detracting from the Scriptures on account of the traditional Sabbath
notions of ages and eras when the Gospel was mixed up and obscured by the laws, when
Christian liberty was, in this respect, lost sight of on account of ascetic views, then prevailing.
We, therefore, cannot but differ therefrom, nor is it absurd, [[@VolumePage:2,120]]if we claim
to have the absolutely true position, because the truth we confess is based on the Scriptures,
which have an undeniable claim to absolute certainty. But the Scriptures say: “Let no man,
therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or IN RESPECT OF AN HOLY DAY, or the new moon, or
the Sabbath day,” Col. 2. 16., and Heb. 9. 10. we are told that “meats and drinks, and divers
washings and CARNAL ORDINANCES” were imposed only “until the time of reformation.”
Notwithstanding, we know that we should sanctify the holy-day. But what is essential, if we
do so? Is it sanctified, as some suppose, if we stop from our daily occupation and rest? Is it really
sanctified, if we, as a great many New England folks fancy, sit down in our best suit of clothes,
make as little noise as possible, and rigidly abstain from everything that might require a little
more bodily exertion than absolutely necessary, not even daring to go to church, if it be a long
way, for fear of Sabbath desecration? No, certainly not. We know that, if we would sanctify the
holy-day, the only way in which we could do it, is by the Word of God and prayer.
Thus it is that Dr. Walther says: “The same holds with the ordinance concerning Sunday; the
Christian knows that its keeping is free, but for this very reason he keeps it the more willingly
and gladly, he does not suffer himself to be forced and impelled thereto by anybody, he keeps it
from love to the Word of God, from love to good order, from love to his weak neighbor. In the
grace of the New Testament he uncompelled keeps Sunday as holy as any of the faithful of the
Old Testament kept his Sabbath. We must, therefore, finally here make this argument, that he
who despises and neglects the keeping of the Lord’s day, acts for this reason not as a Christian,
not as a believer; for with such the word obtains: ‘Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things
are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely,
whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, I think on
these things.’ Though the old rigor of the Sabbath is hot to bear rule on the Sunday of the
Christians, though among Christians deeds of necessity and love are still less forbidden for the
sake of Pharisaic holiness; yet he who on that day which the Christian Church has instituted for
the works of divine service to the honor of Jesus Christ and His glorious resurrection, to the
honor of the preaching of the gospel, to the salvation of the souls, he who on Sunday without the
case of necessity, perhaps out of avarice or a desire to please man, plies the works of his
vocation, and without the case of necessity neglects the [[@VolumePage:2,121]]preaching and
public service: he who on that day pursues worldly pleasures, seeks after worldly entertainment
instead of conversation on divine things: manifests in doing so a contempt of the Word of God, a
contempt of Christian discipline and good order, and a contempt of his weak neighbor whom he
offends; he sins against God, against his neighbor, against himself, and against the whole
Christian congregation.”—“Consider, brethren, that our Christian ancestors knew Christian
liberty well and better than we, and yet with what care did they keep their Sunday! If we desire
to be Lutherans, let us, then, return to their zeal, and the more we acknowledge ourselves to be
free, the more willingly keep this good, Christian ordinance. Let us consider, also, that the
government of our country has given strict laws concerning the keeping of the Sunday; here we
must needs obey not merely for necessity, but for conscience’ sake, not as members of the
Church, but as subjects. This the Word of God tells us: ‘Let every soul be subject unto the higher
powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever
therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to
themselves damnation.’ Here no Christian liberty obtains. He who in the least does on Sunday
what government has prohibited resisteth God and may expect His judgment.”
In short, the difference of the doctrine of other churches from that of the Lutheran Church is to
a great extent owing to the fact that the Lutheran Church declines to let anything be added unto
or detracted from the Scriptures (cf. Deut. 4. 2.) on the basis of tradition and the effata of the
church fathers. This is evident from the preceding illustrations. Much less will the Lutheran
Church permit anything to be taken away there from on account of our own reason. And this is
the second cause why its pure doctrine differs from the adulterated doctrine of various other
denominations. The greater part of the churches of our day acknowledge reason, if not in theory
at least in practice, to be a secondary principle of theology, so that they actually have two
principles of theology, viz: the Scriptures and their own reason. In vain do they try to hide this
from the view of observing readers by saying, all they give heed to is enlightened reason. As far
as we Lutherans are concerned, we cannot but openly confess that, in a certain sense, we are
opposed to the use of reason in matters theological. Of course, we have to use our reason in
logical, historical, exegetical respect. Theologians can not but use their reason in as much as it
denotes the mental faculties whereby we deduct and evolve theological conclusions from the
Word of God. This [[@VolumePage:2,122]]is not what we object to. On the contrary, we know
that without this use of reason we would be unable to write even a sermon. But we object to the
use of reason when understood as that from which certain primary principles are derived,—
philosophical principles (principia praecognita),principles, which sustain the same relations to
metaphysics as geometrical axioms to geometry,—principles, which, though purely rooted in
philosophy, are transplanted to the sphere and used side by side with theological principles, as
contained and evolved from the Scriptures.
Our opposition to the use of reason, as just now explained, is based on firm scriptural ground.
We know that we ought not refuse to believe anything, because it may chance to be against
certain principles of reason or “common sense”. For we know that our faith is not “in the wisdom
of men” (1 Cor. 2. 5.), that the Bible speaks “not the wisdom of this world” (i. e., σοφίαν δὲ οὐ
τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου) [[v. 6., >> 1 Cor 2.6]] but “the wisdom of God in a mystery (θεοῦ σοφίαν
ἘΝ ΜΥΣΤΗΡΙΩ τὴν ἀποκεκρυμμένην) [[v. 7. >> 1 Cor 2.7]] By the grace of God, we are aware
that there is one particular passage in the Bible, which seems to have been expressly inspired by
the Holy Ghost for the very purpose of informing us, that a certain use of reason, before referred
to, is against the will of God. For Col. 2. 8. we read: “Beware lest any man spoil you through
philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world (κατὰ τὰ
στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου) and not after Christ.” I. e., don’t let yourselves be led astray by the
στοιχεῖα, i. e., “the first principles (See Hebr. 5. 12.) of the world,” i. e., taking the whole verse
together,—don’t permit yourselves to be led astray by the generally taught (κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν
τῶν ἀνθρώπων, i. e. παράδοσις =instruction, cf. 2 Thess. 3. 6. tradition, in German “Satzungen”,
see also 2 Thess. 2. 15.) philosophical (διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας) i. e., metaphysical principles of the
world. Therefore, we Lutherans regard it our duty to “cast down imaginations and every high
thing that exalleth itself against the knowledge of God, and to bring into captivity every thought
unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10. 5.). Thus it is that we exlude reason from a sphere
which, according to divine revelation, is to be reserved exclusively for the Word of God. This is
not done by various other denominations and even some shades of our own church, and hence it
is that differences arise.
In proof of this, we shall adduce but two illustrations. The Socinians of old and the Unitarians
of our age refuse to believe that there are three persons in God, though they are clearly revealed.
They do so because of their high intellectual [[@VolumePage:2,123]]culture not admitting of
such an unintelligent belief. To take away from the Bible in regard to the doctrine of a triune
God is a very difficult thing. For the purpose of doing this, all who are Unitarians or borne by
Unitarian sentiment have to make the efforts rivaling those of Hercules of old, and still they find
it very hard to render unclear what God has so clearly revealed. They find it very hard to try to
make people believe that they can refute the doctrine of the trinity, as plainly revealed in the
formula of baptism and the passages telling us how at the baptism of Christ each of the three
persons in God became distinctly manifest. They will find it still harder to disprove John 14. 16,
17., where Christ says, that He would pray “the Father” (i. e. a different person from Himself,
the Son), that He should give to His disciples “ another comforter” (i. e. God the Holy Ghost,
another different person), whom He (Christ) was to send from the Father (comp. John 15. 26.).
In spite of all, Unitarians and a host of others partaking of Unitarian sentiments will war against
the doctrine of the trinity, because “reason has decided against it,” because, as Dr. Eliot says, we
“become Christians only by the use of reason” (Discourses on the doctrine of Christianity, p. 7),
and. natural men with “blind reason”, as Luther calls it, are ever so prone to receive and sound
the praises of such “sensible, reasonable” scriptural (?) exegesis, because it flatters human
vanity. The reason why we differ from the Unitarians is manifest. They take away from the
Bible, we don’t. In doing so, they cling to finite reason, while we, taking our reason into the
subjection of faith, do soar far above in the aerial flight of infinite, divine Wisdom, Wisdom
personified.
Another instance: We believe that in the Holy Eucharist Christ’s body and blood are really
present in, with, and under the external elements. We don’t teach transsubstantiation, implying
that the bread and wine are changed in substance so as to cease being bread and wine, simply
being naught but body and blood of Christ. Neither do we teach consubstantiation, or the mixing
up of the two substances of body and blood of Christ on the one hand, and bread and wine on the
other. All we teach is that, by virtue of a sacramental union in the Holy Eucharist, the body and
blood of Christ is really and truly present in, with, and under the bread and wine.
What say the Reformed Churches? The body and blood of Christ can not be really present,
because it is against our senses, our reason. This is no imputation, these are the very words.
Because it is “against the senses” and the axioms therewith connected and herefrom evolved,
because it is against philosophical principles, that are perhaps, and very probably,
[[@VolumePage:2,124]]entirely void outside of the immediate sphere of our globe, they will not
believe the τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα μου, they will not believe that the bread and wine are the
communion (κοινωνία) of the body and blood of Christ. (1 Cor. 10. 16.) They will not, on that
very account, believe that even unworthy communicants who, therefore, cannot spiritually
partake of the body and blood of Christ, do receive the real body and blood of Christ, as
sacramentally present in the Holy Eucharist, though this is plainly seen from the fact, that they
are accused of not discerning the body and blood of Christ. (1 Cor. 12. 27—29.) For how could
they be accused of not discerning the body of Christ, if it be not really present?— Whence this
deviation of the Reformed Churches from the doctrine of the Lutheran Confessions, of the Bible?
Because of that doctrine’s contradicting the senses. Thence it is that the Reformed Church and a
host of its legitimate offspring detract from the Word of God. And this is the second cause why
so many differ from the Word of God and the Lutheran Confession.
And thus it is that the so-called infallibility of true orthodoxy is by no means absurd. But this
is just what non-Lutherans and Pseudo-Lutherans of to-day would like to impress and sometimes
succeed in impressing upon the minds of such as either have never had a good opportunity to be
initiated into truly Lutheran theology, or have studied it only very carelessly and superficially.
Such, we admit, will very easily be caught by the futile arguments of the enemies of true, firm,
unchanging orthodoxy. These will very often argue: Why? Your old-Lutheran theology is hardly
known, how can it be the only infallible theology? As to this, it is a real fact that it is as yet but
very little known. We hope that the time will not be far distant when this will have ceased to be
true. It is due in part to the fact that old-Lutheranism, up to this time, has but very rarely
appeared in an English dress. Then there is new-Lutheranism that has carefully purged ( ! ) its
theology from almost everything characteristically Lutheran and is, up to the present time,
considered to be genuine Lutheran theology, thus causing Lutheran, i. e., truly old-Lutheran
theology to be but very little known. Finally, there are a great many Lutherans who lack
independence of thought, who blindly follow anybody that may chance to have a D.D. bestowed
by some fashionable university after his name and delight in making the earth resound with his
stentorian clamor against true orthodoxy and Scripture-infallibility. We say, there are a great
many Lutherans who are disinclined to go to trouble to study old-Lutheranism, because Dr. So
and So says, it isn’t worth [[@VolumePage:2,125]]while. There are a great many Lutherans who,
on hearing that Dr. Schem’s Cyclopedia calls Dr. Quenstedt’s Systema “A work which can not
be used in our age” (“Ein für die heutige Zeit unbrauchbares Werk”), and that most of the
supposed peers of theology of to-day agree with him, blindly follow those authorities and remain
ignorant of and prejudiced against Lutheran theology. But how, in the world, can their ignorance
be a proof that the infallibility of Lutheran theology be absurd?—We have shown to what this
ignorance on the part of outsiders to the old-Lutheran Church is due. In addition to this, we shall
show the fallacy of the above arguments of our opponents by but one illustration. We refer to the
Bible and truly evangelical gospel-doctrine up to and immediately before the time of the
Reformation. We ask, was it really universally known? Surely not. On the contrary, by the grace
of God it was brought to light by Dr. Luther and THE Church of the Reformation. Though to
read the Bible was then universally considered unpardonable heresy, though, in consequence of
this, the Bible and the doctrine of the gospel was but very little known, still the Churches are
unanimous in pronouncing it not absurd, and thus, true, unwavering, infallible orthodoxy (“not
tossed about by every wind of doctrine”), though little known, is not absurd.
Moreover, old-Lutheranism is not to be called absurd, because it is not in fashion. This fact is
very easily accounted for. It is a fundamental principle in Lutheran theology to ascribe
everything good to God, everything bad to man. This is a rule which true Lutheranism never
disobeys. At the same time it is far from being calculated to flatter human vanity. The carnal
mind is enmity against God and particularly against old-Lutheranism. We don’t wonder at all
that old-Lutheranism is unfashionable with such as make religion a matter of fashions. For, as
fashions in dress have their origin in Paris, and London, so the religious ( ! ) fashions and ideas
of religious fashion of that whole class just now alluded to, are framed by Dr. So and So of
London, or Dr. So and So of Philadelphia, &c. With such followers of authority it is a matter of
course that old-Lutheranism is out of fashion. Upon the whole, it is a very queer criterion of
absurdity, or nonabsurdity, whether anything is out of fashion. Up to most recent times, it was a
principle generally received, that suicide is immoral and cowardice. That principle is out of
fashion now. Is it, therefore, absurd?—Up to most recent times, it was considered out of fashion
to believe that anybody who performed manual labor could be truly called a gentleman. Now this
is generally believed and nobody will pronounce it [[@VolumePage:2,126]]absurd. If all would
diligently study old-Lutheran theology, something similar would happen in a majority of cases. It
would no more be considered absurd, because it should have chanced to have been out of
fashion.
Nor can it be adduced as a proof against the infallible orthodoxy of old-Lutheranism that oldLutherans are comparatively few in numbers. What absurdities would result, if we would accept
this as an axiom: It is absurd not to believe what is held by an overwhelming majority? By far
the most men in christian nations would say: Churches are superfluous, and it would be absurd to
disbelieve them. Just about as many would in their ignorance claim that “taxes should be
abolished,” and it would be absurd not to join in with them. But it is beyond doubt that at
different times truths have been known by comparatively few persons. Archimedes of old knew
principles of natural philosophy, especially optical principles not known by any of his time.
During the Middle Ages only a few persons knew that the earth was round, while that idea was
derided by the geographical authorities of their time. Still later, in the 15th century, it was
nobody but Columbus who adhered to the truth of that theory that no scientific ( !? ) authorities
could dissuade him from putting it to a practical test. In the same manner, there were but
comparatively few who in the darkness of the Middle Ages had more or less of evangelical light.
We have reference to John Huss, John Wycleffe, and other heralds of the future Reformation,
and others, comparatively unknown as Dr. Staupitz. And the truth which those few knew and
proclaimed is now universally acknowledged not to be absurd, nor to have been absurd.
Nor is infallible orthodoxy of old-Lutheranism absurd, because it denounces so-called
scientific development of theology in any form whatever. This, however, is the idol of the spirit
of our times. Everything is nowadays “scientifically developed,” and sometimes in such a form
that a humorist, writing for the New York Graphic, could put it into the department of Wit and
Humor without the slightest alterations. Everything we say is now “scientifically developed,”
armies of philosophical systems, armies of different species of Darwinism, husbandry, the art of
cooking, the art of hair-dressing. We shouldn't wonder, if we should sooner or later come across
a “Scientifical Development of the Art of Driving a Nail.” In short, our age is in a perfect “craze
of development.” But the worst of all is that the majority of people of a superficial education
have really wonderful ideas about these matters, holding such treatises to be superior in
“scientifical development” which contain the biggest words with a minimum of
[[@VolumePage:2,127]]meaning,—treatises of which as little as possible can be understood.
This is particularly true with regard to a great many scientific developments of theology as
produced in Germany, the home of thinkers and philosophers. Not excluding our own country, it
is more especially in Germany that the “craze of development” has taken hold of the theological
world. There they do develope according to the different ways in which the theological matters
may present themselves to individual authors of that host of “Scientific Developments of
Theology.” Thus it is that their “theology” is as variable as the color of the skin of a chameleon,
that it changes with the moon, that what is an highly admired Development to-day, is derided and
looked down upon as obsolete to-morrow. Also in this respect we do not permit ourselves to be
swept away by the current of our times. For God has said: Ye shall not add thereto nor diminish
aught from it. From this we do correctly infer that whatsoever is revealed in the Bible is not
something which we could change, present, model according to our own individual notions, even
if we should condescend to euphemistically call it “developping.” That passage tells us that
whatsoever truths are revealed in the Bible, they are all sustaining the same relations to theology,
as axioms do to their respective science, and that they, last but not least,— should be respected
as such. Now, what would you say, if some one speculate about and “develop” some of the
axioms of algebra, so as to make out that, if b and c, being equal, were either of them added to a,
the result should not be equal, but differing by c/2? Would you call that scientific? Certainly not.
But the Word of God tells us that all the truths revealed in the Bible are axioms which we can
not, ought not, dare not develop. We can develop on the basis of these axioms, the result will be
systematic theology, or, to use a common term, Dogmatics. But in doing so, we never dare
change the axioms, never dare change the truths revealed, though we may present them, i. e.,
THOSE VERY SAME UNCHANGEABLE TRUTHS, in different light, from different standpoints. These
are our reasons, why we can not believe, nor take part in that kind of “developping” which
results in theology, or rather “theologies,” changing with the moon,—a kind of “developping”
which is contradictorily opposed to true, infallible orthodoxy. Such “developping” is unscriptural
and, therefore, false. Hence, our opposition against such a chameleon-theology does not render
our true, infallible (because scriptural) orthodoxy absurd.
To recapitulate, the reasons adduced to prove the absurdity of the infallible orthodoxy of oldLutheranism are very [[@VolumePage:2,128]]windy. Nor is old-Lutheran orthodoxy absurd in
itself. Though we do admit, we don’t know the internal reason why God has granted old-
Lutheranism the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, still we have shown the external
reasons why the infallibility of old-Lutheran orthodoxy is not absurd, though other churches
differ therefrom. We have shown that the cause of the latter fact was to be sought for in their
making reason and tradition secondary principles of theology. For proof, we refer to the
illustrations in the preceding pages. What we have there demonstrated with regard to certain
points in theology, could be demonstrated about every other point. Hence, because we can very
reasonably account for the difference between the doctrine of our Lutheran Church and that of
others, the infallibility of true orthodoxy can not be said to imply something absurd, and,
therefore, to be absurd.
General Religious Intelligence.
THE OLD TESTAMENT. The Work of Revision to be completed in two years.—The members of
the Old Testament Company of the American Bible revision committee will hold their next
meeting on Monday, Sept. 24, in Bible House, New York, the meeting to continue the whole of
the week. Thereafter a monthly meeting lasting three days will be held at the same place during
the last week of every month until the revision is completed. The members are now in the midst
of a second revision of the Old Testament, at the completion of which a third and final revision
will be made. During the first week of the month a pleasant session of the company was held at
the Lake Mohonk House, at which considerable progress in the work of revision was made. The
work is not expected to be entirely completed before 18 months or two years from the present
time, but circulars are already being sent out for subscriptions for authorized memorial copies of
the revised Old Testament similar to those published on the completion of the revision of the
New Testament. These memorial copies and additional ones for presentation only may be
subscribed for at $20 a copy. The finance committee of the American Bible revision committee
considers this method the most convenient mode of raising the necessary expenses required for
the completion of the revision of the Old Testament. The money should be sent to the treasurer,
Mr. Andrew L. Taylor, No. 6 Bible House. In case the number of subscribers shall warrant it, the
committee intends to present to each subscriber a handsomely bound copy of the “Documentary
History of the Anglo-American Bible Revision,” to be prepared by order of the revision
committee. This committee is composed of Philip Schaff, D. D., LL. D., president, and George
E. Day, D. D., secretary. The Old Testament Company, by whom the American revision of the
Old Testament is being made, is composed of Prof. William Henry Green, D.D., Princeton, N. J.,
chairman; Prof. George E. Day, D.D., New Haven, Ct., secretary; Prof. Charles A. Aiken, D. D.,
Princeton, N. J.; Rev. T. W. Chambers, D. D., New York city; Prof. John DeWitt, D. D., New
Brunswick, N. J.; Prof. George Emlen Hare, D. D., Philadelphia, Pa.; Prof. Charles P. Krauth, D.
D., LL. D., University of Pennsylvania; Prof. Charles M. Mead, D. D., Andover, Mass.; Prof.
Howard Osgood, D. D., Rochester, N. Y.; Prof. Joseph Packard, D. D., Theological Seminary.
Fairfax County, Va., and Prof. James Strong, S.T.D., Madison, N.J. ALPH..
[[@VolumePage:2,129]]
THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL
MONTHLY.
Vol. 2. September 1882. No. 9.
(For the “Theological Monthly.”)
A Brief Recapitulation.
Not long after our opponents had commenced their public warfare against the scriptural
doctrine concerning predestination, they were reminded in a friendly manner that, should they
continue in attacking and denouncing the clear doctrine of the Formula of Concord, they would
by the very defence of their own conceptions soon be driven into Synergism, if they not then
already were infected with that papistic leaven. There were, at the very start, some watchful eyes
and “senses exercised,” which perceived and discerned well marked prognostic signs in the
opposite movements, indicative of the course and event of the contest carried on by our new
enemies. And now, what does the history of a short space of time teach us? The strenuous but
useless efforts on the part of the Ohioans etc.— aiming at the rescue of their wrecked ship as
well as at the destruction of the old reliable fortress of truth, have hitherto corroborated that
prediction in a truly remarkable manner.
When our opponents affirmed and obstinately maintained that election be depending upon
man’s own conduct, they could not stop there. The legitimate sequel was the assertion, that, it is
a matter resting in man’s own will and determination, whether he would willfully resist the Holy
Spirit in His work or abstain from willfull resistance, so as to render his conversion possible,—to
prepare himself for receiving a new heart. It is true, they took great pains to beat about the bush
as long as possible, but being driven to straits, there was no alternative but either to surrender or
to take refuge under the shelter of Synergism. Preferring the latter resort, it being considered the
more safe because “rational”—they made use of such downright synergistic language that on the
side of the defenders of truth the triumphant cry of battle was sounded, “Praised be God, who has
delivered our most furious enemies into our hands!” [[@VolumePage:2,130]]
Denouncing the plain and true declaration of the F. C. with reference to the disputed article,
our opponents claim that they were led to raise their voice against “Missouri” by no other motive
than to defend God’s glory and to secure to Christians the peace and the comfort of the Gospel.
We have no objection to raise against a motive of that kind. Most certainly not. But, letting the
alleged cause unimpeached, the question arises, Did and can they really accomplish their purpose
by means of their views, as promulgated by them in opposition to what they still are pleased to
contradict as Calvinistic heresy? By examining a few points, we soon shall find the proper,
correct answer to our question.
It will readily be conceded, that the mere intent and purpose can not be taken as proofs of the
end aimed at. Thousands of instances serve to verify the saying that
“The flighty purpose ne’er is overtook,
Unless the deed go with it.”
Zwinglius supposed he was defending Christ’s honor, and yet he only dishonored His glorious
Name by his false doctrine concerning the Lord’s Supper and by what he termed “Alloeosis”,
which, to use Luther’s severe but righteous sentence, “is the mask of the devil”, and which “will
finally devise a Christ according to whom I certainly would not wish to be a Christian” etc.
