Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church

Luther proceeds: "These thoughts must be opposed by the true and firm knowledge of Christ, even as I frequently admonish that above all it is useful and necessary that our knowledge of God be absolutely certain, and being apprehended by firm assent of the mind, cleave in us, as otherwise our faith will be in vain. For if God does not stand by His promises, then our salvation is done for, while on the contrary this is to be our consolation that, although we change, we may nevertheless flee to Him who is unchangeable. For this is what He affirms of Himself, Mal. 3, 6: 'I am the Lord, I change not,' and Rom. 11, 29: 'For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.' Accordingly, in the book De Servo Arbitrio and elsewhere I have taught that we must distinguish when we treat of the knowledge of God or, rather, of His essence. For one must argue either concerning the hidden or the revealed God. Concerning God, in so far as He has not been revealed to us, there is no faith, no knowledge, no cognition whatever. Here one must apply the saying: What is above us does not concern us (Quae supra nos, nihil ad nos). For such thoughts as search for something higher, beyond or without the revelation of God, are altogether diabolical; and by them nothing else is achieved than that we plunge ourselves into perdition, because they are occupied with an unsearchable object, i. e., the unrevealed God. Indeed, rather let God keep His decrees and mysteries concealed from us, for there is no reason why we should labor so much that they be disclosed to us. Moses, too, asked God to show His face, or glory, to him. But the Lord answered, Ex. 33, 23: 'Thou shalt see My back parts; but My face shall not be seen. Posteriora mea tibi ostendam, faciem autem meam videre non poteris.' For this curiosity is original sin itself, by which we are impelled to seek for a way to God by natural speculation. But it is an enormous sin and a useless and vain endeavor. For Christ says, John 6, 65; 14, 6: 'No man cometh unto the Father but by Me.' Hence, when we approach the non-revealed God, there is no faith, no word, nor any knowledge, because He is an invisible God whom you will not make visible."

With special reference to his book De Servo Arbitrio Luther continues: "It was my desire to urge and set forth these things, because after my death many will quote my books and by them try to prove and confirm all manner of errors and follies of their own. Now, among others I have written that all things are absolute and necessary; but at the same time (and very often at other times) I added that we must look upon the revealed God, as we sing in the Psalm: 'Er heisst Jesus Christ, der Herr Zebaoth, und ist kein andrer Gott,' 'Jesus Christ it is, of Sabaoth Lord, and there's none other God.' But they will pass by all these passages, and pick out those only concerning the hidden God. You, therefore, who are now hearing me, remember that I have taught that we must not inquire concerning the predestination of the hidden God, but acquiesce in that which is revealed by the call and the ministry of the Word. For there you can be certain regarding your faith and salvation and say: I believe in the Son of God who said: 'He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life,' John 3, 36. In Him therefore is no damnation or wrath, but the good will of God the Father. But these very things I have set forth also elsewhere in my books, and now I transmit them orally, too, viva voce; hence I am excused —ideo sum excusatus." (E., Op. Exeg. 6, 200. 292. 300; CONC. TRIGL. 897f.)

251. Luther Never Retracted His Doctrine of Grace

It has frequently been asserted that Luther in his later years recalled his book De Servo Arbitrio, and retracted, changed and essentially modified his original doctrine of grace, or, at least silently, abandoned it and relegated it to oblivion. Philippi says in his Glaubenslehre (4, 1, 37): "In the beginning of the Reformation [before 1525] the doctrine of predestination fell completely into the background. But when Erasmus, in his endeavors to restore Semi-Pelagianism, injected into the issue also the question of predestination, Luther, in his De Servo Arbitrio with an overbold defiance, did not shrink from drawing also the inferences from his position. He, however, not only never afterwards repeated this doctrine, but in reality taught the very opposite in his unequivocal proclamation of the universality of divine grace, of the all-sufficiency of the merits of Christ, and of the universal operation of the means of grace; and he even opposed that doctrine [of De Servo Arbitrio] expressly as erroneous, and by his corrections took back his earlier utterances on that subject." Endorsing Philippi's view as "according well with the facts in the case," J. W. Richard, who, too, charges the early Luther with "absolute predestinarianism," remarks: "But this is certain: the older Luther became, the more did he drop his earlier predestinarianism into the background and the more did he lay stress on the grace of God and on the means of grace, which offer salvation to all men (in omnes, super omnes) without partiality, and convey salvation to all who believe." (Conf. Hist., 336.)