([[B.C. p. 692. N.M. Ed. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:viii:20-22]]) Arms intended to assign
all glory to God alone and he supposed, or at least avowed, that he purposed nothing else. But
did his opinions, for the support of which he referred even to the Scriptures, in reality glorify
God? Contradicting the scriptural doctrine of the Holy Trinity, he argued “that such a conception
was impossible to human reason” and hence could not be true. This was exalting “common
sense” to the disparagement of the glory of God. When, through the lenity of Theodosius the
Great, the Arians had succeeded in disseminating their God-dishonoring creed, the pious
Amphilochus most justly censured the emperor, saying, “What must the eternal God think of
you, who have allowed His co-equal and co-eternal Son to be degraded in His proper divinity?”
Flacius and his followers certainly had no other motive than to vindicate God’s glorious
Name, when they fought for terms implying their Manichean error, that original sin is the
substance, nature and essence itself of corrupt man. But to show how far they were from the
reality of their purpose, we may simply quote the words of our confession: “The difference
between nature itself and original sin is as great as the difference between the works of God and
the works of the devil.” ([[F. C. Ep. I. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:I:2]])
[[@VolumePage:2,131]]
Not to add any more examples of similar import, we would now ask, How so is all the glory
ascribed and attributed to God alone by the explanation of predestination as set forth by our
opponents? How so is the true comfort secured to disturbed consciences by their doctrine?
According to their version, God decreed to elect to the adoption of sons and everlasting life
those sinners that would fulfill a certain condition. This condition is something against the
corrupt nature of man, it is persevering faith in Christ. Now God knows from eternity, that but a
few of the human race will against their own nature fulfill this condition. Foreknowing and
foreseeing this conduct of the few, He pronounced the judiciary sentence before the beginning of
the world: “These few only can be my elect”. Thus predestination is, in fact, nothing but the
decree of God to crown with eternal glory and honor that grand moral achievement by which
those few excel the rest of their race. In the method of argumentation adopted by our opponents
God’s mercy and the merits of Christ are not the cause of the election unto salvation, but rather
the motive prompting Him to pronounce those His elect who conduct themselves in the manner
described. In short: God bestows His mercy and the merits of Christ upon them who, in His
judgment, are worthy of His blessings. But does this assumption serve to give the praise and
glory to God alone? Does it not make void the solemn declaration of God: “O Israel, thou hast
destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help”? Hos. 13. 9.
But how great the difference between the offensive opinions of our opponents and the pure
doctrine of our F. C.! There we read that it is false and erroneous if it be taught “that not the
mercy of God alone and the most holy merit of Christ are the cause, but that in us also there is a
cause of the election of God, on account of which God has elected us to everlasting life.” And
what arguments are advanced in support of this affirmation? Our Confession proceeds to say:
“For, not only before we had done anything good, but also before we were born, yea, before the
foundation of the world, He elected us in Christ” etc. “Before we had done anything good”—and
now come our innovators and would-be-emendators, trying to make us believe that the elect are
not elected until they have performed something good, even the duty of persevering faith! But is
this the “doctrine and explanation of the eternal and saving election of the elect children of God”,
by which “the honor of God is wholly and fully attributed to Him, namely that through pure
mercy in Christ, without any of our merits or good works, He saves us according to the purpose
of His [[@VolumePage:2,132]]will”? ([[N.M. Ed. p. 726 >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:88]]) Verily not! God’s grace is undervalued and man’s doings
are exalted.
And how about the comfort derived from the explanations advanced by the Ohioans &c.? So
little comfort is found therein that it rather drives troubled and distressed consciences to
desperation. “You do not know whether you are in the number of the elect, because you do not
know, whether you will endure to the end, and whereas you have received no revelation as to the
state in which you will be found when death’s summons will reach you, it is well enough for you
to “be in hopes” of salvation, but whether your hope shall be realized or frustrated, is depending
on your own conduct, and whereas your perseverance is quite uncertain, your election, as a
matter of course, is likewise a matter of uncertainty.” Such is the consolation extended by the
sentiments of our assailants. A peculiar way of comforting distressed Christians! This very
manner of instructing, that is to say, of misleading Christians, is forcibly rejected and condemned
by our Confession which, in very plain words, declares that, “if any one inculcates this doctrine
concerning the gracious election of God in such a manner that distressed Christians can not
console themselves by it, but are rather led into despair, or that the impenitent are encouraged in
their wickedness, it is undoubtedly certain and true, that this doctrine, is set forth not according
to the Word and will of God, but according to mere human reason and suggestions of the devil.”
([[N. M. Ed. p. 727. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:91]]) According to the statements of the
Ohioans &c. the true believer in Christ is to remain in suspense and to wait for his departure
from life in order to see whether he shall be in the number of the elect. How, then, can the
believer take comfort from and rejoice in his election, since he must doubt whether he shall be
among the elected or not? Is it possible to receive courage and joy from what is either not in
existence or whose existence we act wisely to doubt? Children of God are taught to take comfort
from their election and here come the Ohio-men and try to make us believe that we “may be and
may be not” elected. What comfort is there in a may-be-election? If our adversaries were correct,
what comfort could there be in the Words of our Savior, that if it were possible the very elect
should be deceived and led astray by the cunning artifice of false prophets? Mat. 24. 24. What
sense were there in the comforting words of St. Paul: Who shall lay anything to the charge of
God’s elect? Rom. 8. 33.
According to the confession of the Lutheran Church the eternal election of God is “the
ordaining of God unto salvation, pertaining only to the children of God, who were elected
[[@VolumePage:2,133]]and ordained to eternal life before the foundation of the world.” And
this “eternal election not only foresees and foreknows the salvation of the elect, but is also… a
cause which procures… our salvation and whatever pertains to it, upon which (election or cause)
our salvation is so firmly grounded, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” According
to our Confession this doctrine affords to troubled and agitated minds the surest consolation,
since thereby they know that their salvation is not entrusted to their hands, but that it depends on
the gracious election of God. ([[p. 727. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:90]])
“Thereby they know”—“inde certi fiunt”—they are made sure thereby. Whereby? By what is
said concerning the eternal, gracious, saving election. Of what are they assured? Of their
salvation! And why? Because they are made sure, 1. that their salvation is entrusted not to their
own hands, but to the hands of their good Shepherd, 2. that their salvation depends on the
gracious election of God:—“eam (salutem) in clementi divina PRAEDESTINATIONE fundatam
esse”. And this is the comfort wherewith we are comforted of God! 2 Cor. 1. 4.
With reference to the doctrine concerning conversion, we meet with the same lamentable fact
that the Ohio Synod, having deserted the Standards of the Lutheran Church, sets forth an
“explanation”, by which the honor of God is not “wholly and fully attributed to Him”. The
turning hinge throughout their argumentations is to represent conversion to rest, in some
measure, at the decision of the sinner himself. To refrain from willfull resistance, we are told, is
only a matter of freewill. All that is necessary for the willfully counteracting sinner, is merely to
resolve to quit resistance and to act accordingly. This done, the solid, impenetrable rock, the
insurmountable obstacle is removed from the heart and grace is enabled to deal with the pliant
cover remaining! Man’s own preparation, as the primary condition, is to precede the converting
work of the Holy Spirit!—
Our F. C, with regard to the natural state and abilities of man, confesses the “deep, evil,
horrible, fathomless, unsearchable and unspeakable corruption of the whole nature and of all the
powers of man”, “an innate evil disposition and an inward impurity of the heart, evil desires and
inclinations… diametrically opposed to God by nature… at enmity with God, especially with
respect to divine and spiritual things”. ([[p. 599, 600. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:i:11]])
But nowhere do we read that the sinner, by his own will and consent, could or must change this
inimical opposition into a quiet, submissive disposition. On the contrary, the question, whether
man “can prepare himself for the [[@VolumePage:2,134]]apprehension of this grace” is
answered in the negative and at the same time it is most emphatically declared, that the sinner
“remains an enemy to God until he is converted”; that man “by nature and character is altogether
evil, stubborn, and inimical to God, actively, eagerly and energetically engaged in doing
everything that is displeasing and opposed to God”; that natural freewill “previous to
regeneration, is REBELLIOUS and inimical to the law and will of God.” ([[Art. II. F. C. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:7]]) But where do we read that the wicked, in order to be
renewed, before their regeneration can and must, by their own consent and ability, desist from
their active, eager and energetic rebellion against God? Nowhere! “Freewill by its own natural
powers not only can not effect, or co-operate in effecting any thing in respect to conversion,
righteousness and salvation… it also, in a hostile manner, opposes God and His will, unless it is
enlightened and governed by the Spirit of God.” ([[ib. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:17]])
We recommend to the perusal and meditation of our opponents that [[passage from Luther’s
Commentary on the 90. Psalm as inserted in the second Art. of F. C., >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:20-21]] and would advise them to compare their theory with the
pure doctrine of the Lutheran Church. May they learn that “poor, fallen human nature obtains
conversion—not through its own fitness or capacity—for the nature is obstinately opposed to
God— but from grace alone, through the merciful and efficacious operation of the Holy Spirit”,
and that all that pertains to the accomplishment of man’s conversion, is “in solidum”— wholly
and entirely, the operation of God’s free grace.
G. R.
(For the “Theological Monthly”.)
An Answer to the Question whether we teach what Calvinists term
“Irresistible Grace.”
One of the objections which our present principal opponents have frequently laid before their
readers in opposition to our doctrine concerning predestination or election of grace, consists in
the imputation that we teach a Calvinistic irresistible working of God’s grace in the case of the
elect. The clamoring of our opponents in this respect has at times been so loud and boisterous as
though the war-field already belonged to them, and some of their arguments set to work to
sustain the false charge are put forth with an appearance of right and piety and honesty so
captious that it is not at all to be wondered at if such as are not able here to understand at once
the depths of Satan [[@VolumePage:2,135]]are deceived. The imputation referred to is also the
quintessence of what Professor Loy writes in his “introductory” to the Columbus Theological
Magazine on pp. 24 and 25 of the 1st number, and on pp. 348 and 349 of number 6, of that
bimonthly, although we shall quote from two or three other pages also, that the reader may view
the imputation and, consequently, the falseness of the same in their proper light, or rather,
blackness. What is there said is all calculated to make the reader believe that we teach what the
Calvinists in their church-language commonly call irresistible grace and that, therefore, our
doctrine concerning predestination or election is Calvinistic. Let us, therefore, here subject this
point to our earnest consideration.
But before we hear what Prof. Loy imputes to us, it will certainly not be out of place for us to
take a short look at the Calvinistic doctrine of irresistible grace itself.
J. A. Quenstedt, a well known and renowned orthodox theologian of our Lutheran Church,
who had studied and was well versed in the Calvinistic system of doctrine, writes as follows:
“The propositions (hypotheses) of the Calvinists, from which passive irresistibility of the divine
grace which cannot suffer itself to be resisted, is inferred, are these: 1. that grace or the power of
God to convert man is absolute by reason (ex = in consequence) of God’s absolute decree, 2. that
grace or the power of God to convert man works omnipotently or by absolute omnipotence, 3.
that grace or the power of God to convert man is immediate or that it determines the will without
means (immediate).” Cap. VII. q. 3. fol. 512. According to this, God’s grace, in the Calvinistic
system of doctrine, is absolute because God’s decree to save and to damn is absolute. We
purposely say, God’s decree to save and to damn, as the same refers to the good and the evil of
mankind, in that system. For Calvin himself writes: “Predestination we call the eternal decree of
God according to which He has appointed for Himself what it would be His will should be done
in regard to every human being. For all are not created in the same condition; but, eternal life is
preordained for the ones, eternal damnation for the others. As, therefore, each one is created
(conditus) for this or that end, so we say he is predestinated either to life or to death.” [[Inst. III.
21. 5. >> cicr:III:21:5]] The Synod of Dort speaks of the absolute decree in this wise: “That
some are donated by God in time with faith, some not, this flows from His eternal decree…
according to which decree God graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however hard they may
be, and inflects them to believe, but leaves the non-elect in their malice and hardness according
to His just judgment. And [[@VolumePage:2,136]]here, above all, that… decree of election and
reprobation… opens itself to us.” [[Can. Dordr. cap. I. art. 6. >> CanonsOfDort:I:1:6]] This is
the horrible absolute decree of the Calvinists, according to which they say God has from eternity
preordained this man to salvation and that man to damnation. But they therefore also hold God’s
grace to be no less absolute than the decree to save and to damn, that is, by this absolute grace,
which is regarded as particular, the elect are saved under all circumstances whatever may oppose
and no matter how hard their hearts may be, even if they were as hard as Pharaoh’s heart was, no
matter how much they may resist grace and of what nature their resistance may be, even if it
were ever so pertinacious and were what the Formula of Concord calls, in the non-elect,
persistent resistance; what is called faith and what is called softening of the hard heart in that
system, is forced upon them; whilst the others shall not be saved, do what they may. Whilst grace
shall not be resisted in the elect, it shall and must be resisted in the reprobate; for, says Calvin,
God “has created them” (the reprobate) “to be vessels of His wrath and examples of His severity;
in order that they may reach their end, He now deprives them of the faculty of hearing His word,
now blinds and stupefies them still more by the preaching of the same… Behold, He directs His
voice to them, but in order that they may become the more deaf; He kindles the light, but in order
that they may be made more blind; He sets forth the doctrine, but in order that they may be
stupified the more by it; He presents the remedy, but in order that they may not be healed.”
[[Inst. III. 24.12. >> cicr:III:24:12]] Thus the Gospel is preached to these men, but it shall not
and cannot save them, and those who have heard the Gospel and have been brought to the saving
knowledge of Jesus Christ by the same have no consolation when the devil afflicts them on
account of their sins; one would have to say to them, according to this blasphemous doctrine: It
is questionable whether the divine absolute decree puts you into heaven or into hell; if you are
predestinated to life you are or will be enlightened by the Word; but if you are predestinated to
death you are already or will once be made more blind by it, &c. This miserable, damnable
doctrine, dear reader, our opponents declare to be the doctrine of the orthodox Lutheran Missouri
Synod.
Yet, we have not quite got through looking at the Calvinistic doctrine of irresistible grace.
Calvin says: “Meanwhile this must be maintained that however small and weak faith in the elect
may be, yet, because the Spirit of God is a sure earnest in them, and a seal of their adoption, the
sculpture of it can never be destroyed in their hearts.” [[Inst. III. 2. 12. >> cicr:III:2:12]]
[[@VolumePage:2,137]] “We assert that the root of faith is never pulled out of the pious breast.”
[[Ibid. 21. >> cicr:III:2:21]] Zanchius says in Miscellan., p. 65.: “The Holy Spirit, once given to
one born anew, remains with him forever.” Beza, Calvin’s successor, says: “Those who have
once been donated with true faith can never lose the same any more. David did not lose the Spirit
of regeneration by perpetrating and continuing in adultery, but something of the Spirit and of
faith was reserved and, for a while17), slept in him,” Resp. 2. ad Coll. Momp., pp. 880 and 74.
Piscator says, contra Schaffm., p. 160.: “Not even did David by adultery and homicide, nor did
Peter by denying his Lord, lose the Holy Spirit.” The same doctrine is also set forth in the Dort
Canons. According to it, whilst the non-elect, in consequence of God’s absolute decree and will,
shall be left without grace from the beginning to the end of their lives, the elect are forced, in
17
That is, while he was a child of death.
consequence of the same decree and will of God, to have and keep faith, grace and the Spirit and
cannot even lose them by committing the most atrocious sins.
From what the Calvinists say in the above quotations from their own writings on the imagined
impossibility of the elect to lose grace when it has once been bestowed upon them, we also see
what kind of faith they have in their system. It is not true faith in our Savior Jesus Christ by
which men are actually saved. They teach that faith is not lost by adultery and murder. If we
judge the faith which, according to the Calvinistic system, is given to the elect at the time of their
conversion by the faith which is said to remain in the hearts of adulterers and murderers while
they are yet impenitent, we must conclude that, in fact, there is no real faith taught in that system.
Therefore it is idle talk when it is said in one of the above quotations that the hard hearts of the
elect are softened by God. They may be softened, according to the Calvinistic system, not only
when God has wrought true repentance and faith in them by His Word and grace, as these terms
are taken by all true Christians, but also when the hearts are void of true repentance and faith, as
the Calvinists speak only of one kind of faith. And when the Synod of Dort says: “Election was
made… to faith and obedience of faith, to sanctity etc.”, [[cap. I. art. 9., >> CanonsOfDort:I:1:9]]
we know what meaning the words have. To the Calvinists their absolute decree is everything;
upon it is based whatever they teach in their theology. It, therefore, matters little for them
whether they speak of faith in their doctrine of election or not.
Now, when the Missouri Synod in 1877, 1879 and 1880 [[@VolumePage:2,138]]discussed the
doctrine concerning predestination or election in its meetings, did it adopt or approve of the
Calvinistic doctrine, as the same is here in part set forth? We say, No. The Missouri Synod,
whilst it does not deny that it is composed of human beings the frailty of whose natures may at
times appear in their expressions also, has never promulgated doctrines based upon the
suggestions and conclusions of our depraved reason, but from its very beginning God has led it,
as He is still doing, to spread truly Lutheran doctrines as they are drawn from the Holy Scriptures
and contained in the Confessions of the Lutheran Church.
(1) In its recent meetings the Missouri Synod said, among other things, the following: “Here
we must firmly adhere to this, that election or predestination refers to the elect alone, but by no
means to the reprobate simultaneously; for God has predestinated no man to damnation. God
predestinates to life, to salvation only. Of course, our reason always wants to draw the
conclusion: If man cannot do anything unto his salvation, but God alone must do everything,
then God must also have destined him who is lost to damnation. But a Christian is accustomed to
bring his reason into captivity to the obedience of faith, and this he does in this doctrine, and he
thereby gains the victory over all the protestations and afflictions of his reason; he is humbly
awaiting eternity where God will solve the enigma in the most beautiful and clearest manner.
Surely enough, the two revealed doctrines of the Holy Scriptures seem to contradict each other:
that God, from eternity, by mere grace, elected certain individuals to salvation and that,
nevertheless, it is man’s own fault if he is lost; but the Lutheran Church has the rule of faith that
when the Scriptures clearly reveal to us two seemingly contradictory truths, we believe both… It
is said (to us): You are obliged to draw this conclusion: that God predestinates the ones to
salvation, the others to damnation… But we do not draw this conclusion. Why not? Because God
has forbidden us to do it. And where has He forbidden it? In the Holy Scriptures where He
teaches that election, indeed, is an election of grace, but that in men alone is the fault of their
damnation, as, for instance, in our passage from Hosea. (Hos. 13. 9.: ‘O Israel, thou hast
destroyed thyself; but in Me is thine help.’) We are by no means inconsistent, we are only
obedient to God and His Word, and that is our duty, if we want to be Christians. Whoever will
not be obedient to God and His holy Word, may draw that forbidden conclusion, but he must not
wonder, if he in this disobedience falls into despair and goes to hell. Calvin has drawn this
conclusion; but he [[@VolumePage:2,139]]thereby also became a heretic making God to be the
devil. He thought the difficulty that God saves us by grace alone and that, nevertheless, so many
are damned, was easy to solve by saying: God predestinates not only to salvation, but also to
damnation. But, how terrible!” Western Synodical Report of the year 1877, pp. 46. 47.
(2) Further, the Missouri Synod said: “Luther says: ‘Human reason feigns an unequal will of
God, as though God were a tyrant who has some individuals with whose conduct he is pleased,
whether it be good or not good, and, on the other hand, hates the others, may they do what they
will.’ Here Luther shows that by reason one gets into Calvinism. As soon as reason hears:
Whoever is elected, is elected merely by grace and could do nothing towards his being elected, it
thinks: Well, if that is so, God must not have wanted to save the others; if mere grace is here,
then the free will of God must be there, namely: Those shall not be saved. It thinks here like
Calvin: God has certain individuals who may do what they choose, they are His favorites, He
brings them to heaven. And others may do what they choose, they shall not get to heaven. Here
one might think: It seems as if Calvin had very strong faith. There are, indeed, some Scripture
passages which seem to indicate that there is an absolute election and reprobation. It thus has the
appearance, as if Calvin wanted to subject himself to God’s Word unconditionally, to do which
he himself professed. But it is nothing but rationalism, they are only rational conclusions. The
only reason why he brought up the doctrine was because it was consistent with his system. This
has its origin in the thought: God is an absolute essence, He can do and think what He pleases, it
is all right. He made God to be an iron fate having its throne above the world and dealing with
the creatures quite arbitrarily. Calvin is in this respect no better than the modern theologians
who construct a system for themselves to which the Holy Scriptures must then assent.” West.
Syn. Rep. of the year 1879, p. 43.
(3) The Missouri Synod says: “Calvin teaches further: In order to reveal His love, God from
eternity elected certain men to salvation, these shall be saved at any rate under all circumstances.
He will bring them to faith by an irresistible grace, so that, even if they resist ever so much, He
will nevertheless force them to faith and, in like manner, also preserve them in faith by force, by
giving them a grace that may not be lost… He also decreed to create the greatest portion of men
for the purpose that they should be damned and go into everlasting torment. These it was not His
will to redeem or to [[@VolumePage:2,140]]give them faith. Of course, God must have the
Gospel preached in the whole world, or else His elect would not hear it; but he who is not elected
is not meant when the Gospel is preached. God is not in earnest at all in calling him, He does not
offer His grace to him at all; for He has decreed for once that he shall and must be damned. This
is Calvin’s shameful doctrine; of all this we just teach the very contrary. We teach according to
the Holy Scriptures that God will have all men to be saved, that He loved the whole world from
eternity and gave them His Son Jesus Christ for a Savior… We teach that God calls every man
earnestly to whom the Gospel is preached, and that God also surely saves him if he does not
wilfully and pertinaciously resist; that it is God’s intention to bring every man to faith and to
preserve him therein. There is no man that could say: But, perhaps I am not elected; of what use
is it therefore for me to hear the preaching? Whoever speaks in this way is uttering what the devil
says; for the power to believe lies in the Word. Therefore, to whom the Word is preached, to him
God also offers His grace and eternal life. Therefore, if you are lost, do not accuse God, but cry
out against yourself. Hence, no one who is solicitous for his salvation, needs to say: Ah, but
perhaps I am not elected. Just this one should say: This is surely a proof for its being God’s will
that I should believe I am elected, because He has given me His Gospel and I would like to
believe.” W. S. Rep. of the year 1880, pp. 25. 26.
(4) The Missouri Synod says further: “We follow the Holy Scriptures which say, that the
unbelievers do not come to faith, is in consequence of their persistent resistance, hence, not in
consequence of this” (as is taught by the Calvinists) “that God did not want to give them faith.
Paul says the unbelieving Jews judged themselves unworthy of everlasting life; hence,
everlasting life was offered to them in earnest.” Ibid. p. 30.
(5) We say: “Of course, if I would wilfully, stubbornly, maliciously and persistentlv resist the
Word of God, I would be lost.” W. S. Rep. of the year 1877, p. 36,
(6) The 4th thesis presented for discussion and adopted in the synodical meetings of the
Western District Synod in 1877 reads as follows: “It” (the Ev. Luth. Church) “rejects the
doctrine ‘that God will not have all men to be saved, but, without regard to their sins, by His bare
counsel, purpose and will alone, some are ordained to damnation, so that they cannot be saved’;
it teaches on the contrary: ‘The cause that not all those who have heard the Word believe and
some are therefore so much the more deeply damned, is not that God
[[@VolumePage:2,141]]grudged them salvation, but they themselves are in fault, because they
have heard the Word in such a manner as not to learn, but only to despise, to blaspheme and
disgrace it, and have resisted the Holy Spirit whose will it was to work in them through the
Word’; it also teaches ‘that the cause of this contempt of the Word is not God’s predestination
[vel praescientia vel praedestinatio], but man’s perverse will’.” Report p. 22.
( 7 ) Said synod declares: “Man cannot only do nothing towards his conversion, but he also
has the awful power to resist, and this we all do when God wants to convert us.” W. S. Rep. of
1877, p. 71.
(8) “Wernicke, the historian, writes: ‘Oliver Cromwell, protector of England (who died 1658),
asked his chaplain in the night before he died, whether it was possible to fall from grace. When
the chaplain answered in the negative, he exclaimed: Then I am happy, for I certainly know that I
was once in grace. Was that not a terrible comfort? This chaplain gave the poor soul over to hell
by this accursed doctrine that, if one is once in grace, he cannot fall from the same again. A
wicked child of the world that was once converted, still recollects the time when it was in grace;
but, instead of leading it on to repentance, the Calvinists plunge it into carnal security and, thus,
into hell.” W. S. Rep. of 1879, p. 31.
(9) On page 30 of the same report it is represented as false when “the Calvinists teach that not
only Peter kept faith at the time when he denied the Lord, forswearing and accursing himself
three times, but that David also when he fell into murder and adultery continued to be a true,
believing child of God, … whilst the prophet himself called out to him that he was a child of
death, consequently, worthy of damnation, and that he would be lost eternally, if he did not
repent.”
(10) “If your faith does not apprehend Christ, even if it were as glowing as an oven, you go to
hell with it; but if it apprehends Christ, then, be your hand of faith ever so weak, you have God’s
grace just as well as David, the hero of faith, who could by his God leap over a wall.18) …
Whoever is obliged to say to himself: You call yourself a Christian, but you love money and not
Christ, you love the world and its pleasures and vanities and not the blessings of grace, you
evidently love sin and fear not God’s wrath, to him we say: Stop your talk, you are no elect one”
(where the connection shows the meaning to be: You have as yet no right to take
[[@VolumePage:2,142]]comfort with the thought that you are elected). Rep. of Western Distr.
Synod, 1879, p. 110. 112.
(11) Lastly, the Missouri Synod says: “It is dreadful to see how Calvin distorts the clearest
passages treating of the universality of the grace of God. He writes:… ‘The passage 1 Tim. 2. 4.
is quoted where he (Paul) teaches that God will have all men to be saved… I answer that God
thereby indicates nothing else than that he has foreclosed the way of salvation to no order of
men.’ Thus his (Calvin’s) meaning is: Paul only wanted to say with these words that God has
men in all stations, among the tailors, shoemakers, among the French, the Germans, etc., whom
He will have to be saved.” W. S. Rep. of 1877, pp. 95. 96.
(To be concluded.)
General Religious Intelligence.
ABSURD REPORTS, apparently reverberations of the sound of Prof. F. A. Schmidt’s “alarmbell” in predestination-matters, maybe met with in the secular press. The Daily Twin City News
of August 1st, 1882, e. g., deludes the public in this way: “Crazy Christians.—The Lutherans at
Oshkosh becoming lunatics owing to a religious excitement.—The question of predestination
creates a rumpus in the church.—Members of the German Lutheran Church at Oshkosh are
having a big row all among themselves, on the question of predestination. The Wisconsin Synod,
to which the church belonged, was held at La Crosse, commencing June 9th. The question of
putting the doctrine of predestination into the tenets of the church had been discussed among
some of the synods during the last few years, and the Missouri Synod has already adopted it. At
the Wisconsin Synod at this time, the question came up and it was vetoed (sic!) by a majority to
adopt the foreordination plank, and instructed the ministers (sic!) to go home to their
congregations and secure their submission to the new dogma. The pastor of the Oshkosh church
at once introduced the new dogma. A majority of the members, however, rebelled against the
new innovation, denouncing the doctrine of predestination and demanded that the preacher
should either cease preaching his new creed or leave the church,” &c., &c. The report was
corrected in the same paper, August 11th, by N. P. N. H., who says: “It is a fact that there is no
church on earth more opposed to what is ‘new’ than the Lutheran Church is. It is also a fact that
18
This refers to David when he was in the state of grace before his sad fall. 2 Sam. 22. 30. Ps. 18. 29.
the Missouri Synod as well as the Wisconsin Synod and other synods connected with these, are
so far from ‘introducing’ or ‘preaching’ anything ‘new,’ that these synods are just the ones that
cling to the old truth and defend it against what is ‘new’ more firmly than any other church. That
there are a few members within the synods who because of exotic influence or ignorance do not
agree with the old doctrine does, of course, not abrogate my statement.”
THE RELIGIOUS STATISTICS OF THE CITY OF BALTIMORE compared with those of New York.—
The population not connected with the churches.—The New York Times in a recent issue
published a collection of statistics concerning church membership in the great metropolis which
has awakened a good deal of interest and provoked much criticism. If the figures as published in
the Times are correct the Protestant church membership of the city is only 90,579, out of a
population of 1,300,000. The Roman Catholic population is placed at 500,000, but this estimate
has been attacked from certain sources as [[@VolumePage:2,143]]an exaggeration. If, however,
it be assumed that it is correct, the total church membership of New York city will number only
590,579, or 118,842 less than one-half of the total population. From these figures the Times
draws the inference that the majority of the inhabitants of the city are indifferent in regard to
religious matters. This showing will seem still more startling if the estimate of the Catholic
membership, which embraces the whole population of that faith, is subtracted from the total
population. This would leave a non-Catholic population of 800,000. Out of this number only a
little more than one-ninth part is connected with the church. These figures have an important
bearing upon many questions connected with the social and political status of the metropolis and
deserve to be carefully studied. Similar statistics of other cities will be observed with equal
interest, and a representative of the News has gathered from the most reliable sources the
statistics of church membership in Baltimore with a view to comparing the resulting figures with
those of the metropolis. Such statistics must, from their very nature, be more or less unreliable,
and their accuracy is almost sure to be questioned by those to whom the results are
disappointing. The figures given below, however, have been taken from the latest official
publications of the denominations which publish statistics, and in the cases of other
denominations the pastor of each church has been visited and an estimate obtained from him.
This estimate has been then submitted to the consideration of other clergymen, and where there
seemed to be any reason to believe that an error of judgment had been made, the estimate was
submitted to the pastor for reconsideration and correction. The sum total shows a church
membership in Baltimore of 177,689 out of a population of about 340,000 (exclusive of the
“belt”), or a little more than 52 per cent. In New York the proportion was 45 per cent., or about 7
per cent, less than in Baltimore. The figures for the various denominations are as follows:
Roman Catholic
Methodist:
Methodist Episcopal
Methodist Episcopal (colored)
Methodist Episcopal (German)
Methodist Episcopal South
African M. E
African M. E Zion
Methodist Protestant
Independent Methodist
Evangelical Association
110,000
11,945
6,477
417
1,821
3,482
100
1,334
1,500
590
United Brethren
Lutheran
Protestant Episcopal
Baptist
Presbyterian:
Northern Church
Southern Church
Other Presbyterian Churches
Reformed Church
Friends
Christian (Disciples)
Universalist
Reformed Episcopal
Congregational
Swedenborgian
Unitarian
Independent
970
3,190
855
950
28,642
11,474
8,561
6,887
4,995
4,109
1,003
600
398
250
160
160
50
400
It will appear from this statement that the Roman Catholic population is about 61 per cent, of
the total church membership, and a little less than one-third of the entire population of the city.
The estimate here given was furnished to the News by Archbishop Gibbons, and is based upon
the reports submitted to the archbishop by the parish priests. The Catholic Church regards all
baptized children as within the bosom of the church, and includes [[@VolumePage:2,144]]in its
statistics the whole body of the Catholic population. It would be unfair, however, to deduct from
the figures given any number approximating to the number of nominal adherents of the
Protestant Churches, while, on the other hand, it would be equally unfair to estimate the
Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, or Episcopal population at the figure given in their returns of
communicants. Dr. L. P. Brockett, geographical and statistical editor of Johnson’s Cyclopædia,
estimates the adherent population of the leading Protestant denominations at four and a-half
times the number of communicants. The Lutheran Reformed and other German churches,
however, draw a much larger proportion of their people into their communion, a large majority
of the children of those churches being confirmed and at least outwardly observing the forms of
their religion unless drawn off into other churches or into rationalism, in either of which cases
they of course cease to constitute a part of the adherent population of their hereditary church. It is
among the great evangelical churches of the native American population that the indifference to
church associations is principally found. If the adherent population of these churches is
calculated at the ratio of four to one communicant (that being the lowest estimated ratio
contended for by statisticians) and the membership of the other churches added, it will be seen
that more than the 340,000 population allotted to the city will be included in the membership.
The census of 1880 places the population of Baltimore at a little over 332,000 persons, which
was probably less than the actual number of inhabitants of the city, but, on the other hand, there
are probably many names on the church registers whose membership is merely nominal, and
who should belong to the adherent population rather than to the membership. As the greater
portion of the church records consulted were for the year 1881, the estimate of the population
was not raised very much above the census of 1881, and, as there is also a Jewish population to
be deducted from the total, it will clearly appear that the estimate here given of the church
membership errs, if it errs at all, on the side of the church. There are, therefore, at least 162,311
persons in the city of Baltimore who are not members of any Christian Church, and whose non-
membership is continued in the face of all the various denominations to secure them. The
proportion of this number which is without faith in the doctrines of the Christian religion it is
impossible to state, as there are very few avowedly irreligious organizations in the city. The
Christian churches usually styled non-orthodox have an aggregate memberhip of nearly 2,000;
the vast majority of the Hebrew population belongs to the reformed or deistic faith, the central
idea of which is the “oneness of God,” but within which materialistic influences have worked to
such an extent as to sweep away almost every vestige of the old faith, the Spiritualists professed
free-thinkers and atheists, differing in their creeds as radically as the various sects of Christians,
have each a fluctuating number of avowed adherents which it is impossible to estimate with any
degree of accuracy, but which constitutes an inconsiderable portion of the population. It is safe,
however, to say that excluding the Israelites and the professed Orthodox Christians, not more
than two and a half per cent, of the remainder of the population is avowedly heterodox in its
religious opinions.—The Baltimore Daily Nexus.
BAPTIST BIBLE. A committee of nine, which has recently been appointed to consider the
question of a distinctively Baptist Bible, has decided to call a convention to meet in Cincinnati in
November, in which the whole denomination of this country shall be represented, and the
question be thoroughly considered. ALPH. [[@VolumePage:2,145]]
THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL
MONTHLY.
Vol. 2. October & November 1882. No. 10 & 11.
(For the “Theological Monthly”.)
An Answer to the Question whether we teach what Calvinists term
“Irresistible Grace.”
(Concluded.)
After we had thus clearly and unmistakably rejected the Calvinistic doctrine of irresistible
grace in our meetings of 1877, 1879, and 1880, Prof. Loy who, of course, read our reports of
those meetings, comes hobbling along in 1881, from what motives is not quite clear to all, and
denounces us as Calvinists who teach the very doctrine which we reject and would never harbor
among us. He writes, among other things, the following: “The new theory” (of the Missourians)
“…depraves the Lutheran system by introducing specifically Calvinistic elements; … the new
theory is only a modified form of Calvinism.” He declares that the election taught by us is a
“decree absolutely formed with regard to the favored persons.” Col. Theol. Mag. I, p. 25. This is
refuted especially in the 2nd of the above quotations from our reports. He says that “He” (God),
according to our doctrine, “selects from the condemned mass not those that believe, but just
whom He pleases.” This is refuted in the 10th and 2nd quotation. He says: “In harmony with the
Calvinists they” (the Missourians) “teach an absolute election… With them election makes the
difference between those that are saved and those that perish… The confession says that men
block up the way of the Spirit, so that He cannot perform His work in them, and thus adopts the
Bible explanation. But Missouri throws the fault back upon God,” pp. 348. 349. This is all
refuted in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th quotation. It is admitted by Prof. Loy on p. 92 that
we are “justly charged with teaching a doctrine that leads to the Calvinistic heresy of absolute
reprobation.” And on p. 93 he accuses us in this wise: “But when this election” (which we
teach) “takes place those who are not elected are simply not elected They are passed
[[@VolumePage:2,146]]by. That, the advocates of the new theory may say, does not mean that
they are rejected and doomed. But what can it mean else?” This is refuted especially in the 1st
and 3rd quotation. Prof. Loy says further that one of the “specifically Calvinistic elements” in
our doctrine is that, “in other words, the grace of God, in the case of the elect, works
irresistibly,” that “He” (God) “has resolved under all circumstances to save” “the select few,” p.
24. Our doctrine is denominated “the Calvinistic error of the irresistibility of divine grace.” This
is refuted above in 3 and 7. “The Calvinistic dream of irresistible grace” is ascribed to us,
“according to which it depends wholly upon God’s sovereign will whether a person shall believe
and be saved, or not believe and be lost, … it fixes by a divine decree the eternal destiny of all
men, whatever their hearts might desire or their course might be,” p. 355. This is refuted
especially in 3 and 4. Prof. Loy casts “the universality of saving grace” out of our doctrine, p.
349, and tries to make his readers believe we teach “particular electing grace,” p. 165. Refuted
above in 3 and 11. He ascribes the doctrine to us “that one in whom true faith has been wrought
by the Holy Ghost can never fall,” p. 165. This is refuted in the 8th and 9th quotation. He
insinuates that if the Scriptures did not expressly pronounce faith to be necessary to salvation, we
would say nothing about faith in our doctrine of election. We read on pp. 348 and 349: “God’s
Word speaks too frequently of the necessity of faith unto eternal salvation, else the doctrine
might be set forth by Missourians that God’s election to such salvation will be executed in the
elect whether they believe or not, their resistance to the Spirit’s work not being permitted to
frustrate the absolute decree. As it is, the doctrine can only be that, as faith is said to be
necessary, it can be bestowed and justification can ensue even where there is the most obstinate
and malicious resistance to the Holy Spirit, since in the favored persons the end of election must
be attained, whatever may oppose.” The necessary correction of all this is found in all the above
quotations. The reader will please compare especially 9 and 10.
It is evident that the Calvinistic doctrine of the irresistibility of divine grace has been imputed
to us by Prof. Loy with no cause or right whatever. Instead of informing his readers of what we
really do say and teach on election or predestination, he has first, in his own mind (a mode of
procedure which has got to be very common among our present opponents) imputed to us this
and that which we do not teach, and has then placed his conclusions drawn therefrom before the
readers for the purpose of branding us as heretics and concealing the heresy into which he
himself has fallen and which is as [[@VolumePage:2,147]]destructible as Calvinism, namely,
Synergism. All readers who are seeking or rejoice in the truth will gladly admit that it is not true
that we have the doctrine imputed to us, but that our doctrine is a quite different one, a doctrine
occupying the golden middle between Calvinism and Synergism. We, therefore, cannot but feel
ourselves scandalously slandered by Prof. Loy.
The second of the three propositions lying at the bottom of the Calvinistic doctrine of
irresistibility of divine grace is, as Quenstedt says, “that grace or the power of God to convert
man works omnipotently or by absolute omnipotence.” Thus, in the Calvinistic system of
doctrine, not only the divine decree concerning a man’s eternal welfare as well as the grace of
God that converts man are both considered to be absolute, as has been shown above, but the
instrumentality employed by grace in the conversion of man is the absolute omnipotence of God.
From this it follows that grace, in this horrible system, works immediately by omnipotence
alone, so that here the third proposition, as given by Quenstedt, comes in, to-wit, “that grace or
the power of God to convert man is immediate or that it determines the will (of man in
conversion) immediately or without means.” Omnipotence, then, without the Word is the
instrumentality by which grace converts a man or, which is the same thing in that system, an
elect, as the others shall not be converted. In other words, the elect are converted absolutely and
immediately. By this theory omnipotence, grace, and the Holy Spirit are separated from the
Word in the conversion of a man. When Calvin says that, “in order that the reprobates may reach
their end,” “God blinds and stupefies them still more by the preaching of the Word”; that God
“directs His voice to them, but in order that they may become the more deaf, kindles the light,
but in order that they may be made more blind, sets forth the doctrine, but in order that they may
be stupefied the more by it, presents the remedy, but in order that they may not be healed”; when
Calvin expresses himself in this manner in regard to the divine Word, his opinion obviously is
that God, according to His absolute decree and by His omnipotence, works in the reprobates in
such a manner that, although they hear the preaching of the Word and the doctrine, they are still
more blinded and stupefied thereby. The divine Word is thus made to be a means by which the
opposite of what grace works is wrought. How can the same Word by which men are made more
deaf, more blind, and more stupefied, be a means of grace which opens the ears and eyes and
enlightens the heart? And which sinner that has heard God’s Word can ever, according to this
system, be sure whether he is to be stupefied [[@VolumePage:2,148]]or enlightened by that
Word? Thus the nature of being a means of grace is taken away from the Word. Grace being
absolute, it attains its end in the elect, namely, their conversion and salvation, properly speaking
without means by absolute omnipotence. In the Calvinistic system of doctrine, the Word must
work in two opposite directions like the absolute God, His absolute decree, His absolute grace
and omnipotence. The elect must be saved and the others must be damned absolutely and, hence,
irresistibly.
Further, the Synod of Dort expressed itself in such a manner,—the Word by which they say
God efficaciously calls and draws the elect being solely an inner word of the Spirit—, that, in
their written opinions on the Synod of Dort, the Britannic Calvinists said: “It is not in the will of
human power to hinder God who thus regenerates immediately,” and the Calvinists in the
Palatinate: “God works conversion by the supereminent magnitude of His might and according to
the efficacy of the strength of His powers, by which He can subject all things unto Himself. The
operation of God, which is so efficacious, so potent, can be called irresistible with the very best
of right. . . As though dust and ashes could impede and elude the most omnipotent working of
God!”
That all this essentially belongs to the Calvinistic doctrine of the irresistibility of God’s grace
no consistent follower of Calvin will dispute. But it is not our doctrine. It implies that, as the
reprobates are forced to remain unconverted unto their end, the elect are forced to be converted
and saved. We teach that, while the reprobates are lost by their own fault, the elect are saved
without force. So, also, the elect and all those who believe for a time only are truly converted or
turned, but not by coaction or compulsion. We, indeed, teach that conversion is God’s work
alone, with the Formula of Concord, which says: “The conversion of our depraved will, which is
nothing else but a resuscitation of it from spiritual death, is the work of God alone, as the
resuscitation in the bodily resurrection of the flesh shall also be ascribed to God alone.” [[Art. II.
Decl. § 87. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:87]] We also teach that a man who is to be
converted is unable to do anything towards his conversion as such, as the Formula of Concord
says in the same article, [[§ 61: >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:61]] “For this reason it also
cannot be rightly said that man, before his conversion, has a modus agendi or a way of doing
anything good and salutary in divine matters. For, because man, before his conversion, is dead in
sins, Eph. 2. 5., there can be no strength in him to work anything good in divine matters, and
hence he has also no modus agendi or way of working in divine matters.” But, although God
alone converts man and man only suffers conversion, his conversion is
[[@VolumePage:2,149]]nevertheless not an act of force or compulsion on the part of God, but a
truly gracious act. The wonderful work of God, which is called conversion, does, indeed, appear
to be something forced upon the sinner in the eyes of reason and the unconverted, but not in the
eyes of faith and those in whom true conversion has been wrought.
Let us call to our minds how our orthodox fathers have presented this matter in the Declaration
of the 2nd article of the Formula of Concord. They write: “And although God does not force
man, so that he must become pious [hominem non cogit, ut convertatur = does not force man to
be converted] (for those who always resist the Holy Ghost and persevere in their repugnance to
the known truth, as Stephen says concerning the hardened Jews, Acts 7., are not converted), yet
God the Lord draws the man whom He will convert, and draws him in such a manner that a
darkened understanding becomes an enlightened understanding, “and a rebellious will an
obedient will. And this the Scriptures call creating a new heart,” [[§60. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:60]] It is remarkable that our fathers here say that God does not
force man, so that he must become pious or be converted; and yet they indicate that God
performs a most wonderful work in the unconverted man whom God will convert. In previous
paragraphs they describe the man who is to be converted as an enemy of God and a blind,
resisting, rebellious, contumacious, spiritually dead being, and here they declare that God
powerfully draws such an unconverted man to Christ by His Word and grace.
Yet, “This drawing is not as when the hangman draws a thief upon the ladder or the gallows;
but it is a friendly enticing and drawing to Himself, as a pleasant man draws the people to
himself by being friendly and kind and every one likes to go to him. Thus also God entices men
to Himself and brings them to Himself in a gentle manner, so that they like to be with Him.”
Luther, [[Walch’s ed., VII, 2026. >> logosres:lw23;ref=VolumePage.V_23,_p_86;off=2049]] In
another place, Luther writes: “The impious man comes not, even after hearing the Word, unless
the Father inwardly draw and teach him, which He does when He gives the Spirit. There there is
another drawing than that which is done outwardly, there Christ is shown by the Spirit’s
illumination through which a man is transported to Christ with the sweetest rapture and suffers
the teacher speaking and God drawing rather than that he should himself seek and run.” [[De
servo arbitrio, cap. 242. >> logosres:lw33;ref=VolumePage.V_33,_p_286;off=689]] After the
sinner has been drawn to God and Christ, he loves to be in their communion, for he has now
learnt to know what a true Savior and a reconciled God are. Thus a beginning has been made by
God to dispel the darkness from the sinner’s understanding and to enlighten the latter with the
light of [[@VolumePage:2,150]]saving knowledge, then, in continued conversion, God continues
to put away darkness from the understanding by the light of His Word. This wonderful work is
performed by God alone in all those whom He will convert, whilst the others who are not
converted are themselves the cause of their damnation. But especially because God alone can
perform this work, the Scriptures and our fathers call it a creation. In the understanding and will
of an unconverted man God brings something new into existence, something new that was not
there before, and cannot be there, until it is created. Where there was no new heart, there God
creates a new heart, not in such a manner as to force a man to have the new heart in him, but so,
that the man in whom the new heart has been created is highly pleased with, and is full of
heavenly joy, over the new creation, although he cannot comprehend how all this can be.
A little further ahead in the same article, [[§§52 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:52]] and
[[54, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:54]] the Formula of Concord says: “The preaching and
hearing of God’s Word are the instrument of the Holy Spirit, at, with and through which He will
powerfully work, and convert men to God, and work in them both to will and to do. Through this
means, namely, the preaching and hearing of His Word, God works, and breaks our hearts, and
draws man, so that, through the preaching of the Law, he knows his sins and God’s wrath, and
feels true terror, remorse and sorrow, and, through the preaching of and meditation on the holy
Gospel of the gracious remission of sins in Christ, a small spark of faith is kindled in him, which
accepts the remission of sins for Christ’s sake and comforts itself with the promise of the Gospel;
and thus the Holy Spirit (who works all this) is sent forth into the heart.”
There is nothing said here about the sinner first suffering, allowing or permitting the Holy
Ghost to be sent forth into his heart, whereupon God, in view of such good or evil conduct of the
sinner, makes up His mind, so to say, or decrees to send His Spirit forth into the heart. It is
simply said that God, in the manner stated, sends forth His Spirit into the heart or converts it.