Time and again similar assertions have been repeated, particularly by synergistic theologians. But they are not supported by the facts. Luther, as his books abundantly show, was never a preacher of predestinarianism (limited grace, limited redemption, etc.), but always a messenger of God's universal grace in Christ, offered in the means of grace to all poor and penitent sinners. In his public preaching and teaching predestination never predominated. Christ Crucified and His merits offered in the Gospel always stood in the foreground. In De Servo Arbitrio Luther truly says: "We, too, teach nothing else than Christ Crucified." (St. L. 18, 1723; E. v. a. 7, 160.) Luther's sermons and books preached and published before as well as after 1525 refute the idea that he ever made predestination, let alone predestinarianism, the center of his teaching and preaching. It is a fiction that only very gradually Luther became a preacher of universal grace and of the means of grace. In fact, he himself as well as his entire reformation were products of the preaching, not of predestinarianism, but of God's grace and pardon offered to all in absolution and in the means of grace. The bent of Luther's mind was not speculative, but truly evangelical and Scriptural. Nor is it probable that he would ever have entered upon the question of predestination to such an extent as he did in De Servo Arbitrio, if the provocation had not come from without. It was the rationalistic, Semi-Pelagian attack of Erasmus on the fundamental Christian truths concerning man's inability in spiritual matters and his salvation by grace alone which, in Luther's opinion, called for just such an answer as he gave in De Servo Arbitrio. Wherever the occasion demanded it Luther was ready to defend also the truth concerning God's majesty and supremacy, but he always was and remained a preacher of the universal mercy of God as revealed in Christ Crucified.

Nor is there any solid foundation whatever for the assertion that Luther later on retracted his book against Erasmus or abandoned its doctrine, – a fact at present generally admitted also by disinterested historians. (Frank 1, 129. 135. 125.) In his criticism of the Book of Confutation, dated March 7, 1559 Landgrave Philip of Hesse declared: "As to free will, we a long time ago have read the writings of Luther and Erasmus of Rotterdam as well as their respective replies; and, although in the beginning they were far apart, Luther some years later saw the disposition of the common people and gave a better explanation (und sich besser erklaeret); and we believe, if a synod were held and one would hear the other, they would come to a brotherly agreement in this article." (C. R. 9, 760.) But Flacius immediately declared that this assertion was false, as appeared from Luther's Commentary on Genesis and his letter to the Elector concerning the Regensburg Interim. (Preger 2, 82.) Schaff writes: "The Philippist [Christopher] Lasius first asserted, 1568 that Luther had recalled his book De Servo Arbitrio; but this was indignantly characterized by Flacius and Westphal as a wretched lie and an insult to the evangelical church. The fact is that Luther emphatically reaffirmed this book, in a letter to Capito [July 9], 1637, as one of his very best." (Creeds 1, 303.) In his letter to Capito, Luther says: "Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum nisi forte 'De Servo Arbitrio' et 'Catechismum,'" thus endorsing De Servo Arbitrio in the same manner as his Catechism. (Enders 11, 247.) Before this Luther had said at his table: "Erasmus has written against me in his booklet Hyperaspistes, in which he endeavors to defend his book On Free Will, against which I wrote my book On the Enslaved Will, which as yet he has not refuted, and will never in eternity be able to refute. This I know for certain, and I defy and challenge the devil together with all his minions to refute it. For I am certain that it is the immutable truth of God." (St. L. 20, 1081.) Despite numerous endeavors, down to the present day, not a shred of convincing evidence has been produced showing that Luther ever wavered in this position, or changed his doctrine of grace.