The Holy Spirit, it is here said, even breaks the hearts which, in [[§ 19, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:19]] are compared to hard stones that yield not to him who
touches them, but resist. It is not man that breaks his own heart so far as to suffer the Holy Spirit
to be sent forth into it, or to enter it, else such an important fact would not have remained
unmentioned here, but the Holy Spirit does all the breaking Himself. He draws such men to
Christ as have heretofore resisted, and He rests not until He has brought the sinner, in whom He
is working knowledge of sin and God’s wrath and a feeling of true terror, remorse and sorrow,—
to true faith in Christ and thus changed [[@VolumePage:2,151]]his heart. For “conversion is
such a change through the operation of the Holy Spirit in the understanding, will and heart of
man, that, by such operation of the Holy Spirit, the man can accept offered grace.” [[F. of C,
Decl. Art. II, § 83. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:83]] The sinner who is said to have no
will to do anything that is spiritually good, or to cease from doing anything that is spiritually
evil, he being yet unable to “think” so far, [[§ 12, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:12]] is
powerfully called and drawn out of the world to Christ by the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit
converts him and thus works in him to will in regard to the good as well as the evil. Still there is
nothing Calvinistic about this doctrine. It is not teaching Calvinistic irresistibility when we say
the unconverted sinner is drawn to Christ powerfully before he is willing to suffer himself to be
drawn, nor is there any Calvinistic irresistibility about conversion so far as it is represented as
being a new creation or a resuscitation, as the meaning is not that the new heart shall and must be
created, or the new man brought to life, by force, under all circumstances, however hard the heart
may be and whatever may oppose on the part of the subject of conversion which is man in his
unconverted state, whilst others shall not be converted or created anew, &c., all in consequence
of an absolute decree. Our confession to which we firmly hold declares expressly that God does
not force men, so that they must become pious or be converted. It does not say a word from
which it could be rightly inferred that it meant: The elect are converted and saved by absolute
omnipotence, not mediately through the Word. It rather tells us in plain words how true
conversion is wrought. True conversion is God’s work alone, and is performed by the power of
the Spirit of God, the instrument and means being the preaching and hearing of the Word. By
this doctrine all honor is truly given to God alone and no honor is given to man.
Yet, it should not be overlooked that the Formula of Concord treats of the manner in which
man is converted to God, with special reference to the elect, in order to make them certain of
their election. It says: “As also other hearts which are discouraged might fall into heavy thoughts
and doubt as to whether God has elected them, and whether He will work in them also those gifts
of His through the Holy Spirit, since they are sensible of no strong, burning faith and prompt
obedience, but only weakness, anxiety and misery: we will now show further from God’s Word,
how man is converted to God,” &c. [[Art. II. Decl. §§ 47, 48. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:47-48]] Thus, from the manner in which they have been
converted to God, the weak and discouraged Christians, are to infer that they really belong to the
number of those whom God elected in His dear Son to eternal life before the world began, and
their heavy thoughts [[@VolumePage:2,152]]and their doubt as to whether they are elected and
whether God will surely save them are disapproved of. The confession then also speaks of the
conversion of the elect as having been decreed by God, when it says in a passage already quoted
above: “God the Lord draws the man whom He will [decrevit = has decreed to] convert,” [[Art.
II. § 60. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:60]] And this doctrine is again treated of in the
Declaration of the 11th article. There we teach and confess that God’s eternal election or
predestination which is God’s ordination (not to damnation, but only) to salvation, [[§ 5, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:5]] is, from the gracious will and good pleasure of God in Christ
Jesus, a cause which procures, works, helps, and promotes the salvation of the elect and
whatever pertains thereto, [[§ 8. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:8]] Thus, election or
predestination is also a cause of the conversion of the elect, because their conversion pertains to
their salvation. God has predestinated the elect to salvation on the way of conversion. He has
decreed to bring them to faith or, which amounts to the same thing, to convert them and thus to
give them salvation. The conversion of the elect is an effect of election or predestination, or, in
other words, the elect shall and must be converted. They shall not and, hence, cannot die without
being presented with salvation by a true conversion. It, therefore, also says in [[§ 45: >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:45]] “This doctrine (concerning election or predestination) also
thus affords the precious, glorious consolation that God took so deep an interest in, and so
faithfully cared for, the conversion, righteousness, and salvation of each Christian that, before
the foundation of the world, He deliberated and ordained in His purpose, how He would bring
me thereto and keep me therein.” The conversion of the elect will surely take place. God did not
absolutely predestinate or ordain them to conversion, righteousness, and salvation, nor are they
converted and saved absolutely or in an absolutely irresistible manner (unless the decree of
predestination taught by us were declared to be an absolute one by our opponents because we
teach that no other being except the triune God took counsel in the eternal council when the
decree was made and no other being except the triune God executes the decree in time), but their
conversion is a true one, wrought by God alone and in the manner stated above. The Scriptures
declare: “The counsel of the Lord, that shall stand,” Prov. 19. 21. “The counsel of the Lord
standeth forever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations. Blessed is the nation whose God is
the Lord; and the people whom He hath chosen for His own inheritance.” Ps. 33.11, 12. “The
Lord of hosts is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working,” Is. 28. 29. And all those who
have been made certain and glad of their salvation by the Word exclaim: “Thou shalt guide me
with Thy counsel, and afterward receive me to [[@VolumePage:2,153]]glory. Whom have I in
heaven but Thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside Thee. My flesh and my heart
fatteth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion forever.” Ps. 73. 24—26. Yea, God,
who, according to the [[Augsburg Confession, Art. 5, >> BookOfConcord:AC:I:V]] gives
through the Word and Sacraments the Holy Spirit who works faith in those who hear the Gospel
where and when it is His will to do so,—has appointed the very hour in which He will work faith
in the hearts of the elect or convert them. It says in the [[Formula of Concord, Art. 11, § 56: >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:56]] “Thus too, without any doubt, God knows and has
appointed the time and hour of each one’s call and conversion [and when He will again raise up
the fallen one].” When the appointed time and hour has come, according to God’s decree, for the
calling and conversion of the elect, the calling and conversion of the elect shall and must take
place, the one being called and converted at this time, the other at another. Then that powerful
and wonderful divine drawing to Christ, spoken of above (which is not a violent or forcible
drawing) is put in act. And if an elect one has fallen from grace he is again raised up by God at
the time and in the hour set apart for this purpose by God in His eternal decree of predestination.
Then the same drawing of the sinner to Christ takes place by God’s Spirit through the Word as in
the first conversion.
Now, because we promulgate this doctrine, our opponents charge us with teaching the
absolute decree and irresistible grace of the Calvinists. Prof. Loy writes in the Col. Mag. on p. 23
below: “We are constrained to oppose the new theory, furthermore, because it undermines the
precious biblical doctrine of the means of grace, which the Lutheran Church so purely and so
fully confesses and which she has held so dear.” The truth is that Prof. Loy is not opposing any
new theory, but a doctrine well founded in the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions, and that
by his Synergism he is himself, as much as lieth in him, undermining the precious biblical
doctrine of the means of grace. He proceeds by saying on p. 24.: “Its advocates do not, indeed,
say that grace is not offered to a large portion of mankind, even when they are recipients of the
means; they do not say that the grace is irresistible in the other, comparatively small portion.” It
would have been better if Prof. Loy had here avoided the negative way of expressing himself and
had written that we say that grace is offered to all those to whom the means are brought, and that
we say that grace is not irresistible in the Calvinistic acceptation of the word, in the
comparatively small portion of mankind. For in regard to these very two points our synod has not
been silent, but rather prolix, as has been shown already in the
[[@VolumePage:2,154]]beginning of this article. Prof. Loy writes further: “But they do teach
that God has determined to save a definite number, and that as surely as He is God these and no
others shall be saved. These must obtain the salvation to which He has unalterably ordained
them.” Do we teach that God has determined to save a definite number? We say, Yes; although
the word “determine” seems to have been used here by Prof. Loy for the purpose of exciting
suspicion in the reader that we teach Calvin’s determinism. For God has really determined to
save a definite number, if the word determine be taken in its common acceptation. Cf. Acts 17.
26. We have no relish for quarreling about words. We hold what the Lutheran Church teaches
when it says in accordance with the Holy Scriptures: “And in that counsel, purpose and
ordination of His, God did not only in general prepare the salvation [of those that are His], but
He also graciously thought of and elected to salvation each and every person of the elect who
shall be saved through Christ, and also decreed that it be His will to bring them to salvation… in
the manner above mentioned.” [[Decl. of art. 11. § 23. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:23]]
Our Lutheran Church manifestly teaches here that God decreed to save a definite number of men
who are called the .elect. They are those few of whom Christ says: “Many be called, but few
chosen” (or elected). Matt. 20. 16. Any one can see that our doctrine is firmly based upon the
Scriptures and the Lutheran confession, but that Prof. Loy, and our other opponents who here
agree with him, have forsaken the Scriptures and the Lutheran confession. There is no doctrine
of Calvinistic irresistible grace to be found in our publications, because the doctrine of an
absolute decree to save the ones and damn the others, is wanting.
Further, the sentence: “as surely as He is God these and no others shall be saved”, does not
properly express what we teach. Its construction is such that most readers cannot but receive the
impression as though we taught like the Calvinists that God decreed, according to an absolute
decree, that the few shall be saved and the others shall not be saved, or, that God predestinated
the few to salvation and the others to damnation. The only words of ours, to which Prof. Loy can
refer here, are contained in the Western synodical report of the year 1877 on p. 24, and read as
follows: “Yes, from eternity already God elected a number of men to salvation; He decrees these
shall and must be saved; and as surely as God is God they will also be saved and besides them no
other one. This the Scriptures teach and this is also our faith, our doctrine, our confession.” We
challenge the whole world to arise and show us where we have ever said in any of our
publications: As surely as God is God these and no others shall [[@VolumePage:2,155]]be
saved. Instead of informing his readers of what we really said, Prof. Loy has distorted our words
by making a very bad excerpt of them. Whilst the sentence: “They will also be saved and besides
them no other one”, — expresses certainty of facts, the other sentence: “These and no others
shall be saved”, contains Calvinistic leaven. We teach: “As God has ordained in His [eternal]
counsel that the Holy Spirit will call, enlighten and convert the elect through the Word and that
He will justify and [eternally] save all those who receive Christ through true faith: so He has also
resolved [decreed] in His [same] counsel that He will harden, reject and damn those who are
called through the Word, if they put the Word from them and resist the Holy Spirit whose will it
is to be powerful and to work in them through the Word, and if they persist therein. And thus
many are called, and few are chosen.” [[Form, of C., Decl. Art. 11. § 40. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:40]]
From this we also see how the Lutheran doctrine differs from the Calvinistic when the decrees'
of God concerning the eternal weal or woe of men are under consideration. While the Calvinists
teach that predestination is the eternal decree of God according to which He has appointed for
Himself what it would be His will should be done in regard to every human being; that each one
is so predestinated either to life or to death as he is created by God for this or that end; that it
flows from God’s eternal decree that some are donated with faith by God in time, some not: the
Lutheran Church teaches, on the one hand, that the elect are called, enlightened and converted by
the Holy Spirit in consequence of God’s eternal ordination or predestination and that all those
who have experienced such calling, enlightenment and conversion of the Holy Spirit and thus
have received Christ through true faith, may be certain that God justifies or forgives them their
sins and saves them; on the other hand, that although it is the will of the Holy Spirit to be as
powerful and to work in the same manner through the Word in others that are called, as in the
elect, they put the Word from them, resist the Holy Spirit and persist therein, and are therefore
punished by being hardened, rejected and damned by God in accordance with His eternal
resolution or decree concerning them, so that they themselves are in fault of their own
damnation. This is the pure doctrine of the Holy Scriptures and has always been taught by the
Missouri synod. But what is here said in regard to the elect is rejected by Prof. Loy when he
sneers at our doctrine in this way: “Accordingly, when the means of grace are brought to an elect
person, the purpose of God, which no power can frustrate, must work faith in him and bring him
to the Savior. He shall and must be saved, according to the divine decree; and
[[@VolumePage:2,156]]he must be saved by the grace of God working its will, without
possibility of defeat. In other words the grace of God, in the case of the elect, works irresistibly
through the means; or, if this be denied, the only alternative is that grace works irresistibly
without the means. One way or the other, the select few whom He has resolved under all
circumstances to save, must be saved.” p. 24. A pity we say that Prof. Loy’s philosophy is not
devoted to a better cause. By drawing other false conclusions from what we teach on the
predestination of the elect he evinces his dissatisfaction with what the Formula of Concord
declares in the above quotation in regard to the non-elect, when he writes: “He (God) has not
resolved” (according to the Missouri i. e. Lutheran doctrine) “that the non-elect shall be brought
to faith and salvation, and therefore the means have not the saving efficacy when such persons
are the subjects. The most that could be said in such a case is that the means still contain grace,
but in the absence of a decree ordaining the salvation of an individual they are inoperative.” p.
25. Here again we are constrained to say it is a pity that Prof. Loy’s philosophy is not devoted to
a better cause. So long as he does not embrace the true Lutheran doctrine concerning
predestination, however mysterious the same may appear to him, — and mysterious it is, indeed,
— he will continue to accuse us of propagating the Calvinistic doctrine of an absolute decree;
and so long as he has no true conversion in his doctrine, but teaches that man can cease to resist
God and suffer himself to be converted before conversion, which is Synergism, he will continue
to impute to us the Calvinistic doctrine of irresistible grace.
If we were to follow our opponents in their mode of reasoning, we would have to say with
reference to what the Formula of Concord teaches on conversion, especially in [[art. II. § 60, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:60]] about the following: The framers of the confession do not
say that God forces man that he must become pious or be converted, but they do say that God
draws the man whom He will (or has decreed to) convert. Those whom God will convert or
whom He has decreed to convert, are drawn by Him and thus converted. This is teaching
irresistible grace or conversion by coaction. The others are not drawn, the writers of the Formula
simply say they “are not converted,” so they are passed by; because God will not convert them.
God has not decreed that they shall be converted. Here the absolute decree of reprobation is
taught. The reason assigned for their non-conversion is that they always resist the Holy Spirit and
persevere in their repugnance to the known truth, but this is all hypocrisy (sit venia verbo) on the
part of the framers of the confession, for they say that the elect are drawn and thus
[[@VolumePage:2,157]]converted, so that they cannot always resist and persevere in their
repugnance to the known truth. Why does He not draw the others? Because they are doomed.
Therefore the Formula of Concord teaches particular electing grace. Hence, it contains
specifically Calvinistic elements. Therefore the true difference between the elect and non-elect is
this: The elect cease to resist and suffer themselves to be converted, before conversion has taken
place, the non-elect resist persistently. God foresaw all this conduct of men from eternity. In
view 'of this prevision He elected the ones and rejected the others.— This fairly illustrates the
doctrinal standpoint of our opponents and their way of imputing Calvinism to us and clearing up
the mystery of predestination and conversion by Rationalism. But, then, where have the
Scriptures and the Lutheran confession been left?
As Prof. Loy rests the chief weight of his arguments to prove that we teach a Calvinistic
working of God’s grace “in the case of the elect” upon the fact that we teach the elect shall and
must be saved, shall and must be converted and be preserved in faith unto their end: it has struck
us that he has heretofore been mistaking the word “irresistible” which frequently occurs in
common usage and is found in some of the writings of Lutheran fathers in an allowable sense,
for the word “irresistible” as it is used in a peculiar sense by the Calvinists in their system. The
flying argument is in this wise: The Missourians teach “the elect person” “shall and must be
saved, according to the divine decree; and he must lie saved by the grace of God working its will,
without possibility of defeat. In other words the grace of God, in the case of the elect, works
irresistibly through the means, or, … irresistibly without the means.”… Hence, “the new theory
is only a modified form of Calvinism”, etc. pp. 24. 25. Or, the Missourians teach the elect shall
and must be converted. Therefore they are converted irresistibly. Hence, there is a specifically
Calvinistic element in the doctrine. It has been shown that grace or conversion is irresistible in
the new theory, in whatever sense the word be taken. Hence, Calvinism!
The assertion that Prof. Loy did not know exactly what he was about when he imputed to us
the doctrine of an irresistible grace is confirmed by the fact that Prof. Loy who claims to be a
stark Lutheran thinks he has proven that we have the specifically Calvinistic element of
irresistible grace in our doctrine and nevertheless maintains that we teach a working of such
irresistible grace through means. As, in the opinion of those claiming themselves to be stark
Lutherans, there is, in fact, no irresistible grace in the Calvinistic system that works through
means, Prof. Loy has proven too much, consequently [[@VolumePage:2,158]]nothing. He also
seems to have been somewhat aware of this fact. He allows the conclusion he has arrived at to
slip, if any one should deny the same. “In other words the grace of God, in the case of the elect,
works irresistibly through the means; or, if this be denied, the only alternative is that His grace
works irresistibly without the means. One way or other, the select few… must be saved.” After
all, then, it is not decided whether it is a working through means or without means. No, since he
had undertaken the mean job, it was his business to prove that we have what the Calvinists call
“irresistible grace”, a working of grace by absolute omnipotence, and not to leave the decision of
so important a matter to the denial, which might happen to enter the mind of any one, of the
justness of his conclusion. It is evident that he is himself not quite in the clear whether he has
conclusively shown that we teach what is irresistible grace in the Calvinistic system, or not.
It is truly not so much the word “irresistible” itself as its history and the whole Calvinistic
system of doctrine with which it is interwoven that have rendered it odious to Lutherans. The
expressions: irresistible grace, irresistible good motions in the heart, irresistible conversion, etc.,
which we are by no means eager to employ in our teaching, do not themselves infect a
theological system, but the Calvinistic system of doctrine has, alas! badly infected these
expressions in that system. What men daily, experience as coming from God irresistibly (the
word taken in an allowable sense) they do not always experience by coaction or compulsion, or
in an absolutely irresistible manner. So, also, irresistible attestations of one’s veracity and
irrisistible fascinations of a quibble are spoken of. If the use of the word “irresistible”, in such
connections, were always to be rejected, because the word is used by the Calvinists to designate
the forcible working of absolute power, the word “inevitable”, for instance, would have to share
the same fate, as it is a fact that Calvinistic irresistible grace was by some Calvinists also called
inevitable grace, for instance, by Molinaeus and the Calvinistic Hessians.
A converted person may well say: Thanks be to God for His unspeakable grace by which He
has been so powerful over me! Before my conversion I was spiritually dead, dead in trespasses
and sins, but His grace has quickened me and raised me up spiritually. Before my conversion
there was not a spark of spiritual powers in me, but grace has wrought faith in my dear Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ in my dark heart. God, from His goodness and mercy in Christ, drew me so
powerfully by the voice of the Gospel that I was conquered, and I am glad it is all so. Before
conversion my heart was [[@VolumePage:2,159]]like a hard stone and worse than a block
because of my rebellion and enmity against God, but grace has crushed my hard heart, I have
been overpowered by the grace of God. When God’s Word took hold of me, I was placed in such
a state that I could no longer resist as I had formerly done, grace placed me in that state and
overcame my heart’s enmity against God and put down its rebellion so far that I could be a child
of God. The resistance which is yet in my heart by nature and otherwise my God daily forgives
me for Christ’s sake.—And if such a person were not aware that a battle was going on in the
Church about the word “irresistible”, he would perhaps say: God’s grace was irresistible to me in
my conversion; and whilst he said in his unconverted state: A horrible preacher, he wants to
force me into heaven! and: A horrible word that he preaches!—he will perhaps say now: An
irresistible preacher, and: An irresistible Word that he preaches! Quenstedt writes: “Divine
efficacy is the same (eadem) towards all, but the event and success are unequal. In the event
actual resistance is conquered with the elect, still divine grace has not been idle with the
reprobates.” Theol. did.—pol., III. q. 3. fol. 511.
According to the Lutheran doctrine some rebellion remains in the heart during and after
conversion. The removal of resistance by grace to such an extent that a true conversion may be
effected in every respect forms a part of true conversion, and if grace were called irresistible
because it is not resisted to that extent in conversion, it would not be the irresistible grace of the
Calvinists, because their irresistible grace is absolute in the same sense as is their absolute
decree.
Our fathers who wrote the Formula of Concord and were well versed in Calvin’s theory
appear to have been very careful not to make use of such an equivocal word as the word
“irresistible” (which can be taken absolutely or relatively, properly or figuratively), when they
touch upon or reject the Calvinistic theory.
When Prof. Loy reasons in this manner: “He” (the elect) “shall and must be saved, according
to the divine decree; and he must be saved by the grace of God working its will without
possibility of defeat. In other words the grace of God, in the case of the elect, works irresistibly
through the means”;—we say: It is true, as has been shown above in this article, that he who is
elected shall and must be saved, or election would be nothing; it is also true that God alone saves
the elect, not violently, by force or by compulsion, but by grace in the order and manner
instituted by Himself, by drawing him to Christ, enlightening him and preserving him in true
faith to the end. But when Prof. Loy concludes that [[@VolumePage:2,160]]we have introduced
a specifically Calvinistic element he is deceiving himself and his readers.
In order, therefore, to prove that we teach a Calvinistic irresistible working of God’s grace in
the case of the elect, Prof. Loy would have to first prove that we have the “absolute decree” in
our doctrine, as Calvinistic irresistibility of grace could never have been taught, had it not been
for the invention of that decree. But this neither Prof. Loy nor any of our opponents will ever be
able to do. C. S. K.
(For the “Theological Monthly “)
A “Cheap” Tract.
Prof. F. W. Stellhorn of Columbus, the “famous” author of the tract “Worum,” seems to be a
regular Bourbon, inasmuch as he also “has neither learned, nor forgotten anything.” Last year he
published his cheap tract “Worum,” dealing largely in the cheapest kind of polemics, in
misconstruction of words, in falsification of historical facts, in perversion of the doctrine of his
adversaries, in willful imputations and the most shallow reasoning. Notwithstanding this cheap
kind of warfare, Dr. Walther was kind enough to review the “Worum” in a very thorough
manner, by following the tractarian page for page and point by point, and disclosing his
unfairness and dishonesty. This “Review” (fitly called by some the “Dorum”) was followed by a
counter-review, in which the poor tractarian endeavored to defend himself against the crushing
blows of his reviewer; but, alas! he “fell out of the frying-pan into the fire,” for Dr. Walther
again reviewed this “counter-review” of the Columbus professor and succeeded in spiking the
enemy’s guns so completely, that “all was quiet, dismally quiet on the Potomac.” This ominous
silence on the part of Prof. Stellhorn led to the belief that (for self-evident reason!) he would
leave tract-writing alone, at least for some time to come; for his first effort had met with such
poor success! But, alas! how short-sighted we mortals are! Not even a twelve-month has passed,
before the luckless tractarian tries his luck again, this time with even a cheaper tract than before.
He has published lately in pamphlet-form about four pages in answer to the question: “What does
the Ohio Synod, and what does the Missouri Synod teach concerning Predestination?” This
recent little tract (a regular campaign-document!) is cheap, very cheap, indeed: only three cents,
yea, only two cents each, if bought by the hundred! Whether also a chromo is thrown in, the
advertisement does not say. This, [[@VolumePage:2,161]]however, is not the only reason, why
the new tract is rightly called “cheap”; with good reason we may call it so in consideration of the
cheap kind of polemics the tractarian indulges in. For the very same false accusations,
perversions, falsifications, and imputations, which Prof. St. had imbodied into his first tract, and
which had been pointed out to him and disproved time and again, especially by Dr. Walther in
his two pamphlets directed against Prof. St.,—these very same falsehoods are simply repeated
over and over in the new tract, often even in the very same words, that had been used in the
notorious “Worum.” Indeed, it seems as if Prof. St. had chosen for his maxim: “Calumniare
audacter, semper aliquid haeret” (i. e., calumniate boldly, some part of it will always find
believers). For he can not but know that his calumniations have repeatedly been disproved, and
nevertheless he goes on repeating them over and over! Shame upon such cheap, such dog- cheap
warfare!
Undoubtedly Prof. St., under these circumstances, has no right to demand or expect an answer
to his tract; nor will he dare deny that the points he makes in his new tract have repeatedly been
answered and refuted. Were he to ask: when? and where? we would simply remind him of Dr.
Walther’s latest two pamphlets. But our readers, perhaps, have not read these controversial
documents, and for their sake we will, as briefly as possible, show that and how the divers points
of the new tract have long ago been met by Dr. Walther.
1. Prof. St. writes: “The Ohio Synod teaches exactly like the Catechism of Dieterich
(published by the Missouri Synod) in question 321: Election of grace ‘is that act of God by
which He, according to the purpose of His will, alone out of His grace and mercy in Christ, has
resolved to save all those who shall steadfastly believe in Christ, to the praise of His glorious
grace’.”
Dr. Walther: “It is true, in these books the doctrine is taught that from eternity God elected all
those and only those that will believe in Christ unto the end, or of whom God foresaw this, for
‘Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world,’ that is, from eternity (Acts
15. 18.); but this is as different as heaven and earth from the doctrine that God predestinated the
elect ‘in view of faith,’ namely, as our opponents understand and interpret it.” (Review, p. 32.)
Again: “St. writes: On the same page the ‘falsehood’ is decidedly on Dr. W.’s side, when he
asserts that the Altenburg Bible, Dieterich’s Catechism, and the large ‘Treasure of Prayers’ do
not contain the doctrine of an election ‘in view of faith.’—The man boldly publishes this, and
does not even cite [[@VolumePage:2,162]]a single passage from these books, where the phrase
‘in view of faith’ is found! Why?—Because there is no such passage in these writings. What
name, then, do such polemics deserve, dear reader?” (Correction, p. 137.)
2. Prof. St. writes: “The Ohio Synod teaches like the old celebrated Lutheran theologian John
Gerhard,” and then cites several passages from Gerhard’s Dogmatics.
Dr. Walther: “St. cites several passages from the renowned John Gerhard’s great work on
Dogmatics, thus trying to prove that the doctrine of election ‘in view of faith’ is truly Lutheran.
To be sure, he should have endeavored to prove this from the Confessions of our Lutheran
Church, for only from these we can prove with certainty that a doctrine, about which there is a
controversy within our Church, is truly Lutheran. For the present, however, we will pass this by.
But we must tell Prof. St., and he himself knows it only too well, that if he and his confederates
had taught nothing but what Gerhard teaches in the passages cited, we, indeed, would not have
admitted this presentation of the doctrine to be truly Lutheran and in conformity to the Scriptures
and the Confession, that, however, on this account we would not have declared him an errorist,
but would have honored his respect for Gerhard, and would have tolerated him. But, of course,
we would have watched whether he and his confederates use the phrase: ‘in view of faith,’ really
in the same meaning as Gerhard did… And we did watch, and find that he and his confederates
went far beyond Gerhard, and did not avoid the danger connected with the dogmatical phrase: ‘in
view of faith’.” (Review, p. 15.)
3. Prof. St. writes: “In this doctrine the Ohio Synod furthermore agrees with all Lutheran
theologians, that have treated expressly on this subject, for instance with Scriver in his
‘Seelenschatz,’ and with the authors of the celebrated Weimar Bible.”
Dr. Walther: “By this assertion he strikes historical truth in the face. As, however, Revs. A.
W… and R. P… in the June number of Lehre und Wehre did already expose, prove indisputably,
and censure severely this falsification of history,… we deem it unnecessary to adduce still more
crushing counter-evidence… In order, however, to help Prof. St. to a better knowledge of his
own self, we think it our duty to remind him of what Chemnitz writes in his ‘Manual’: ‘God’s
election does not follow our faith and righteousness, but goes before as a cause of all this, for,
whom He did predestinate or elect, them He also called and justified, Rom. 8.’ But also Prof. St.
was acquainted with this passage, and he knew that [[@VolumePage:2,163]]Chemnitz, in the
year 1586, died professing the doctrines contained in his Manual, consequently also in this
passage. How, then, could he write: ‘And this is the uniform doctrine of ALL our truly Lutheran
theologians who have entered upon this very point,’ knowing at least this much that Chemnitz
did not assent? We attribute this to an infatuation which temporarily made him forget entirely
even familiar truths.” (Review, pp. 16, 17.)
It is true, Prof. St. in his “Examination of Dr. Walther’s Review” endeavored to get out of the
scrape by citing some passages from Chemnitz’ writings, by means of which he tried to prove
that Chemnitz teaches a predestination in the wider, yea, in the widest sense of the word (pp.
14—21). But, alas! “his wish was father to that thought,” as Dr. Walther in his “Correction of
Prof. Stellhorn’s Examination” (pp. 43—53) has clearly shown. Dr. W. proves beyond the
possibility of a doubt, that Prof. St. repeatedly misconstructs, yea, falsifies the words of
Chemnitz, by omitting those sentences from which his true meaning can be learned. In proof of
this we will cite only the following passage (pp. 44, 45): “The first proof, by which Prof. St.
wishes to demonstrate that Chemnitz takes predestination in the wider sense, is the famous
passage from his ‘Examen’… , in which Chemnitz, treating of the doctrine of predestination
(doctrina praedestinationis), indeed cites only the decrees of redemption, vocation, conversion,
justification, beatification, and damnation. But Prof. St. does not reveal to his readers, in the first
place, why Chemnitz does this, and secondly, that Chemnitz himself says that it had by no means
been his intention to demonstrate the whole doctrine of election or predestination. For thus
Chemnitz concludes his demonstration: ‘It has not been my intention now to demonstrate the
whole doctrine of predestination; but I only intended to show that the election of God, as
revealed in the Word of God, does not shake the certainty of salvation and the confidence of the
believers, but confirms and strengthens it.’… Thus while Chemnitz says in express words that, in
the passages cited by Prof. St., he did ‘not intend to demonstrate the whole doctrine of
predestination,’ St. on the contrary says that this is not so, but that in the four propositions of
Chemnitz is contained, ‘ACCORDING TO CHEMNITZ, predestination IN THE WHOLE AND IN ITS
SEPARATE PARTS!’ A more impudent perversion of the words of a Christian author we have not
yet met with. Yea, what do we say? the word ‘perversion’ is a great deal too mild to characterize
Prof. Stellhorn’s action, for that which Chemnitz denies, St. affirms, and this affirmation he
palms upon Chemnitz! And this is the foundation, upon which St. builds his proof that Chemnitz
[[@VolumePage:2,164]]teaches a ‘predestination in the wider, yea, in the very widest sense of
the word’!!”
4. Prof. St. writes: The Ohio Synod furthermore agrees in this doctrine “with the Confession of
our Lutheran Church, which, in the Formula of Concord, in the article concerning
predestination, p. 556, says as follows: God has ‘decreed in His eternal, divine counsel, that
beside those who acknowledge Christ to be His Son and truly believe in Him, He will save no
one,’ and p. 712 s.: ‘God has ordained in His counsel, that He will justify and save all those who
receive Christ through true faith.’”
Dr. Walther: “In his first tract ‘Worum,’ p. 20 s., Prof. St. had cited the passage from the
Formula of Concord ([[p. 555, § 12 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:12]]) in which the reason
is stated, why so few are elected. He then proceeds: ‘This is developed at length in Mueller’s
edition, [[p. 711, § 34—43, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:34-43]] and it is especially
emphasized that God has ordained in His counsel, that He will justify and Save ALL THOSE WHO
RECEIVE CHRIST BY TRUE FAITH’ (thus St. himself underlined this sentence). Hereupon St. adds:
‘The sense here is manifestly again the following: … ‘In the selection of persons God has been
guided by faith or unbelief foreseen by Him.’—So far Mr. Stellhorn. But the passage from the
Formula of Concord, the sense of which Mr. St. pretends to state, reads as follows: ‘For, even as
God has ORDAINED in His counsel, that the Holy Spirit shall call, enlighten, and convert the
ELECT, through the Word, and that He will justify and save all those who receive Christ through
true faith: so He has also decreed in His counsel, that He will harden, reject, and condemn those
who are called through the Word, if they cast off the Word, resist the Holy Spirit, who desires to
be efficacious and to operate in them through the Word, and persevere in this course.’
Accordingly, in our ‘Review,’ pp. 73—75, we accused Mr. St. of being guilty of a horrid
perversion of the Confession, for, after the words of the confession: ‘As God has ordained in His
counsel,’ he omits those words which follow immediately after them, namely: ‘that the Holy
Spirit shall call, enlighten, and convert the ELECT, through the Word’—in order to make it
appear that, according to the Formula of Concord, election consists only in the decree: ‘That He
will justify and save all those who receive Christ through true faith’ (as in the Formula of
Concord it reads after those words which he omitted); that therefore also the Formula of Concord
teaches the very same doctrine as he, namely, that God elected in view of faith foreseen by Him.
Now, instead of giving glory to God and confessing in his ‘Examination,’ that in this case he
neither cited [[@VolumePage:2,165]]correctly, nor expounded correctly the confession, he
again, in order to get out of the scrape, practices sophistry, for he asserts: ‘In the first sentence
the ‘subject’ is changed; in the beginning the ‘elect’ are the subject, to whom refers the
‘predicate’ that by the Holy Spirit they shall be called, enlightened, and converted through the
Word; then another ‘subject’ follows, namely, ‘ALL those who receive Christ through true faith,’
and to them refers the ‘predicate,’ that God ‘in His counsel,’ that is, in predestination, has
‘ordained,’ that He will justify and save them, and no one else.’ Here we ask the reader to notice
in the first place this: that from the sentence of the Formula of Concord: ‘As God has ORDAINED
in His counsel, that the Holy Spirit shall call, enlighten, and convert the elect, through the Word,’
Prof. St. omits the word ‘ordained,’ but adds the word: ‘ordained’ to the following words: ‘and
that He will justify and save all those who receive Christ through true faith.’… Prof. St. knew
very well that he was refuted, as soon as he placed the word: ‘ordained’ before the first sentence,
as the Formula of Concord has it; for if the elect are ‘ORDAINED’ to be called, enlightened, and
converted, God cannot have elected them in view of their foreseen enlightenment and
conversion, nor, consequently, in view of their foreseen faith, which above all things belongs to
enlightenment and conversion.—In the second place, it is true that in the cited passage the
Formula of Concord speaks also of the decree of reprobation; but nothig can be more foolish
than to infer from this, that it teaches also an election of grace in the wider sense. Indeed, a fine
election of grace, which proclaims to men their everlasting rejection! Besides this Mr. St. here
again” (as also in citing p. 556 of the F. C.) “practices the deceit; which he practices constantly
in all his impositions (I meant to say, expositions) of the Formula of Concord, namely, in
referring to predestination itself, what it says of the right use of the doctrine concerning
predestination.” (Correction, pp. 113—115.)
5. Prof. St. writes: “This doctrine of the Ohio Synod and of the whole Lutheran Church for the
past 300 years” ( ! ) “is, however, the doctrine of the Scriptures. For these do not only say in
general: ‘Without faith it is impossible to please God’ (Hebr. 11. 6.), and: ‘He that believeth and
is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned’ (Mark 16. 16.), thus in
general making the obtaining of salvation dependent upon faith; but they also teach in express
terms that God in election regarded faith, for instance, 2 Thess. 2. 13.: ‘God hath from the
beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the
[[@VolumePage:2,166]]truth.’ He who has a Weimar Bible, may refer to it, in order to see how
it expounds this passage and Eph. 1. 4. and Rom. 8. 29.”
Dr.Walther: “On p. 13 it reads: ‘They’ (the so-called St. Louis men) ‘maintain that the general
rule Hebr. 11. 6.: ‘Without faith it is impossible to please God’ had no validity before God, in the
selection of persons.’—If this is to say that God was not induced by the foreseen faith of a man
to elect him, Prof. St. is right… If, however, the reader is to believe that we teach an election to
salvation without faith, it is an inexcusable slander. Thus, for instance, it reads in the synodical
report of our Western District of the year 1879: ‘If God had not seen me in Christ, He would not
have elected me’ (p. 56). Namely, we believe—we repeat it here—from the bottom of our heart,
according to the words of the Formula of Concord, that God ‘decreed in His eternal, divine
counsel, that besides those who acknowledge Christ to be His Son and truly believe in Him, He
will save no one’ (p. 556).” (Review, pp. 44, 45.)
Again: “On page 48 of his ‘Examination’ our examiner asks: ‘How does Dr. W. know (?) that
in Eph. 1.4., for instance, the words: ‘in Christ’ are not equivalent to: ‘in the union with Christ
effected through faith,’ or ‘in Christ embraced by faith’? Perhaps from the passage itself? Where
is there a word of it?’—Answer: What silly question! Does the Professor not know the old
maxim: ‘Affirmanti incumbit probatio,’ that is to say, ‘He who asserts something, is in duty
bound to prove his assertion’? And if in a certain passage something is not said, which somebody
tries to find in it, is it not silly to demand that we prove to him yet, that it is not in the passage?”
(Correction, p. 131.)
In regard to 2 Thess. 2. 13. Prof. St. in his ‘Examination’ (p. 48) had written that this passage
was not as easily understood as other passages, and therefore comparatively dark. Now, in his
second tract, he goes a step further and says, this passage teaches “in express terms, that God in
election regarded faith!” And if we answer: Where is the express term ‘regarded faith’ or ‘in
view of faith’ to be found in this passage, he directs us to the Weimar Bible to look for it there!
6. Prof. St. writes: “This doctrine of the Ohio Synod is full of consolation for every poor
sinner. Whoever believes this doctrine, needs not be alarmed, when he thinks of predestination.
But this is also the only doctrine of predestination which begets neither carnal security, nor
despair. No other doctrine, therefore, can be true.” [[@VolumePage:2,167]]
Dr.Walther: “This talk is hardly worthy of consideration. Whoever meditates only a little upon
the subject, will soon perceive that just the reverse is the case. Since, according to the Formula of
Concord, ‘the eternal election of God’ is nothing else but the (irrevocable) ‘ordination of God to
salvation,’ self-evidently the consolation, which the doctrine of predestination affords, can be
nothing else but the certainty of our salvation. According to Prof. St., however, nobody can be
certain, whether he is one of the elect, nor, consequently, whether he will be saved, because
(likewise according to the Formula of Concord) ‘only the elect will be saved’ (p. 709)…
According to this it is evident that our opponents have no particular consolation derived from the
doctrine of predestination. Their consolation is borrowed from other doctrines, but they are
pleased to call it consolation of predestination. Nor can they do otherwise according to their
doctrine; for since they teach that in election God adhered to the ‘rule’ of electing those of whom
He foresaw that they would conduct themselves correctly and remain faithful unto death, and
since, as a matter of course, by their own reason and strength they cannot know whether they
will conduct themselves correctly also in future, and remain faithful unto death: they are, as
‘Altes und Neues’ (vol. I, p. 10) says so plainly, ‘from day to day between fear and hope, as it
were between two millstones, on probation!’ A fine consolation, indeed! But, Prof. St. says, how
do ye, with your doctrine of predestination, know for certain that ye are of the elect who will
surely be saved? We answer: Let him read the passage from the Formula of Concord, which tells
us, ‘by what means and whence it can be discerned who the elect are, who can and should
embrace this doctrine to their own consolation’ (pp. 709—715). There he will find that a
believing Christian can and should be certain of his election, neither by judging according to his
reason, nor to the law, nor to any external appearance, much less by attempting to scrutinize the
concealed, hidden depth of divine predestination, but above all things by his being called through
the Word which proclaims universal grace; further, by his baptism, by the Holy Supper, by
private absolution, and by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. There he will find, moreover, why a
believing Christian should not allow his certainty to be shaken by the fact that many are called,
but few are chosen, that many either do not receive the word, or, having received it with joy,
afterwards fall away. Lastly, however, he will find, that even afflictions do not shake, but
confirm this certainty. For thus it reads in conclusion: ‘Hence St. Paul, Rom. 8., in consolatory
terms, teaches that God ordained in [[@VolumePage:2,168]]His purpose, before the world was
made, by what crosses and afflictions He would conform each one of His elect to the image of
His Son; and that the crosses of each one MUST work together for his good, BECAUSE he is
CALLED ACCORDING TO THE PURPOSE OF GOD. Hence, Paul draws the sure and certain conclusion,
that ‘neither tribulation nor distress, &c., neither death nor life, &c., can separate us from the
love of God, which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord.’ From this Prof. St. will see that the Formula of
Concord strictly conforms to Rom. 8. 28—39., where the way is described, in which God leads
His chosen children to glory, and from this, therefore, the Formula of Concord draws the
conclusion that whoever finds himself on this way, should not doubt that he is one of the elect,
and that, therefore, he should cheerfully join in the triumphal song of the apostle: ‘I am
persuaded, that neither death, nor life, &c., shall be able to separate us from the love of God,
which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord.’—But as to the caution and admonition, which certainly must
be contained in the true doctrine of predestination, Prof. St. may be at ease. Whoever knows in
which way alone God leads His chosen children to salvation, namely, in the way of repentance
and conversion, of faith and sanctification, of affliction and constancy, has, in our opinion,
sufficient caution and admonition in this knowledge; for as soon as he willfully leaves this way,
his certainty of salvation is lost, according to our pure doctrine.” (Correction, pp. 120—122.)
7. Prof. writes: The Missouri Synod “denies that this old-Lutheran and biblical doctrine of the
Ohio Synod is the true doctrine… And what is the consequence of this rejection of the pure
doctrine? This: If I am not elected, no matter what I do, I cannot go to heaven at any rate. And
this the Missourians teach in the most explicit terms. For thus it reads in the synodical report of
their Western District of the year 1879, p. 33: ‘He who is spiritually perplexed thinks: If God
knows that I will be cast into hell, then I will surely be cast into it, no matter what I do; the
number of the elect can neither be increased, nor diminished. What God knows beforehand, that
must take place. If I do not belong to the elect, I may hear the Word of God ever so faithfully,
may receive absolution, may go to the Lord’s Supper, and it is all in vain. How does Luther
answer this? ‘THAT INDEED IS TRUE and must be conceded.’ There he does not make a new
Gospel for him, but leaves him in this TRUTH.’ Thus, these terrible thoughts of a spiritually
perplexed person the Missourians declare to be ‘true.’ Of course, they also assert, that Luther
says this. But that is by no means the case. They pervert [[@VolumePage:2,169]]Luther’s words.
The Missourians themselves, however, say this and call those terrible thoughts a ‘truth.’ From
this we may see, what horrid, dreadful doctrine of predestination they hold, namely, one which
affords no consolation to anybody.”
Dr. Walther: “Prof. St. quotes the following words from the synodical report of our Western
District of the year 1879: ‘He who is spiritually perplexed’… After having quoted these our
words, Prof. St. suddenly stops short, and exclaims horrorstruck: ‘Is this not terrible?’—To this
we reply in the first place: Yes, indeed! this is ‘terrible’; but is it perhaps not true? Must not that
take place, of which God foreknows that it will take place? Can God, perhaps, be mistaken in His
foreknowledge, so that, what he foreknows, does not take place after all?… Only a fool will
affirm this, who does not believe in the omniscience and infallibility of God. Now then, if God
foreknows who are NON-elect, because they die in their unbelief (and, we hope, no one will deny
that God foreknows that also): will and can, in that case, such persons be saved after all, because
they hear the Word of God assiduously, although without faith, because they receive absolution
assiduously, although without faith, because they go to the Lord’s Supper assiduously, although
without faith? Only a heathen, but no Christian, least of all a Lutheran Christian, will affirm that.
Even Prof. St. will not dare affirm it… Now, if a person who is spiritually perplexed, says.: ‘Ah!
if I am not one of the elect, I may be ever so assiduous in hearing the Word of God, in receiving
absolution, in going to the Lord’s Supper, it is all in vain,’ must we, in that case, reply to such a
person: ‘Although thou art not one of the elect, it will not do thee any harm; if only thou leadest
an externally Christian life, thou canst and wilt be saved after all?’ Must we not, on the contrary,
admit: ‘Yes, indeed, it is true, if thou wert one of the non-elect, thy going to church, &c., would
certainly not help thee to go to heaven?’… But, of course, a faithful pastor, having admitted to
the spiritually perplexed person that he indeed cannot be saved, if he is not one of the elect, must
not let the matter rest here; but now a faithful pastor must show to the spiritually perplexed
person that the thought: ‘I am not one of the elect, and therefore also all my going to church, all
my receiving absolution, all my going to communion, is in vain,’ that this thought is suggested
by the devil, because the Word of God promises mercy, justification and salvation to all poor
sinners; that, if he clings to this, he may and must firmly believe that he also is one of the elect…
—In this matter, however, Prof. St. is repeatedly guilty of a most dishonest proceeding also in
other respects. Of this we will now add [[@VolumePage:2,170]]but a few words. The words
cited from our synodical report are nothing but an affirmation of what had been quoted from
Luther immediately previous to them. Now, if St. intended to deal honestly with his readers, he,
of course, ought to have quoted these words of Luther also, and to have at least endeavored to
show that we misunderstood or misused Luther’s words. But what does St. do? He simply omits
Luther’s words; for he knew well enough that every reader, when learning Luther’s words,
would say, or at least might possibly say: ‘Why, St.! what the St. Louis men say, is nothing else
but what Luther said! Dost thou mean to stigmatize also our father Luther as a heretic, in order to
bring the St. Louis men into disrepute?’ Yes, he feared that at least some of his readers would
form this judgment, and for that reason he rather does not cite at all the words of Luther quoted
by us! This is indeed shrewd and cunning; but is it honest? No, it is very dishonest!—But even
with that Prof. St. was not yet satisfied: instead of honestly communicating to his readers the
words of Luther, to which our words refer, he not only does not even cite a syllable of them, but
he also writes; ‘But Luther himself is to have taught thus, say the St. Louis men! Luther does not
teach thus at all, although at the first glance he may appear to do so.’… What sort of readers of
his tract had the Professor in view, we wonder, when he wrote this?— Either such as do not ask
for proof and take his word for it, or such as ‘love to dance, for whom, therefore, it is easy
fiddling,’ that is, such as in advance already take for certain all that is written against the hated
‘St. Louis men,’ whether it be true or not… —But… Prof. St. does not only not cite Luther’s
words to which we referred, but he also omits what we added in explanation of our words
contested by him. For in our synodical report after, and that immediately after the words quoted
by St., it reads as follows: ‘But now he’ (Luther) ‘offers also his universal medicine, the Gospel,
saying: If, however, on that account thou thinkest that thou shalt be damned, then these are thy
own thoughts; God has no such thoughts, for God will have all men to be saved. This he has
plainly revealed, and for no other reason than that thou shalt believe it. Then, if all men are to be
saved, thou knowest that thou also art to be saved, for thou art one of them.—It is quite
wonderful, how purely, powerfully, and consolingly Luther teaches the universality of God’s
grace; it is, therefore, an infamous calumny on Luther, to say (and we meet with such slander
also here in America) that Luther was a Particularism that is, that he denied the universality of
God’s grace; while no one has ever taught it so emphatically as he did.’ This
[[@VolumePage:2,171]]we added. Of this, however, Prof. St. does not cite a single word, but
suddenly cuts our words short, and (as though he shuddered at reading them) exclaims: ‘Is this
not terrible?’ Yes, Prof. St., this is ‘terrible’ indeed; not, however, what we wrote, but that you
omitted our explanation and put quite another construction upon our words than their real
meaning is. For Prof. St. construes our words so as to make us teach the horrible doctrine that
God, in the selection of persons, did not take into consideration ‘whether they would, in spite of
all His grace, die in persistent unbelief.’ This, indeed, surpasses all the other falsifications by
which Prof. St. in his tract trespassed against us.” (Review, pp. 46—56.)
Again: “What does Prof. St. answer to this? … ‘In order to make this explanation appear
plausible, Dr. W. presents to us such a spiritually perplexed person, as certainly there never yet
was one. For who did ever hear of a ‘spiritually perplexed person,’ that had such thoughts (as,
according to this explanation, he must have had): ‘If God knows that I am not one of the elect,
because I shall die in willful unbelief, I may conduct myself outwardly ever so much like a
Christian, hear the Word of God and go to the Lord’s Supper without faith, yet it is all in vain?’