Luther's extensive reference to De Servo Arbitrio in his Commentary on Genesis, from which we freely quoted above, has frequently been interpreted as a quasi-retraction. But according to the Formula of Concord these expositions of Luther's merely "repeat and explain" his former position. They certainly do not offer any corrections of his former fundamental views. Luther does not speak of any errors of his own, but of errors of others which they would endeavor to corroborate by quoting from his books – "post meam mortem multi meos libros proferrent in medium et inde omnis generis errores et deliria sua confirmabunt." Moreover, he declares that he is innocent if some should misuse his statements concerning necessity and the hidden God, because he had expressly added that we must not search the hidden majesty of God, but look upon the revealed God to judge of His disposition toward us – "addidi, quod aspiciendus sit Deus revelatus… Ideo sum excusatus." (CONC. TRIGL., 898.) Luther's entire theological activity, before as well as after 1525, was an application of the principle stressed also in De Servo Arbitrio, viz., that we must neither deny nor investigate or be concerned about the hidden God, but study God as He has revealed Himself in the Gospel and firmly rely on His gracious promises in the means of grace.

252. Luther's Doctrine Approved by Formula of Concord

Flacius, who himself did not deny the universality of grace, declared at the colloquy in Weimar, 1560, that, when taken in their context, Luther's statements in De Servo Arbitrio contained no inapt expressions (nihil incommodi). He added: "I do not want to be the reformer of Luther, but let us leave the judgment and discussion concerning this book to the Church of sound doctrine. Nolo reformator esse Lutheri, sed iudicium et discussionem istius libri permittamus sanae ecclesiae." (Planck 4, 704, Frank 4, 255.) In Article II of the Formula of Concord the Church passed on Luther's book on the bondage of the will together with his declarations in his Commentary on Genesis. In referring to this matter the Formula gives utterance to the following thoughts: 1. that in De Servo Arbitrio Luther "elucidated and supported this position [on free will, occupied also by the Formula of Corcord] well and thoroughly, egregie et solide"; 2. that "afterwards he repeated and explained it in his glorious exposition of the Book of Genesis, especially of chapter 26;" 3. that in this exposition also "his meaning and understanding of some other peculiar disputations, introduced incidentally by Erasmus, as of absolute necessity, etc., have been secured by him in the best and most careful way against all misunderstanding and perversion;" 4. that the Formula of Concord "appeals and refers others" to these deliverances of Luther. (CONC. TRIGL. 896, 44.)

The Formula of Concord, therefore, endorsed Luther's De Servo Arbitrio without expressing any strictures or reservations whatever, and, particularly in Articles I, II and XI, also embodied its essential thoughts though not all of its phrases statements, and arguments. The said articles contain a guarded reproduction and affirmation of Luther's doctrine of grace, according to which God alone is the cause of man's salvation while man alone is the cause of his damnation. In particular they reaffirm Luther's teaching concerning man's depravity and the inability of his will to cooperate in conversion; the divine monergism in man's salvation; the universality of grace and of the efficaciousness of the means of grace; man's responsibility for the rejection of grace and for his damnation; God's unsearchable judgments and mysterious ways; the mystery why some are lost while others are saved, though all are equally guilty and equally loved by God; the solution of this problem in the light of glory where it will be made apparent that there never were contradictory wills in God. In its doctrine of predestination as well as of free will, therefore, the Formula of Concord is not a compromise between synergism and monergism, but signifies a victory of Luther over the later Melanchthon.