That would be a queer ‘spiritually perplexed person,’ to be sure! And this is likewise a queer way
of getting out of a scrape. But is it an ‘honest’ one?'—To this we answer, in the first place, the
following: Mr. St. thus does evidently concede that, if there were such ‘spiritually perplexed’
persons, our explanation would be satisfactory. But as there have been and still are a great many
of such spiritually perplexed persons, we are heartily content with his criticism. For that he never
yet met with such persons, we will readily believe; that, however, does not prove anything, for he
was pastor of a congregation but for a very short time. If he had been pastor for a longer period,
and if in that position he had earned the confidence of spiritually perplexed Christians, that also
in such difficult spiritual affairs he was an experienced man, he certainly would have met with
spiritually perplexed persons that were much ‘queerer’ yet (as he is pleased to call it). In the
second place: Since Prof. St. does not enter into our detailed and thorough explication, we beg
leave to refer our dear readers to our ‘Review,’ if they care to persuade themselves of the
correctness of our statement.” (Correction, pp. 153 s.)
8. Prof. St. writes: “According to this doctrine of Missouri, therefore, not all men can really
be saved. God has indeed given innumerable assurances in His Word that He wishes to save all
men without exception, but in eternity He has [[@VolumePage:2,172]]arranged it so that by far
the greatest number of men cannot be saved at all. When He decreed, which men should
infallibly go to heaven, He did not take into consideration whether men would apprehend
Christ’s merit in faith. But faith, according to our Confession, makes the only difference among
men. If, therefore, in election God did not take faith into consideration, all men were fully equal
in His eyes. And if then He could elect some, He could also elect all. If nevertheless He did not
do it, He simply would not do it. And as no one is saved that is not elected, God does not really
wish to save all men; on the contrary, although He could have done otherwise, He arranged it so
through His predestination, that by far the greatest number of men cannot be saved, while the
few elect must be saved. This and nothing else is at the bottom of Missouri’s doctrine, although
as yet they are afraid of declaring it always so plainly and fairly. Sometimes, however, they do
declare it, for instance in the passage cited above and in the following (West. Report, 1877, p.
25): ‘Yes, God has elected to salvation a certain number of men already from eternity; He has
decreed that these shall and MUST be saved; and as surely as God is God, so surely these will be
saved, and BESIDE THEM NO OTHERS’.”
Dr. Walther: “Prof. St. criticizes the great, majestic God, so as to shock a pious reader. As an
arch-rationalist he determines precisely, what God could have done and what He could not have
done, what He could have willed and what He could not have willed, and finally, what He must
have done, if He had earnestly willed it. Yea, finally St. even deals in irony, that is, in ridicule,
and says: ‘Then, notwithstanding all His sweet ( ! ) promises that he would gladly save all men,
He would have arranged it so through His predestination that only the smallest number COULD
be saved. And this He would have done, although He could have easily done otherwise, if He
had only wished.’ We shudder at having these words even reprinted here. For in these words the
great, mysterious God is placed before the tribunal of human reason, and is read a lecture by a
human being, that compared to Him is but a miserable ‘worm’ (Job 25.6.). Even if Prof. St. has
so little fear of God, as to prescribe such rules to Him, he should at least cease to appeal to the
old Lutheran theologians, who were so modest and humble in speaking of the concerns of God,
as to his predecessors in doctrine. For they confessed that God could have indeed converted all
men, but that a human being, when coming to speak of this point, must command silence to his
reason, lay his hand upon his mouth, and say with St. Paul: ‘O the depth, &c.!’ (Rom. 11. 33—
36.)”—In the following, Dr. [[@VolumePage:2,173]]Walther proves this by several citations
from the writings of Chemnitz, Andreae, Selneccer, Koerner, &c. (Review, pp. 38—44.)
Again: “On page 55 of Stellhorn’s ‘Examination’ it reads: ‘On page 39’ (of our ‘Review’) ‘we
are said to ‘determine precisely as an arch-rationalist, what God could have done and what He
could not have-done.’ On page 35 Dr. W. does the same thing in quite the same manner, for he
says: ‘We teach that God could not have elected any one to salvation, if He had not also elected
him to faith.’ The Formula of Concord also does the same thing in stating exactly ([[p. 555, § 12
>> BookOfConcord:Formula:Ep:xi:12]]) in whom the Holy Spirit cannot perform His work. The
‘criticizing’ is a mere invention of Dr. W. Commonly it is called drawing correct’ (?)
‘conclusions. On the same page the old Lutheran theologians are said’ ( ?! ) ‘to have confessed
that God indeed could have converted all men. That this has reference to the absolute
omnipotence, which, however, God will not exercise in the work of conversion, and that,
therefore, the expression is not good and proper, Dr. W. knows very well.’ So far Mr. St. In the
following he shows quite correctly that we ourselves referred these expressions of the old
Lutheran theologians to the absolute omnipotence, and then he adds: ‘But that we do not speak of
that which God can do according to His absolute omnipotence, but of that which He can do
according to the order of salvation, which He Himself has established, every reader of our tract
will perceive at the first glance.’—Yes, if that were only true! In that case we cheerfully would
retract our reproof (that he criticized God) and would only object to his conclusions. But Prof. St.
wrote in his tract ‘Worum,’ p. 12 s. as follows: ‘If God would or could have been guided by the
merit of Christ without taking into consideration whether this merit had been apprehended and
retained in faith or not, then He could have elected all men without exception; and if He had not
done so, then the cause thereof would have to be found in His will alone. For then He would
have failed to elect all men, only because He WOULD not, although He COULD. Then,
notwithstanding all His sweet ( ! ) promises that He would gladly save all men, He would have
ARRANGED it so through His predestination that only the smallest number COULD be saved. And
this He would have done, although He could have easily done otherwise, if He had only
wished.’—‘Every reader’ of Prof. St.’s tract ‘perceives at the first glance’ (in order to use his
own words) that he evidently does not only speak of that which God ‘can do and cannot do
according to the order of salvation which He Himself has established,’ but at the same time of
that which [[@VolumePage:2,174]]in general He could and might do or not do according to His
absolute omnipotence, yea, how His order of salvation ought to have been constituted. For, in the
first place, he does not mention by a single word this distinction between the revealed and the
absolute will of God, which here was so necessary; and in the second place, he says point-blank:
if God would have failed to elect all men, only because He would not, although He could, ‘then
He would have ARRANGED IT SO through His predestination that only the smallest number could
be saved.’ Thus Prof. St. gives directions to God, how He ought to have ‘arranged’ it, if He
wanted to be justified before human reason and to be clear of partiality; yea, he says that, if God
would not also do all that He could do, then it is His own fault that only the smallest number can
be saved. That Prof. St. would prevaricate, if he were attacked, and plead that he only spoke of
the revealed will of God, we had already suspected; for this reason, already on page 44 of our
‘Review,’ in order to help him to a better knowledge of his own self, we put the following words
into his mouth: ‘Of course, I know, when I say that God could not have converted and brought to
faith all men, because He has once for all established His order of salvation,—that even THUS I
have not in the least solved the mystery.’ Why does he not answer an earthly word to this
reproof?—For the simple reason, because he found himself defeated. And why did he not try, as
he is wont to do at other times, to comment upon the passages from the old theologians which we
had quoted, so that they would agree with his doctrine? For the simple reason, because they
cannot be explained in such a manner with any pretence to justice. For Andreae, for instance,
writes: That this grace or this gift of faith is not given by God unto all, although He calls all, and
that earnestly, according to His infinite goodness: ‘Come unto the marriage, all things are
ready’,—is a profound mystery, known to God alone, inscrutable by human reason, a mystery
which we are to meditate upon with awe and to adore; for it is written: ‘O the depth etc.’!—
Again Chemnitz writes: ‘How is it that God does not bestow such faith upon the heart of Judas,
so that he also could have believed that Christ could help him? Here we must restrain our
questions and say (Rom. 11.): ‘O the depth etc.’!—Again Selneccer writes: ‘Although God could
convert all non-willing persons into willing persons, He nevertheless does not do so; and for not
doing so He has His most just and wise reasons which we are not to explore.’—Again Koerner
writes: ‘His (God’s) judgments, according to which He elects and saves one, but does not elect
and save the other, no man with his thoughts in no manner [[@VolumePage:2,175]]whatsoever,
can explore and find out.’—Again, Chemnitz, Selneccer and Kirchner, in the official Apology of
the Formula of Concord, jointly write thus: ‘If, however, the question is asked, why the Lord
through His Holy Spirit does not convert and bring to faith all men etc., (and this, indeed, He
could do), we must say with the Apostle: ‘How unsearchable are His judgments etc.!’—All these
passages we had pointed out to Prof. St. and had quoted them still more fully. Why—we repeat
it—did he not reply to it?—Because he knew that he could not reply anything, except perhaps
this, that he was speaking only, ‘of the order of salvation which God Himself had established’;
because he also knew at the same time that the unexplainable mystery consists in this very fact,
that God has not determined to convert, bring to faith, and save all men by means of His
absolute omnipotence; and because finally he knew that he is not allowed to draw any
conclusion impeaching God from the fact that God will not do many things, although He could
do them; that, on the contrary, together with St. Paul, Chemnitz, Andreae, Selneccer, Kirchner,
Koerner, and other truly Lutheran theologians, he should command silence to his reason and
humbly exclaim: ‘O the depth etc.!’” (Correction pp. 150—152).
Again: “On p. 16 of his tract he (Prof. St.) cites from the synodical report of our Western
District of the year 1877 the following words: ‘Yes, God has elected to salvation a certain
number of men already from eternity; He has decreed that these shall and must be saved; and as
surely as God is God, so surely these too shall be saved, and beside them no other.’ … Now, that
this is nothing but the precise truth, no one can deny who believes yet that the Bible is the Word
of God. For Christ plainly says: ‘There shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show
great signs and wonders; insomuch that, IF IT WERE POSSIBLE, they shall deceive the very elect’
(Matth. 24. 24.). Consequently, according to the words of Christ, it is IMPOSSIBLE that the elect
also are deceived and are lost. Compare John 10. 28. Again, the holy apostle Paul writes thus:
‘Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect?… I am persuaded, that neither death, nor
life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, northings present, northings to come, nor height,
nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in
Christ Jesus, our Lord.’ (Rom. 8. 33, 38. compare [[28—30. >> Rom 8.28-30]]) That the words
which Prof. St. cites from our synodical report, contain the precise truth, least of all those can
deny that claim to be Lutherans. For in our public Lutheran Confession it reads as follows: ‘The
eternal election of God not only foresees and[[@VolumePage:2,176]] foreknows the salvation of
the elect, but through His gracious will and good pleasure in Christ Jesus is also the cause which
procures, works, facilitates, and promotes our salvation and whatever pertains to it; AND UPON
THIS OUR SALVATION IS SO FIRMLY GROUNDED THAT THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL
AGAINST IT; for it is written: Neither shall any pluck my sheep out of my hand; and again: And
as
many as were ordained to eternal life believed.’ (p. 705 s.) Again: ‘This doctrine’ (concerning
predestination) ‘also affords the eminent and precious consolation, that God… wished to secure
my salvation so truly and firmly, THAT IN HIS ETERNAL PURPOSE, WHICH CANNOT FAIL OR BE
OVERTHROWN, HE DECREED IT’ (namely my salvation) ‘and to secure it, placed it in the
omnipotent hands of our Saviour Jesus Christ, out of which none shall pluck us, John 10. 28. For
if our salvation were committed unto us, it might easily be lost through the weakness and
wickedness of our flesh, or be taken and plucked out of our hands, by the fraud and power of the
devil and the world. Hence St. Paul, Rom. 8. says: SINCE we are called according to the purpose
of God, who shall separate us from the love of God, which is in Jesus Christ our Lord?’ (p. 714).
— Who, then, can be so bold as to pronounce the words, cited from our synodical report,
unlutheran?—But St. says, you add the words: ‘And beside them’ (namely the elect) ‘no others’,
which words St. has underlined twice, in order to emphasize the hideousness of our doctrine.
Hence, the poor man seems not to have read that in the day of judgment only the ‘elect’ shall be
gathered into the everlasting barns, as we have remarked already above; he also seems not to
have read that, according to the words of our Confession ‘ONLY the elect will be saved’ (p. 709).”
(Review p. 57 s.)
9. Prof. St. writes: “Is not this a terrible doctrine? This, however is the necessary consequence
of rejecting the old Lutheran doctrine that God has elected His children in view of faith, or in
view of Christ’s merit embraced through faith. For this reason our most able Lutheran
theologians, nearly 300 years ago, pronounced the following judgment: ‘That, when there is
taught such a particularity that God should have chosen to eternal life only a few certain and
particular persons at random, and without reference to faith, simply because it pleased God to do
so, this we regard as CALVINISTIC and UNCHRISTIAN.’”
Dr. Walther: “It is foolish to apply these words to us. This becomes evident immediately, if
we consider against whom they are directed. Namely they are directed against the charge of a
man like Huber, that Leyser, and others taught Calvinism, [[@VolumePage:2,177]]because they
rejected his (Huber’s) doctrine that God from eternity elected to salvation all men (heathen,
Jews, Turks, in short, all unbelievers included), that, consequently, faith is out of question here.
Over against this horrible doctrine Leyser and other theologians confess in the cited passage, that
although they reject this universal election as taught by Huber and indeed teach a particular
election, they nevertheless reject the CALVINISTIC PARTICULARITY, namely according to which
God is to have elected to salvation a few persons, irrespectively of, Christ and of faith,
absolutely, ‘at random’, and is to have determined only after making this absolute decree and
after finishing such mere ‘military review’ and such arbitrary election, that He would cause only
these, already absolutely elected persons to be redeemed, only these to be eflicaciously called,
only these (and that through an irresistible grace) to be brought to faith and to persevere in it unto
the end; that, on the contrary He would not cause to be redeemed, nor eflicaciously call, nor
bring to faith all the rest, but pass them by with His grace. All this, however, we reject and
condemn from the bottom of our heart, as well as Leyser and other theologians connected with
him, and this our opponents know very well. That doctrine, therefore, which in the cited passage
is rejected as ‘Calvinistic and unchristian’, does no more appertain to us, than the reproach of the
fanatics was to the point, when they accused Luther of being a twofold Papist, because he had
retained private confession which they declared to be nothing else but the papistical auricular
confession. Not less shameful than this reproach of the fanatics, is the charge of Prof. St. who
declares our doctrine to be ‘Calvinistic,’ because we (together with the Calvinists, as he
pretends) will not make the foresight of faith the reason of election.” (Correction p. 33.)
10. Prof. St. concludes his cheap tract with the following disgraceful words: “Whoever,
therefore, loves his old Lutheran faith and his soul’s salvation, must in good earnest beware of
this new doctrine” (of Missouri) “and must not suffer himself to be misled and disconcerted by
the fact that Dr. Walther, the father and chief defender of the new doctrine, was in former days
with good reason esteemed so highly on account of his orthodoxy, and has still such a great name
and so many partisans. For also the Pope was in former times the most orthodox bishop in all
christendom, and has still the greatest name and the most partisans, and nevertheless he is
Antichrist.”
Dr. Walther, in concluding his ‘Review’ of Prof. St.’s first tract, writes: ‘“Finis coronat opus!’
is an old proverb, the meaning of which is: ‘The end crowns the work.’ How,
[[@VolumePage:2,178]]then, does the end crown the work of Prof. St.’s little tract? … Prof. St.
is not satisfied with accusing us of teaching a false doctrine, nay, he is not even satisfied with
joining ‘Altes und Neues’ in its coarse and boisterous cry of ‘Calvinism! Calvinism!’—but… he
now goes even so far as to stigmatize us as men who have ‘associated themselves with the
archenemies of the pure Lutheran doctrine, the Calvinists.’”
Our readers will perceive that in his latest, cheapest tract Prof. St. goes yet a step further. Not
satisfied with stigmatizing that great and good man to whom, next to God, he owes what little he
may know of truly Lutheran theology, as an associate of the arch-enemies of the pure Lutheran
doctrine, the Calvinists, he is not even ashamed of drawing a parallel between Dr. Walther
and—ANTICHRIST!! Comment is unnecessary.
Thus we have proved by documentary evidence that also in his latest tract Prof. St.,—the very
same man who avails himself of every occasion, in season and out of season, to preach the eighth
commandment to others, — has repeatedly been guilty of deliberate falsehood and foulmouthed
slander. For the very same charges which in his former tract he had preferred against the
Missouri Synod in general and against Dr. Walther in particular, which, as Prof. St. knew, had
been disproved time and again in the most able and thorough manner, these very same charges
the Columbus tractarian in cool impudence simply reiterates in his latest infamous scribble,
which, therefore, although it may admirably answer its purpose of being used as an Ohio
‘campaign-document’ against the hated and dreaded Missouri Synod, we are perfectly justified
in characterizing as a very “CHEAP” tract. A. C.
General Religious Intelligence.
MOODY, the “Evangelist,” has been Invited to go to Asia Minor as a missionary.
GIRARD COLLEGE.—The well-known condition left on Girard College by its founder,
excluding ministers from its doors and forbidding all sectarian religious teaching, is said to have
been violated for many years. “The officers of the Girard estate,” it is explained, “have always
felt that while sectarianism was to be excluded from the college, religion, as a principle of life,
was to be inculcated in the minds of the youth, who received the benefit of the institution.”
IN THE PRIMITIVE METHODIST DENOMINATION seventy new churches were erected during the
year, accommodating 18,000 and costing £78,296. [[@VolumePage:2,179]]The two theological
colleges have been temporarily suspended. There is an over supply of candidates, and no more
can be accepted for a time. It is the same in Wesleyanism, and the Rev. Charles Garrett, the
President of the Conference, appeals for £5000 to send the unemployed young men, for whom no
circuits are available, out as home missionaries to break up new ground. ALPH.
“THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL.” A company of very serious-minded people have put in an
appearance on Trumbull avenue, just north of Grand River, Mich. It numbers three husbands and
their wives, one young woman, two young men and a small child, ten in all. They travel in three
large covered wagons, specially prepared for their purpose. They also have a double carriage and
10 horses. They have two tents, one for the horses about 20 feet square, and one in which to hold
religious services 50 by 70 feet. Nearly one-third of the larger tent is partitioned off with a
curtain and used for household purposes. They are representatives of “The house of Israel,” and
are travelling from place to place in search of the members of the true Israel of God. The chief
ones of the party are James Jeshurun Jezreel—about 40 years old—and wife, recently arrived
from England, and Noah Drew and wife, who have had their home on a farm six miles northwest
of Howell in this State for the past 40 years. Mr. and Mrs. Drew are aged people. From a special
study of the prophecies of the bible and from observation of the general and growing dearth of
religious power in the “gentile” churches, these persons and their associates are convinced that
the times of the gentiles are closing very fast, and that God is setting his hand again the second
time to recover the true descendants of Abraham, or children of the free woman. All these are
now living, some, perhaps, mere babes in age and the rest of other years. They are scattered
throughout the entire world, very few and far between as to localities. They number just 144,000,
as indicated in Revelation, and when gathered will constitute the twelve tribes of Israel. Of these
tribes two are to be gathered out from among the two tribes of the Hebrews that returned from
captivity, and 10 from among the lost tribes. They further differ from Christendom in believing
in the complete redemption of “body, soul and spirit” from all sin, and as physical death is the
wages of sin they hold that these 144,000 will never die physically, but be those who “shall not
all sleep” and will be caught up to meet the descending Lord in the air. The gentile or present
churches have the two, and only two principles of faith and repentance, while the House of Israel
has beside these the promises of immortality this side, or without death. As Christ ascended into
heaven with his mortal body made immortal, so it shall be with these. It is furthermore stated that
the body of Christ contained 144,000 bones, and each of these true Israelites is one bone, the
whole constituting his perfect body or bride. This present time marks the fullness of the
dispensation of the Holy Spirit, only the shadow of which was experienced on the day of
Pentecost. Because of this fullness of the Spirit the true Israelites will be able to overcome all
evil and attain to physical immortality. It is not held, however, that every one who accepts the
doctrines and unites with the House of Israel, is thereby proved to be a genuine Israelite and
destined to the blessing of escape from the death of the grave. Many of even the most devout will
be proved mistaken, or for some other reason will be rejected in this respect, although they and
many from other “churches” shall be saved. These peculiar [[@VolumePage:2,180]]doctrines are
not claimed to be new, because they come only from the bible, but they have been kept secret for
many generations, and are now revealed in these “last times.” Mr. Jezreel, of the party now in
Detroit, is not only their leader, he is also the divinely appointed head, or “instrument” of the
House of Israel in the entire world. His headship marks the beginning of the third watch of the
passage which speaks of Christ’s coming in the second or third watch. The first watch began
some 60 years ago and continued less than 25 years, and was succeeded by the second watch,
which in turn gave way to the present watch. The fourth watch will be the millenium, being
ushered in by the personal coming of Christ, but the day and hour of this coming are not
revealed. He will appear about the close of this century, when his people become ready to
receive him. When in 1875 Mr. Jezreel received revelation of his call to this work, he was sent
by the Spirit into Egypt, where he remained six years. During this time, and under divine
inspiration, somewhat like John in the isle of Patmos, he wrote a book called the Flying Roll, a
volume of religious instruction for the people at large. This he sent in parts to the House of Israel
in England and they had it printed. It is now accepted as God’s latest revelation to his people.
Mr. Jezreel heads his small bills advertising the meetings with the phrase “The Messenger of the
Lord.” He closes them with the quotation from Malachi: “Behold I will send my messenger, and
he shall prepare the way before me— ‘shiloh,’ and unto him shall the gathering of the people
be.” Mr. Jezreel’s followers, the entire House of Israel throughout the world, apply this prophecy
to him, and consider him as a second John the Baptist, or the forerunner of Christ in his second
coming. This belief is held and promulgated, so far as taught at all, very modestly and devoutly,
Mr. Jezreel’s adherents seeming to be entirely removed from that self-confidence and boisterous
method of assertion sometimes found among the advocates of unusual doctrines.— Like Israel in
the wilderness, they journey both as to time and place only as commanded by God. It is therefore
wholly uncertain how long they will remain in Detroit. Mr. Jezreel has been sick at one of the
hotels since coming into the city last Saturday, which has prevented all public services thus far.
His malady is a somewhat mysterious one which has afflicted him at times since he was called to
this work. It is spoken of as similar to Paul’s thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan sent to
buffet him for some divine purpose. He was sufficiently recovered last evening to be removed to
his usual home at the tent in one of the wagons. The tent work began at Howell some two weeks
ago, and the result was the organization of a “church” there of six members, four from Howell,
one from Fowlerville, and one from Detroit. The party has since spent a week at Ypsilanti, but
are not yet aware of the full results. The probabilities are that not more than a half-dozen of the
144,000 bones of the body of Christ will be found here. When cold weather comes the present
party and those who may have joined them will scatter by twos for a wider promulgation of
doctrine. When Mr. Drew and his wife united with the church they were obliged to go to New
York, where is an organization of 200 or more members. The earliest members in the United
States went for such purpose to England, where the church originated. It is strongest in Australia,
there numbering thousands.—Extract from “The Echo” No. 201. Detroit.
[[@VolumePage:2,181]]
THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL
MONTHLY.
Vol. 2. December 1882. No. 12.
(For the “Theological Monthly.”)
Wilful Resistance.
Prof. Loy in the Standard of Aug. 5. wants to know whether we pronounce the answer to be
true which he himself gives to the question: “Why are some men not saved, notwithstanding all
that God has done and does for them?” His answer is: “Because some men wilfully resist as
others who are saved do not.” He adds: “The question that should be settled prior to all
discussion of these difficulties is whether the answer is true or not. That the Scriptures give it,
and that our Confessions repeat it, is so evident that it would seem reckless to deny the fact. Is
that answer true? … We emphatically declare that it is, and are ready to face all consequences
which the truth may involve.” As to the first part of this answer, Prof. L. well knows that we
never gave the least occasion to any one to doubt that we sincerely and earnestly teach that
“some men are not saved because they wilfully resist.” But as the second part of Prof. L.’s
answer denies that a man may be converted and saved who is involved in the same crime (in
eadem culpa haeret) with him who is hardened, blinded, and given up to a reprobate mind, [[F. of
C. XI, 5-7., >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:5-7]] we in accordance with the Confession of
the Lutheran church reject this part of Prof. L.’s answer.
And when Prof. L., in the same article in which he wants an answer from us to his question,
writes: “No, says Missouri, the conduct of man has nothing to do with the matter… Those who
are not elected cannot be saved, as the elective cause of salvation is lacking, man’s resistance,
wilful or otherwise, has nothing to do with it,” we, as Prof. L. knows as
[[@VolumePage:2,182]]well, are perfectly justified in calling this assertion of his a base slander.
This shall however not prevent our offering some explanations of the diversities in Prof. L.’s and
our doctrines concerning his question and answer.
First. Prof. L. makes an unconfessional and unscriptural distinction between natural and wilful
resistance. He writes, e. g.: “Wilful resistance to divine grace… is thus opposed to natural
resistance… In one sense all resist. All have by nature the carnal mind which is enmity against
God, and no one can rid himself of that carnality and enmity. But when the Holy Ghost
approaches man with His converting and saving grace, some are contumacious and resist
wilfully, refusing the light and the life which He brings… In the sinfulness of our nature lies the
repugnance to the grace of God which is common to all men, … but the wilfulness is something
superadded by his will.” Col. Th. Mag. II, 260. 265. 267. The Formula of Concord, however,
like the Holy Scriptures, knows only of a natural resistance of man, as it also only knows of a
natural man, a natural understanding, heart and will, before conversion. Natural resistance is, in
general, the resistance which takes its origin from the natural heart and will of man, whether it be
conscious or unconscious. Whenever the natural will resists, we have natural resistance. The
Formula of Concord says: “Natural free will, according to its corrupt disposition and nature, is
powerful and active to do only that which is displeasing and contrary to God.” [[Art. II.
Declaration, § 7. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:7]] “The understanding, heart and will of
natural, unregenerated man… is so miserably perverted, poisoned and corrupted by original sin
that, by disposition and nature, it is altogether evil and contumacious and inimical to God, and
only too powerful, alive and active to do what is displeasing and contrary to God. Gen. 8. The
imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Jer. 17. The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately wicked.” [[§ 17. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:17]] “Natural or carnal free
will, even after regeneration, strives against God’s law, much more will it be contumacious and
inimical to God’s Law and will before regeneration. . . From its innate, evil, contumacious (pro
insita sua rebelli et contumaci = according to its innate rebellious and contumacious) nature it
hostilely [[@VolumePage:2,183]]strives against God and His will, if it is not enlightened and
governed by God’s Spirit. Wherefore the Holy Scriptures also compare the heart of
unregenerated man to a hard stone which yields not to him who touches it, but resists, and to a
rough block, and to a wild, untamed animal.” [[§ 18. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:18]]
Here we have a short description of natural resistance which may be very wilful. Wilful
resistance should not be opposed to natural resistance since it is owing to the nature of an
unregenerated man’s will when the latter is powerful, alive and active to do only that which is
displeasing and contrary to God, when it is desperately wicked, when it hostilely strives against
God and His Law, when it resists in any manner, and is like a wild, untamed animal. This
wilfulness is not superadded to natural resistance, but natural resistance itself. Man resists God
and His will wilfully by the power of his natural will. “Man after the fall . . . continually keeps
on in his security, knowingly and willingly also, and thus gets into a thousand dangers and,
finally, into eternal death and damnation. No beseeching, no entreating, no admonishing, not
even threatening or chiding, is of any avail, yea, all teaching and preaching is lost on him before
he is enlightened, converted and regenerated by the Holy Spirit.” [[§ 19—21. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:19-21]] Here we hear how man after the fall conducts himself
towards God and His Word. Such conduct is natural to him. He cannot act otherwise unless he is
converted. In the doctrine of conversion we are to be occupied, on the one hand, with man’s
corrupt and contumacious nature, with the inability and wickedness of our natural free will, and,
on the other hand, with God’s grace, with our conversion and regeneration as a work of God
alone and not of our powers. As long as a man who has heard the Word is not enlightened,
converted, and regenerated, he keeps on in his natural or carnal security. Although he well knows
from the Word that he is not to do so, he nevertheless does so willingly, and thus by not heeding
the beseeching, the entreating, the admonishing, the threatening or chiding, or any other teaching
and preaching of the Holy Spirit he resists more or less wilfully the work which it is the Holy
Spirit’s will to effect in his understanding, heart and will. This wilfulness is not superadded to
what is natural in man, but the natural evilness, [[@VolumePage:2,184]]rebelliousness and
contumacy of the human heart show themselves in this manner where conversion has not taken
place.
The Formula of Concord, therefore, from a fear, as it were, of saying too much or too little,
attributes the cause of the damnation of those who, having heard the Word, are the more deeply
damned simply to themselves. The words to which we have reference are the following: “The
cause that not all those who have heard the Word believe and are therefore the more deeply
damned, is not that God grudged them salvation, but they themselves are in fault, because they
have heard the Word in such a manner as not to learn, but only to despise, to blaspheme and
disgrace it, and have resisted the Holy Spirit whose will it was to work in them through the
Word.” [[Art. XI. Decl. § 78. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:78]] Their natural, evil,
rebellious and contumacious hearts have led them not only to hear the word in such a manner as
not to learn, but only to despise, to blaspheme and disgrace it, but also to resist the Holy Spirit.
All this is therefore not a resistance that is superadded to natural resistance, but natural resistance
itself fully developed.
The resistance of the contumacious heart and will is contumacious resistance. Such resistance,
if persevered in, is the cause of a man’s damnation. The Formula of Concord declares: “All who
contumaciously, perseveringly (widerspeustig = contumaciter et perseveranter) strive against the
workings and motions of the Holy Spirit which take place through the Word, do not receive, but
grieve and lose the Holy Spirit.” [[Art. II. Decl. § 83. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:83]]
Thus, again, natural resistance is the cause.
And if we especially ask what is the cause of the contempt of the Word the answer is very
plain. The Formula of Concord says: “For few receive and follow the Word; the greatest
multitude despise the Word and will not come to the wedding. Of such contempt of the Word the
cause is not God’s predestination, but man’s perverse will which rejects or perverts the means
and instrument of the Holy Ghost which God offers to it through the call, and strives against
(repugnat) the Holy Ghost whose will it is to be powerful, and who works, through the Word; as
Christ says: How often would I have gathered thee together, and thou wouldst not, Matt. 23. 37.”
[[Art. XI. Decl. § 41. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:41]][[@VolumePage:2,185]]
If Prof. L. distinguished between natural and wilful resistance merely for the sake of teaching,
no one would have .anything to say against it. But he has not the conception of human resistance
as it has been delivered to us in the Scriptures and by our fathers in the Formula of Concord. In
many places in the Standard as well as in the Magazine he confounds most horribly what must
be distinguished and makes opposite things of what in fact is one and the same thing, whilst the
key to the true doctrine here is no other than that it is man’s natural will which does all the
resistance, even the most wilful. He himself is obliged to acknowledge that “the distinction thus
made (by him between natural and wilful resistance) does not remove all difficulty.” Col. Th.
Mag. II. 265. But when it is considered that the “distinction” was invented by man for this very
purpose, why then cling to such an invention to the detriment of true doctrine?
Secondly. The word “wilful” is taken in such a signification by Prof. L. as to exclude any
meaning in which the word is taken to express a very low stage or degree of wilfulness, and,
besides, there is introduced into the definition at the very start, so to say, an extraneous element,
namely that of “free choice.” Webster’s dictionary is indeed quoted as an authority. This
dictionary says “wilful” means “governed by the will without yielding to reason.” Here the
lowest degree of wilfulness is not excluded, but rather included. Only, when we, in theology,
treat of man’s wilful resistance, we consider man as being under the government and rule of his
natural will without yielding to God and His Word, at least not at once. The dictionary then says
“wilful” also means, “obstinate; perverse; inflexible; stubborn; refractory,” to denote the worse
degrees. Yet Prof. L. writes: “General usage decides that… a wilful act is one that is
performed… with & free choice… An act is not wilful when there is no choice.” Col. Th. Mag.
II, 259. 260. This speaks for itself. It would follow therefrom, among other things, that a natural
man who, according to God’s Word and our Confessions, has no free choice between good and
evil, but can only choose and do evil as a bound captive of Satan, may commit the greatest
crimes without performing any wilful acts. [[@VolumePage:2,186]]
The German word “muthwillig” which is commonly translated “wilful” (or “wilfully”) in
English and is employed by the Germans when they speak of wilful resistance, for which they
say muthwilliges Widerstreben,—is composed of Muth and willig. Muth, according to
Kaltschmidt, is “mood, must” (e. g. of grapes), “mead, the sparkling” (e. g. of wine), “scum,
spirit, inward impulse, sprightliness, feeling of strength, fearlessness, undauntedness, boldness,
self-confidence, courageousness (courage), braveness.” “Willig” is “willing.” The Germans
generally say a person does something muthwillig when he does a wrong not only willingly or
with a will to do it, but also with what is understood by Muth, e. g., with a feeling of strength, or
with boldness, or courage, etc. Thus Muthwille (wilfulness) has its lower and higher stages and
degrees. A person’s acts may be very muthwillig although he is very ignorant of what he is doing
or is acting very inconsiderately. Intelligent Germans are commonly at once aware of how the
word muthwillig is to be taken when they hear or see in which connection it stands, as it is also
with the use of the word wilful in English; but both “wilful” and “muthwillig” are terms which
can be used equivocally to such an extent, especially in hot debate, that no one knows which is
which. The expressions “to wilfully resist” and “wilful resistance” do not occur in the Scriptures
nor in the Lutheran Confessions. They are purely ecclesiastical terms which, when used
equivocally, may cause a great deal of trouble in the Church. In the Book of Concord, however,
it is always quite plain at once what the word muthwillig means, and “wilful” or “wilfully” is
undoubtedly one of the best words in the English language to express its meaning. Yet, care
should be taken not to employ or explain it in such a manner as to destroy wholly or in part the
meaning of the word muthwillig when it is designed to be a translation of this word. We say:
“Prior to all discussion of these difficulties” let us also have proper language under our feet to
stand on.
Thirdly. While the meaning which Prof. L. attaches to the word “wilful” is too short in front,
as has just been shown, it is too long behind. We Missourians maintained that wilful resistance
can be overcome by the power of divine grace. [[@VolumePage:2,187]]Prof. L. therefore
stretches the meaning of the word “wilful,” in order to make it appear as though “wilful
resistance” could not be overcome by that power. He writes, among other things: “Necessity is
therefore laid upon us… to distinguish… between the resistance that is common to all men, but
does not in itself prevent conversion,” “and which only the power of God can overcome,” “and
the resistance which is confined only to some men, but which excludes the Holy Ghost and
prevents His operations in the soul.” Col. Th. Mag. II, 262. 264. “That is the wilful resistance
which renders the accomplishment of the Holy Spirit’s work impossible as distinguished from
the natural resistance which is common to all men, but which the Holy Spirit overcomes where
wilful resistance is not superadded… When the ears are stopped and the heart is hardened by a
personal act of the individual, so that not only the blindness and depravity of nature, but the
stubbornness of the person with his individual will is thrown against the power of divine grace,
not even God can save… Some give them (the marvelous works of God) an occasional
thought… Some harden their ears and hearts against them. Only the latter belong properly to the
class of those who at the outset wilfully resist all efforts of divine grace to save them. . . By their
wilful resistance… they have put themselves beyond the reach of the Holy Spirit… He can close
the book or stop his ears and hear or read no further, and can persistently refuse to pursue any
train of thought or feeling that may have been started within him; in other words, he may
wilfully resist the work of the Holy Spirit at the very outset.” Page 264. 272. 283. 279.
Here Prof. L. introduces as an essential element into the definition of wilful resistance the
hardening of the ears and hearts and persistency, and thus denies that there are any who “wilfully
resist” for a time only. This is evidently wrong. For such as wilfully resist all efforts of divine
grace to save them can yet be saved where the resistance is not wilful in the sense that they
persevere or persist in their evil course. We remark here that we would enter into the discussion
of a quite different subject if we were in this place to treat of the manner in which “wilful
resistance” is removed or prevented by the [[@VolumePage:2,188]]power of grace in those who
are saved, since the question is not: Why are some men saved, but: “Why are some men not
saved.” Neither can an answer to the latter question at the same time be an answer to the former.
We proceed. If a man who had heretofore wilfully and stubbornly resisted all efforts of God’s
grace to save him and is now penitent, were to confess to us that he had heretofore wilfully
resisted God and His Word, we would have to tell him, according to Prof. L.’s conception of
wilful resistance, either: “It was no wilful resistance since the accomplishment of the Holy
Spirit’s work is as yet not impossible in you” (and that would be a falsehood), or: “You belong to
those who have wilfully resisted, consequently you cannot be saved” (and that would be a
falsehood, also). Hardening of the ears and hearts and persistency in the evil course can, it is
true, belong to the notion of wilful resistance, but they do not necessarily. There is such a thing
as a real wilful resistance where hardening of the ears and hearts or persistency in resistance has
not yet set in.
As an answer to his question Prof. L. cites the following words of the Formula of Concord in
his own translation: “That, however, ‘many are called, but few are chosen,’ does not mean that
God is unwilling that all should be saved, but the reason is that they either do not at all hear
God’s Word, but wilfully despise it, close their ears and harden their hearts, and in this manner
foreclose the ordinary way to the Holy Ghost, so that He cannot effect His work in them” [The
Italics are Prof. L.’s.], “or, when it is heard, they consider it of no account, and do not heed it.
For this not God nor his election, but their wickedness, is responsible.” [[Epit. 11, § 12. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:12]] From these words he draws the following conclusion:
“That is very plain. After all that the mercy of God has done for the rescue of man, some are still
lost, not because God is not willing to save them as well as the rest, but because they wilfully
block the Holy Spirit’s way, so that He cannot accomplish His salutary work in them. Both the
Scriptures and the Confessions are unmistakably clear and explicit on this point.” Standard,
August 5.
There are remarkable items worthy of being closely considered in the words quoted from the
Formula of Concord. In [[@VolumePage:2,189]]the first place, we are told that when men do not
hear God’s Word at all, but wilfully despise it, close their ears and harden their hearts (or, as the
German original has it, harden their ears and hearts), and in this manner foreclose the ordinary
way to the Holy Ghost, so that He cannot have His work in them, or when men who have heard
the Word consider it of no account and do not heed it, — their wickedness is responsible or,
rather, according to the original, is to blame, for all this. Reason says: It is God’s fault, He is the
cause, He is to blame, He could have forced these men to be other than they are, He could have
elected them like the others. The Formula of Concord therefore adds that not God nor His
election, which is His ordination to salvation, but the wickedness of those who are lost is the
fault of it or is to blame. Thus the very words which Prof. L. quotes from our Confession to
sustain his theory corroborate what has been maintained in the first part of this article.
Throughout the whole paragraph quoted the question is not: What is the cause of the election of
those few who are saved (as this question is answered in [[§ 20, >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:20]] in which “only the mercy of God and the most holy merit
of Christ” are given as the cause), but: What is the cause that most men are not elected to
salvation. In the beginning of the paragraph the original has not “reason” (since the Formula of
Concord does not want to explain the matter), but “cause (Ursache)” and, according to the Latin
edition, “the cause of the damnation of the impious (damnationis impiorum causa).” Whatever
therefore those who are not saved have done or left undone by which they have got into hell, is
all traced and attributed to their own natural wickedness, to the wickedness of the natural man, as
the cause. Therefore, when Prof. L. asks the question: “Why are some men not saved?” we are
loyal to the Lutheran Confession and the Holy Scriptures when we answer: Because they are
naturally evil and wicked and therefore resist God more or less wilfully until their end, so that
their conduct has a great deal to do with their being damned, whilst the honor of saving the rest
of mankind by changing their hearts belongs to God’s grace alone.
Further. Although there is a good deal said in the quotation about wilful resistance, it is
remarkable that the expression [[@VolumePage:2,190]]is not at all made use of and that it is not
expressly said that those who foreclose the ordinary way to the Holy Ghost do so “wilfully.”
Such an addition was manifestly quite unnecessary, the object of the Formula of Concord being
here simply to state that their wilful contempt of the Word and their hardening of their oars and
hearts result in foreclosing the ordinary way to the Holy Ghost. Surely, if the ecclesiastical term
“wilfully resist” in Prof. L.’s answer had been deemed so important by Dr. Chemnitz as to make
it a touchstone of true doctrine, this should be the place to find it; but the term “wilfully” is only
used in connection with “despise,” not with “harden.”
A third important item is that it is said that some of those who are not saved have not heard the
Word at all, but have wilfully despised it. Wilful contempt of the Word is indeed wilful resistance
against God and His Word, without the hardening of the ears and hearts being added. It is a
wilful act of such as arc under the rule and sway of their natural, wicked will. Many have resisted
wilfully by wilfully despising the Word and have nevertheless been turned and saved, so that
most wilful resistance which is a hardening of man’s own heart did not set in at all.
The Formula of Concord says: “Those who always resist the Holy Ghost and persevere in their
repugnance to the known truth, as Stephen says concerning the hardened Jews, Acts 7, are not
converted.” [[Art. XI. Decl. § 60. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:60]] In this quotation the
stress is evidently on “always” and “persevere.” For there are such men as resist the Holy Ghost
and are repugnant to the known truth. Their resistance is undoubtedly much more wilful than that
of which those are guilty who have not heard the Word at all and, consequently, have no
knowledge of the truth. Some of them are converted and saved. These are the ones who do not
always resist the Holy Ghost and do not persevere in their repugnance to the known truth. By
conversion their heart has been changed. Others always resist the Holy Ghost and persevere in
their repugnance to the known truth. These arc not converted. They are hardened. Hence, there is
a “wilful resistance” from which perseverance (or persistency) and hardening are excluded.
[[@VolumePage:2,191]]
The same conclusion can be easily drawn from the following words of the Formula of
Concord: “It is God’s… revealed will:… that He will also punish those who wilfully (sponte)
turn from the holy commandment and entangle themselves again in the pollutions of the World,
2 Pet. 2, garnish the heart for Satan, Luke 11, do despite unto the Holy Spirit, Heb. 10, and that,
if they persevere therein, they shall be hardened, blinded and eternally damned.” [[§ 83. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:83]] “He (God) has also resolved in His counsel that He will
harden, reject and damn those who are called through the Word, if they put the Word from them
and resist the Holy Spirit whose will it is to be powerful and to work in them through the Word,
and if they persevere therein. And thus many are called, and few are chosen.” [[§ 40. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:40]] That by perseverance in these quotations the Formula of
Concord means a continuance until the end, not for a time only, is plain from the following: “If a
man will not hear the preaching, nor read God’s Word, but despises the Word and the Church of
God, and dies thus, and perishes in his sins: he can neither take comfort with God’s eternal
election, nor obtain His mercy.” [[Art. II. Decl. § 57. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:57]]
Therefore it cannot be rightly said of all those who are saved that they never wilfully resisted
the Holy Spirit, of all those who have wilfully resisted that they are not saved. We will not have
the door of salvation closed upon all those among us and throughout the whole world who
wilfully resisted God and His Word, but know from God’s Word that the door is still open to
them notwithstanding their former wilful resistance and all their other sins.
This, then, may be regarded as Missouri’s answer to Prof. L.’s question: “Does Missouri also
pronounce it true?” as far as the word “wilful” is concerned.
It will perhaps not be superfluous to add the remark that it was not the writer’s intention to
discuss the mystery which cannot be solved by man in this life and of which one is forcibly
reminded by Prof. Loy’s answer to his question, to wit: Why does God whose most earnest will
it is that all men shall be converted and saved and who alone can convert and save all men,
convert and save only some men and not prevent, by working a true conversion, the natural
depravity and evilness [[@VolumePage:2,192]]of the rest from running into a resistance in
which they even persevere? In fact, it is not our business to solve this problem. God will
certainly once solve it for us. Here the following words of Dr. Luther hit the mark: “Do you not
think that the Light of Glory can most easily solve a question which in the Light of the Word and
of Grace is insolvable, since the Light of Grace so easily solves a question which is insolvable in
the Light of Nature? … The Light of Glory will then show that God whose judgment alone is one
of incomprehensible Justice, is a God of most just and most manifest Justice. Meantime we are
only to believe it, being reminded and confirmed by the example of the Light of Grace which
performs a similar miracle in the Light of Nature.” [[De Servo Arbitrio, cap. CCXLVII. >>
logosres:lw33;ref=VolumePage.V_33,_pp_292-293;off=508]]
C. S. K.
(For the “Theological Monthly”.)
Original Sin.
By the term “original sin” we understand the natural state of man in which he conies into the
world, with the reason and will utterly corrupt and entirely incapable of knowing and loving God
and spiritual things, on account of which natural, inborn condition man is subjected to the just
wrath of God and to the just punishment of damnation.
Although “original sin” is a theological (dogmatic) term, it nevertheless has its foundation in
the holy Scriptures. In the words of St. Paul Rom. 7.17. original sin is the indwelling sin, a sin
that has its habitation in man’s nature, and exercises an entire domination over his reason,
darkening his understanding, perverting his judgment, acting in the soul as its lord, as a tyrant,
whose will must be done. Of the same import are the words in [[verse 23, >> Rom 7.23]] where
the apostle complains of “another law in my members.” The innate, corrupt state is the law to the
whole carnal man. Indwelling sin reigns and rules in the members of its captive.—The term
“original sin” was adopted in order briefly to express, first, the origin, whence this corrupt and
depraved state of man came, namely, from Adam, the head and root of the human family. God
did not cause sin and perdition to come into the world; no, this deplorable misery originated with
Adam, contrary to the will of the Creator. And Adam, utterly degenerated through the fall,
[[@VolumePage:2,193]]“begat a son in his own likeness, after his image.” Gen. 5. 3. From the
very moment of his fall, Adam’s image was altogether different from what it was before; he had
lost the holy resemblance to his maker. The begetting of children in his own image plainly
implies that they were sinful and corrupt like himself. As it is impossible that a bitter spring
could send forth sweet waters, so it was impossible that Adam, after having lost the divine
image, could beget a pure offspring. What is said here of Seth, is an incontrovertible proof that
the fallen Adam’s image and likeness are inherited by all his posterity.
Secondly, the name of original sin is made use of to indicate the origin and fountain of all
actual transgressions, namely, that “that horrible and abominable hereditary disease,” the natural,
corrupt state, “is the principal sin and the root and fountain of all actual sins.” Man’s own
perverted will is a cause of all inward and outward evil deeds, forbidden in the Law.
That all mankind is degenerate in the manner described, the holy Scriptures testify in
numerous passages. God—who alone searches the heart and tries the reins, and from whom
alone it is that we can derive that instruction by which we can in some measure know
ourselves—declares with regard to one and all of the fallen race, that every imagination of the
thoughts of their heart is only evil continually. Gen. 6. 5. O the true, but dreadful sentence! All
corrupt within, all unrighteous without; there is neither science of God’s holy will, nor a good
thought of God and heavenly things. There is no piety, nor a desire to please God. Yea, the very
imagination of thought, the thought in its very root is only, only evil, and that not only now and
then, but continually—so long as nature is left to herself. Man’s purpose, wish, motive, and
desire are like the fountain thereof—evil. Nothing good remaining? Nothing! Man is dead in sin
if spiritual things are concerned, but altogether alive and diligent and willing in thinking,
desiring, and doing if carnal and worldly things are concerned. In a word, he is ruined. Having
lost the image of God, fallen away from original righteousness and filial communion with his
Maker, he is now wholly defiled in all the faculties of both body and soul, living in opposition
and rebellion against God —all of which is expressed by and included in the declaration of St.
Paul, saying: The carnal mind is enmity against God. Rom. 8. 7.