253. Attitude of Apology of the Book of Concord

The attitude of the Formula of Concord with respect to Luther's De Servo Arbitrio was shared by contemporary Lutheran theologians. They expressed objections neither to the book itself nor to its public endorsement by the Formula of Concord. In 1569 the theologians of Ducal Saxony publicly declared their adherence to the doctrine "set forth most luminously and skilfully (summa luce et dexteritate traditum)" in De Servo Arbitrio, the Commentary on Genesis, and other books of Luther. (Schluesselburg 6, 133.) That the authors of the Formula of Concord were fully conscious of their agreement with Luther's De Servo Arbitrio and his Commentary on Genesis appears also from the Apology of the Book of Concord, composed 1582 by Kirchner Selneccer, and Chemnitz. Instead of charging Luther with errors, these theologians, who were prominent in the drafting of the Formula or Concord, endorse and defend his position, viz., that we must neither deny nor investigate the hidden God, but search the Gospel for an answer to the question how God is disposed toward us.

In this Apology the opening paragraph of the section defending Article XI of the Formula of Concord against the Neustadt theologians reads as follows: "In their antilog [antilogia – attack on Article XI of the Formula of Concord] regarding God's eternal election and predestination they merely endeavor to persuade the people that in this article the doctrine of the Christian Book of Concord [Formula of Concord] conflicts with the teaching of Doctor Luther and his book De Servo Arbitrio, while otherwise we ourselves are accustomed to appeal to Luther's writings. They accordingly charge the Book of Concord with condemning Luther, who in the book called Servum Arbitrium maintained the proposition that it was not superfluous but highly necessary and useful for a Christian to know whether God's foreknowledge (Versehung) is certain or uncertain, changeable, etc. Now, praise the Lord, these words of Dr. Luther are not unknown to us, but, besides, we also well know how Dr. Luther in his last explanation of the 26th chapter of the First Book of Moses explains and guards these words of his." (Fol. 204a.) After quoting the passages from Luther's Genesis, which we cited above (p. 223f.), the Apology continues: "With this explanation of Luther we let the matter rest. If our opponents [the Neustadt theologians] wish to brood over it any further and in their investigating and disputing dive into the abyss or unfathomable depth of this mystery, they may do so for themselves [at their own risk] and suffer the consequences of such an attempt. As for us we are content to adhere to God in so far as He has revealed Himself in His Word, and lead and direct Christianity thereto, reserving the rest for the life to come." (405a.)

254. Agreement of Apology with Formula of Concord and Luther

Doctrinally also, the Apology of the Book of Concord is in agreement with both Luther and the Formula of Concord. This appears from the following excerpts: "Nor does the Christian Book of Concord [Formula of Concord] deny that there is a reprobation in God or that God rejects some; hence also it does not oppose Luther's statement when he writes in De Servo Arbitrio against Erasmus that it is the highest degree of faith to believe that God, who saves so few, is nevertheless most merciful; but it does not intend to ascribe to God the efficient cause of such reprobation or damnation as the doctrine of our opponents teaches; it rather holds that, when this question is discussed all men should put their finger on their lips and first say with the Apostle Paul, Rom. 11, 20: 'Propter incredulitatem defracti sunt– Because of unbelief they were broken off,' and Rom. 6, 23: 'For the wages of sin is death.' In the second place: When the question is asked why God the Lord does not through His Holy Spirit convert, and bestow faith upon, all men, etc. (which He is certainly able to do —das er doch wohl koennte), that we furthermore say with the Apostle [Rom. 11, 33]: 'Quam incomprehensibilia sunt iudicia eius et impervestigabiles viae eius– How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out,' but not in any way ascribe to the Lord God Himself the willing and efficient cause of the reprobation and damnation of the impenitent." "But when they, pressing us, declare, 'Since you admit the election of the elect, you must also admit the other thing, viz., that in God Himself there is from eternity a cause of reprobation, also apart from sin,' etc., then we declare that we are not at all minded to make God the author [Ursacher] of reprobation (the cause of which properly lies not in God, but in sin), nor to ascribe to Him the efficient cause of the damnation of the ungodly, but intend to adhere to the word of the Prophet Hosea, chapter 13, where God Himself says: 'O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in Me is thy help.' Nor do we intend to search our dear God in so far as He is hidden and has not revealed Himself. For it is too high for us anyway, and we cannot comprehend it. And the more we occupy ourselves with this matter, the farther we depart from our dear God, and the more we doubt His gracious will toward us." (206.)