This most miserable ruin of human nature is, to its full extent, and in a plain but forcible
manner described in the [[2d article of the Augsburg Confession, >> BookOfConcord:AC:i:ii]]
where it is not only [[@VolumePage:2,194]]said that all men, according to their natural birth, are
full of evil desires, &c., but also affirmed that, by nature, man CAN have no true fear of God, &c.
By this statement, which sounds rather harsh in the tender ears of so-called “philanthropists,” our
Confession does not exaggerate the consequences of the fall of the first parents. It simply repeats
what God Himself has revealed in the holy Scriptures, and from the very words quoted from the
Augsburg Confession we see that the Lutheran Church, giving God and His Word all due honor
and humbly submitting to what is written, sets forth nothing but the truth with regard to the point
in question. (Rom. 8.7.) This can be said of no other denomination.
Notwithstanding that the Word of God is explicit and lucid with regard to original sin, the
church has ever been troubled by teachers who had a preconceived notion of their own, which
they sought to palm off as the only true doctrine. Amongst the various systems that of Pelagius
and Coelestinus (in the beginning of the 5th century) may be looked upon as the most prominent,
not merely, however, because of the keen, continued controversy resulting from it, but especially
because of its direct contradiction to clear passages of the Scriptures. Pelagius denied that the fall
of Adam had any evil influence on the moral constitution of his posterity, and affirmed that all
men were born in a state of innocence and accordingly may, if they chose to do so, live without
sin. By Augustine’s influence in the Western churches, Pelagianism was condemned as heresy
and its defenders were excommunicated from church-fellowship. However, it was not long
before another false doctrine was substituted by what is known as Semipelagianism. This
heterodox system attributes to man a capacity for good things in the sight of God, which makes it
possible for him at least to render himself capable of receiving God’s grace. Semipelagianism
found acceptance especially amongst the monks, by whom it was also propagated with great zeal
and, once introduced into the Romish church, it was made a stronghold of popery, where it
continues to prevail.—
After Luther’s death our Church was on the point of being infected with a dangerous doctrine
concerning original sin; but God in His infinite mercy not only checked the spread of erroneous
opinions, but also blessed the Church of the Reformation with a confession which excludes
forever any tendency contrary to the orthodox doctrine, so that by the grace of God we have today what our fathers three centuries and a half ago received through the service of the faithful
Reformer. And as in the days of M. Luther, even so to-day original sin, with the Lutheran
Church, is a leading doctrine; and justly so. [[@VolumePage:2,195]]For, in the first place, unless
we believe and teach without deviation “in phrases and explanations” what the Formula of
Concord has bequeathed to us in the 1st Article and in connection with the same in the 2d, we
shall never be enabled to combat effectively the Romish fiction of man’s own merits and of selfpreparation (in part or in whole) for conversion. The new departure of our opponents is a
conclusive proof to this assertion. They maintain that man may and can, from his own free
choice, give up wilful resistance and that only upon the condition that he agrees or resolves to
desist and does desist before his conversion, the operation of the Holy Ghost can take effect in
his heart. And again they say, when grace is offered to man, it depends on his own decision
whether he will accept or reject the offer. By such sentiments so much at least of a good capacity
is ascribed to unconverted man that, if he wills, he can prepare himself for receiving the favor of
God. But whence is this assumption which the Lutheran Symbolical Books most earnestly and
emphatically have rejected as a characteristic tenet of Rome and its sectarian allies? Whence this
assumption which never must be allowed the least particle of room within the pale of the
Lutheran Church? It has its foundation in the denial of the complete corruption of fallen nature.
It results from the want of a correct knowledge of original sin. If the sinner is able to comply
with a certain condition preparatory to his conversion, and if those only are converted who
conduct themselves in accordance with that requirement, it necessarily must be conceded that
there is rather more than the “least spark” of something good in man —contrary to the express
words of our confession. From this fact it is evident that our opponents have deserted the banner
of the Lutheran Church and, instead of defending it, fight against it. Whoever sincerely believes
what the Formula of Concord sets forth with reference to original sin, neither can nor will
consent to a doctrine of conversion which is at variance with what the Lutheran Church
confesses with regard to that article of faith. Bringing reason into captivity, he will believe and
teach that conversion is altogether a free gift of the free grace in Christ Jesus, and that the sinner
can help or add nothing whatever in receiving that gift of God.—
That original sin consists both in the absence of original righteousness and in a real positive
existing evil, that it is a corrupt habit, or state; is, with the Lutheran Church, justly a leading
article because of another good reason. This reason is pointed out in the following words of the
F. of C.: “When this doctrine is correctly set forth, according to the Word of God, and separated
from all Pelagian and Manichean errors, [[@VolumePage:2,196]]the benefits of Christ, the Lord
(as the Apology declares), His precious merits, and also the gracious operations of the Holy
Spirit will be the better perceived and the more highly commended.” ([[Art. I. Decl. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:i:3]]) “Therefore,” says the Apology, “our preachers dwelt upon
this important point with the greatest diligence.” Grant God that through His grace we continue
to follow the good example of the sainted confessors!
G. R.
Notice.
The new position into which, two years ago, the Ohio Synod put itself with respect to the
Lutheran doctrine and our Synod made the performance of some new duties incumbent on us.
One was a defense of our faith and church, imposed upon us by the misstatements and
calumnious reports with which the leaders of the Ohio Synod endeavored to cloak their breach of
formerly professed relations of brotherly love and unity in faith. This defense has been made.
Our German publications offer whatever may appear to be requisite to distinguish between truth
and falsehood in the public accusations made against us. Nor did we neglect to present our faith
free from the odious admixtures by which the unchristian jealousy of our former friends is
untiringly engaged to disfigure it. The cause of truth however demanded some defense in the
English language also. It was in this language that the false reports were designed to gain general
belief. To such, therefore, as were unacquainted with the German, but interested enough in this
melancholy affair and averse to passing partial and unjust judgment, this periodical was to
furnish materials for a correct view of our doctrine as well as of the motives which govern our
opponents in their public outcry. This has, in our opinion, been sufficiently done by the
testimonies that we have offered in this Monthly. In closing, therefore, our defense we shall give
a brief recapitulation of the facts in the case as discussed in the successive numbers of this
periodical. We remark that of the numbers inserted in the following statement the Roman point
out the volume of the Monthly, the Arabic the page.
The doctrine which has incurred the great displeasure and violent opposition of our former
associates is as follows. We reject as errors the teaching that God is not willing that all persons
should come to repentance and believe the gospel; that when God calls us, it is not His earnest
desire that all men should come to Him; that God is not willing that all men
[[@VolumePage:2,197]]should be saved, but without regard to their sins, solely through the bare
counsel, purpose, and will of God, some are destined to damnation, so that they cannot be saved;
that the mercy of God, and the most holy merit of Christ, are not the only cause of the election of
God, but that in us also there is a cause, on account of which God has elected us to eternal life. I,
17. 18. The affirmative of our doctrine which is given in full I, 54—57, we here abridge as
follows. God loved the whole world from eternity, created all men unto salvation, and wills the
salvation of all men. The Son of God perfectly redeemed all men. God calls all men through the
means of grace earnestly, that is, with the intention that through them they should come to
repentance and faith, be preserved in faith and finally saved, to which end God offers to them
through the means of grace the salvation purchased by Christ’s satisfaction, and the power to
apprehend it in faith. No man is lost because it was not God’s will to save him, because God had
passed by him with His grace and had not also offered to him the grace of constancy, and it was
not His will to give this grace to him: but all men who are lost, are lost by their own fault,
namely, on account of their unbelief and because they pertinaciously resist the Word and grace
unto the end. The subject of election of grace or predestination are only the true believers who
truly believe unto the end of their life or, at least, at their end. No elect can become a reprobate
and be lost. It is foolish and dangerous if one will become sure of his future eternal salvation by
means of searching the eternal, divine, secret decree. A believing Christian shall seek to become
certain of his election out of God’s revealed will. The election of grace does not consist in a mere
divine foreknowing of which men are saved; nor is it the mere purpose of God to redeem and
save men, so as to be a universal one and to pertain to all men in common; nor does it concern
those believing for a time only; nor is it a mere decree of God to save all those who would
believe unto the end. The cause which moved God to elect the elect is only His grace and the
merit of Jesus Christ, and not anything good foreseen by God in the elect, not even faith foreseen
by God in them. Election of grace is a cause of the salvation of the elect and of all that which
pertains to it. God has yet kept secret and concealed and reserved to His wisdom and knowledge
alone much of this mystery of election which no man can or shall search out by reconciling with
his reason what seems contradictory to his reason. It is necessary and salutary, publicly to set
forth to the Christian people the mysterious doctrine concerning election of grace as far as it is
clearly revealed in God’s Word.—The declarations of our [[@VolumePage:2,198]]doctrine must
be taken in no other sense than the words give I, 18. 57. and we acknowledge nothing as our
doctrine which is not in harmony with them I, 57.
The doctrine stated above we believe, teach, and confess because it is clearly revealed in
Scripture. For example, Eph. 1. 3—14. informs us that predestination is an unchangeable decree
of God the ground of which is solely the mercy of God and the merit of Christ; that it is a cause
of our salvation and of every thing that pertains to it, and that Christians ought to be certain of
being embraced in it I, 105—110.—Rom. 8. 28—30. shows that God has from eternity chosen us
unto Himself for His possession; that from this election flow our calling in time, our conversion,
faith, justification and glorification; that it cannot be hindered by anything; and that we
Christians can and ought to be perfectly sure of our future glory, and comfort ourselves with this
truth I, 121—127.— Acts. 13. 48. exhibits election as a cause of faith I, 34. and Matth. 24. 24. as
a cause of perseverance in faith I, 111—118.
This doctrine is the doctrine of the Lutheran church as set forth in its Confessions. For both the
Epitome and the Declaration of the Formula of Concord in explaining election assert that it is a
predestination of persons, a cause of their salvation and faith in such a manner that God in the
time of grace works out their salvation by providing every thing appropriate to it, and operating
in and for them so that they are finally saved I, 156. 157. 38—41. Both the Epitome and the
Declaration assert that election is the cause of the perseverance of the elect I, 127—130. In this
doctrine we also preserve the important distinction made by the Confession between
foreknowledge and predestination, the latter, not the former, being a cause of the salvation of the
elect, not an addition to foreknowledge made to present foreknowledge as the real cause of
God’s eternal election II, 27. 28. And that a believing Christian shall seek to become certain of
his election out of God’s revealed will, as we teach, is also clearly the teaching of our
Confessions which admonish us to meditate on it in the manner in which the counsel, purpose
and ordination in Christ are revealed to us, which show Christ and His redemption to be the
cause of God’s election; and repentance, knowledge of sin, faith in Christ and obedience to
God’s commands to be the way and manner in which God’s election operates to effect the
salvation of the elect. Hence, when a Christian finds himself placed on this way through God’s
grace he ought to recognize in it God’s eternal election I, 158—162. and the gospel which is to
be preached to all men is to be to the believer the assurance of the election of grace I, 13. 14.
[[@VolumePage:2,199]]
In earnestly holding and defending this doctrine we endeavor to faithfully follow the steps of
the reformer of the Church, Dr. Luther, who has shown that to doubt of our election means to
doubt of the truth of the gospel, because the Christian’s infallible certainty of his election is his
firm trust in God’s gracious promises given us in His Word and the Sacraments, and because it is
God’s revealed and holy will that to believe in Christ and to be predestinated to glory should be
recognized by us as one thing II, 75—79. 88—92. For Christians ought to possess a full
assurance of the Christian hope II, 6—10. since predestination is an election of grace only II,
17—25. I, 92—96.
This, then, is the doctrine which our adversaries exert all their strength to exstirpate from the
Lutheran church. To attain this end they proceed in this way. They urge the fact that there is a
logical inconsistency in our doctrine with which a Christian’s faith ought not to be encumbered.
For if God’s mercy and Christ’s merit are the only cause of the election of God, and both are
universal, that is, embracing all men, it must follow that all men are elected. Now, by teaching
that the subject of election are only the 'true believers we declare election to be particular. Hence,
our doctrine is false. Again, we deny that in us also there is a cause on account of which God has
elected us to eternal life. From this it must follow that we cannot but teach that God is unjust,
partial and favoring a few; that He does not love the whole world; that He does not call all men
through the means of grace earnestly; that if a man is lost, it is because it is God’s will not to
save him, but to pass by him with His grace, or not to give him the grace of constancy.
Consequently those who are lost are lost not by their own fault, but because God wills their
perdition and for this reason did not predestinate them to eternal life.— In order, therefore, to
have a doctrine which is logically consistent, the true doctrine of the Scriptures and the Lutheran
church must be this, that the cause of the election of God is neither His mercy nor Christ’s merit,
for they being universal cannot cause an election of grace, but what is called an election of
individuals on the part of God is an act of God’s justice which, after equal grace having been
offered to all men, deals out the merits of man’s conduct toward the offered grace, ordering those
who rejected it to eternal damnation, and receiving those into eternal life who accepted His grace
and persevered in faith unto the end. We must believe that those who may be said to be elected
from among the rest of mankind owe the fact of being preferred to others solely to such an
attitude of their natural will toward God and His grace as [[@VolumePage:2,200]]does not
require a conversion of this will wrought by God; for only those men are saved whose will it is to
be saved. And if God and not man himself could or would change man’s perverted will, God
certainly would save all men.
Over against such sort of teaching we maintain that whatever in our doctrine appears to the
human mind and understanding to be inconsistent, only points to the fact that “God has
concealed and kept in secret many things concerning this mystery, and reserved them in His
wisdom and knowledge alone,” in consequence of which those things which God has revealed to
us in His Word with respect to this matter are of that kind “that we are unable to reconcile them
in our minds,” as our Confession declares, [[F. of C. XI. 52. 53. >>
BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:52-53]] Consequently this apparent inconsistency is intended by
God to belong to His divine revelation, it should not be removed by us from it, but should induce
us to adore the unsearchable depths of His wisdom in dealing with man. He constituted the
gospel of His saving grace so that it is foolishness to the wise who accept as truth only what they
find to be consistent with the results of their reasoning; for it is His will to save men only by
believing His Word. We are not permitted to alter His revelations for the purpose that we be
enabled to draw inferences from them which prove to be free from inconsistencies. We ought to
believe what the Word of God clearly reveals in spite of the inconsistencies our reason may find
in it. The very inconsistency e. g. in the revealed doctrine of God’s election serves to manifest to
us God’s wisdom and power I, 21—27. II, 49. If by way of explaining e. g. the revealed doctrine
of Conversion we fall to drawing inferences we cannot but fall into the errors of Calvinism or
Synergism I, 96—99. The whole of Christian life may be said to be involved in an opposition,
the opposition of divine wrath and grace. He who, on account of divine grace, alters the doctrine
of man’s sin and God’s wrath as they are revealed in Scripture, or alters the doctrine of divine
grace as revealed in Scripture on account of the doctrine of man’s sin and God’s wrath, because
contradictory inferences may be drawn from the doctrines as Scripture reveals them: frames a
false religion and destroys true repentance and faith. Both doctrines must be kept unaltered
though our reason is unable to reconcile them II, 50—58.
Our opponents in holding and defending their doctrine cannot but find themselves in
opposition to the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. This opposition manifests itself in
their presentation of the Scriptural election of grace as a judicial act of God caused by the
different conduct of the unconverted sinner I, 82. 88. 89. II, 51. 52. as well as in their
[[@VolumePage:2,201]]representation of God as bestowing His mercy and the merits of Christ
upon such as in His judgment are worthy of His blessing II, 131. By their doctrine the promise of
the gospel, that he who believes shall be saved, which is the means by which God works our
salvation, is made part of the law, by the fulfilment of which man is to save himself; and the
gospel promise is changed into the promise of the law II, 59. Faith, which according to Scripture
is a gift of God, is by the doctrine of our opponents explained to be the effect of the same cause
with unbelief, viz. man’s free choice guiding God in election I, 61. God’s grace is described as
being inoperative in the individual until that individual believes by his own natural powers,'
otherwise grace would either be partial or render all men believers I, 163. Hence faith is not an
effect of God’s election, but that work of man which constitutes the rule according to which God
elects certain individuals in preference to others. We cannot, therefore, speak of election in its
proper sense unless we regard it as being no cause of faith I, 154. 163—166. II, 41. According to
our opponents the mystery in election which the Lutheran Confession points out cannot be
acknowledged as such, since we know the rule which governs election I, 166. 167., we are
ignorant merely in regard to who belongs to the elect I, 154. In opposition to our Confessions
according to which foreknowledge is not to be considered a cause of election, they teach that
God’s foreknowledge is the cause of the salvation of the elect, though in that case God’s
predestination is a predestination to nothing, foreknowledge seeing the elect saved already II,
25—28. If our opponents were right, God’s election were a delusion, and all the mystery about it
would belong to the science of psychology II, 55. In opposition to Scripture and Confession they
deny the enmity against God of the natural man before conversion in the case of those who are
saved I, 74—76. According to them, divine grace converts only when unconverted man by his
natural powers resolves to quit resistance, acts accordingly, and changes his enmity into quiet
submissiveness to grace. They therefore deny that conversion is “in solidum” the work of grace
alone II, 133. 134. By permitting reason to guide them in religion they have been led into
Arminianism I, 28—34. But reason is a guide that would lead us to rejecting the whole gospel I,
23. Against Scripture and Confession the doubting heart of the Christian must not, according to
our opponents, be taught to hold the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end by trusting in the divine
promises, but to remain uncertain until death I, 167. 168., since certainty is, as the papists teach,
a dangerous delusion II, 6—9. They withhold from the Christian [[@VolumePage:2,202]]the
great consolation contained in the assurance of election I, 94—96. and instead of admonishing
him to believe that his salvation is intrusted to Christ they cause him to wait for his death to
assure him of it II, 132. 133. According to their teaching they must even withhold the promise of
the gospel from him who has come to know that he once offered wilful resistance to divine
grace, and repents of it II, 181—192.
Our opponents cannot deny that the Lutheran dogmaticians, on whose authority they mainly
ground their claims to be acknowledged as orthodox teachers, are also against them. This is
made evident by quotations from Hunnius, Gerhard, Quenstedt, Hutter, Calov, Seb. Schmidt, as
also from Selneccer, Rhegius, Chemnitz, and Luther I, 84—87. In the statement made by
Quenstedt of what the Lutheran church has condemned as synergism even the best expositions of
the doctrine of our opponents are included, viz. it is synergism to teach that in spiritual things
man can do nothing alone, instead of teaching that conversion is worked solely by the Holy
Spirit; It is synergism, to add to God and the Word of God the non-resisting will of man as a
joint or secondary cause of conversion; it is synergism, to teach that man’s will, not by its own
powers, but as prepared by the Lord, that is, by the power of grace bestowed upon it, converts
itself in such manner as to be also able not to convert itself; it is synergism, to condemn Luther’s
assertion that man in conversion brings to the actions of God a nature which resists up to the time
at which the Holy Ghost through the Word corrects that evil nature and renders willing the
unwilling II, 81—87. Citations from Quenstedt and Brochmand also prove that our opponents in
condemning an infallible certainty of faith disagree with the dogmaticians as well as with
Scripture and Confession I, 99—101.
In order to maintain their false doctrine they do not scruple to follow a course which must
appear highly discreditable and even dishonest. While asserting that they still hold firmly to the
Confessions of our church they have changed their former confessional basis, so as to adopt
condemned doctrines, and condemn true doctrines II, 30. 31. I, 144. 145. By way of excuse they
pretend that the Confessions cannot be their own interpreters, but that we must rely on what they
call the Church and the Fathers II, 14. 15. 29., although such reliance is plainly rejected by the
Lutheran Church II, 37. 38. They maintain that their intuitu fidei doctrine is the doctrine of the
Confession and dogmaticians, although nothing of intuitu fidei is found in the Confession I, 30.,
and the intuitu fidei doctrine of the dogmaticians is by these dogmaticians declared
[[@VolumePage:2,203]]to be another than the doctrine set forth by the Confession I, 9. 10. They
are unable to insert their interpretation into the Confession I, 84. and their rule that the
Confessions must be interpreted in the sense agreed upon by teachers subsequent to the
establishment of these Confessions as rules of faith, is both preposterous and dangerous I, 6. 7.
They feign an election in which there is no election at all I, 43. 44. and in presenting it as the
doctrine of the Confession they take out of the latter that on account of which it is called
election, and intrude as the main thing what the Confession excludes from the contemplation of
election I, 41—47. They explain the doctrine of the Confession concerning the cause of the
damnation of those who are lost in a manner which must be destructive of all true religion II, 53.
54. In order to sustain their synergism they even misquote Luther as being of their opinion II, 42.
43.
To clear the way for the adoption by the church of their alterations of Lutheran doctrine they
represent our exhibition of it as Calvinistic heresy. They falsely state that we cannot but teach the
absolute decree of the Calvinists which, consisting of particular grace and particular justice and
involving a denial of Christ’s universal salvation, necessitates the salvation of some and the
damnation of others through a natural necessity brought about by divine omnipotence; in
consequence of which decree each individual is created for his foreordained final salvation or
damnation. They falsely state that we teach that the will of God causes the resistance to His grace
in the case of those who are lost; that the means of grace are intended by God to cause damnation
in the non-elect, and not to produce faith in the elect, it being only the work of omnipotence.
These doctrines, our opponents state, are actually taught by us, or at least in a modified form.
Such statements they make in the face of our repeated public declarations that we earnestly
condemn them as not to be tolerated in the Church, as the offspring of reason produced in
opposition to divine revelation; that we believe and teach the very contrary and in the way our
Confession sets forth the Lutheran doctrine to the comfort of weak and discouraged Christians
who are harassed by doubts concerning their salvation; and that a firm belief in the universality
of divine grace offered earnestly in and through the means of grace is even essential in the
doctrine of God’s election as we understand it. In order to sustain their false charges our
opponents represent their unwarrantable inferences to be our doctrine and the mystery we adore.
They even fall to altering the sense of our expressions by distorting them II, 135—142. 145—
160. I, 28. 29. [[@VolumePage:2,204]]66—70. 58—65. II, 62. 63. In order the more to bring our
doctrine into disrepute our opponents call it a new doctrine and charge Prof. Walther with having
formerly taught another doctrine than he now does, although notes taken down more than twenty
years ago by a fellow-student of the gentleman who is now the leading spirit in the Ohio Synod,
prove the contrary I, 130—140. They insist on the assertion that the doctrine we hold and defend
is an innovation in our synod, although the “Report of the First Session of the Western District of
the Synod of Missouri” etc. which was printed in the year 1855, shows that the very same
doctrine was held by that synod then as it is now II, 33—36. In short, in order to obtain their end
our opponents reiterate charges which they know have been disproved repeatedly, misconstrue
words, falsify historical facts, pervert our doctrine, deal in wilful imputations and most shallow
reasoning, which has again been shown by the publication of their latest tract II, 160—178.
This recapitulation of what the “Monthly” has presented in the way of defence against the
false accusations spread by our opponents among the English reading public, taken in connection
with the fact that our readers are almost exclusively readers of our German publications, and that
of late “the Lutheran Witness” has been started to defend and sustain our cause, will, we hope,
justify us when we say that we see no reason to continue in that defence. We may add that most
of the friends of our Monthly whom we consulted have the same opinion.
There are other considerations, however, which make it desirable for us to have an English
periodical of our own beside the “Witness.” There are talents among; us that ought not to be
buried in the earth; there are pounds that must not be wrapped up in the napkin; there is
theological knowledge vouchsafed to us to increase and multiply in the service of that church
whose surpassing spiritual riches lay a proportionate obligation on its members. The
circumstances in which we are placed render the continuance of the Monthly in its present form
inadequate to the attainment of the desired end. The expediency of new arrangements has
become evident. The present number, therefore, brings our periodical to a close. We part from
our readers in the hope that, God willing, we shall soon be able to offer a substitute better
adapted to the purpose in view.