The Apology continues: "Likewise the Book of Concord [Formula of Concord] does not deny that God does not work in all men in the same manner. For at all times there are many whom He has not called through the public ministry. However, our opponents shall nevermore persuade us to infer with them that God is an efficient [wirkliche] cause of the reprobation of such people, and that He decreed absolutely from His mere counsel [fuer sich aus blossem Rat] to reject and cast them away eternally, even irrespective of their sin [auch ausserhalb der Suende]. For when we arrive at this abyss of the mysteries of God, it is sufficient to say with the Apostle Rom. 11: 'His judgments are unsearchable,' and 1 Cor. 15, 57: 'But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.' Whatever goes beyond this our Savior Christ Himself will reveal to us in eternal life."

"Nor is there any cause for the cry that the Book of Concord did not distinguish between malum culpae, i.e., sin which God neither wills, nor approves, nor works, and malum poenae, or the punishments which He wills and works. For there [in Article XI] the purpose was not to discuss all questions which occur and might be treated in this matter concerning God's eternal election, but merely to give a summary statement of the chief points of this article; and elsewhere this distinction is clearly explained by our theologians. Nor is there any one among us who approves of this blasphemy, that God wills sin, is pleased with it, and works it; moreover, we reject such speech as a blasphemy against God Himself. Besides, it is plainly stated, p. 318 [edition of 1580; CONC. TRIGL. 1065, 6], that God does not will evil acts and works, from which it is apparent that the Book [Formula] of Concord does not at all teach that God is the author of malum culpae or of sins in the same manner as He executes and works the punishments of sins." (206 b.)

255. Apology on Universalis Gratia Seria et Efficax

Emphasizing the universality and seriousness of God's grace and the possibility of conversion and salvation even for those who are finally damned, the Apology proceeds: "And why should we not also reject [the proposition]: 'The reprobate cannot be converted and saved,' since it is undoubtedly true that, with respect to those who are finally rejected and damned, we are unable to judge with certainty who they are, and there is hope for the conversion of all men as long as they are still alive? For the malefactor, Luke 23, was converted to God at his last end; concerning whom, according to the judgment of reason everybody might have said that he was one of the reprobates. The passage John 12, 39: 'Therefore they could not believe,' etc., does not properly treat of eternal reprobation, nor does it say with so many words that no reprobate can be converted and saved… It is therefore the meaning neither of the prophet [Is. 6, 9. 10] nor of the evangelist [John 12, 39] that God, irrespective of the sins and wickedness of such people, solely from His mere counsel, purpose, and will, ordains them to damnation so that they cannot be saved. Moreover, the meaning and correct understanding of this passage is, that in the obstinate and impenitent God punishes sin with sins, and day by day permits them to become more blind, but not that He has pleasure in their sin and wickedness, effectually works in them blindness and obstinacy, or that He, solely from His purpose and mere counsel, irrespective also of sins, has foreordained them to damnation so that they cannot convert themselves and be saved. In all such and similar passages, therefore, we shall and must be sedulously on our guard, lest we spin therefrom this blasphemy, that out of His free purpose and counsel, irrespective also of sin, God has decreed to reject eternally these or others…" (207.)

With respect to the seriousness of universal grace we furthermore read: "They [the Neustadt theologians] say that in His Word God declares what He approves, and earnestly demands of, all men, but not what He wishes to work and effect in all of them. For, they say, He reveals His secret counsel in no other way than by working in man, viz., through conversion or final hardening of those who are either converted or hardened and damned… With regard to this we give the following correct answer, viz.: that we are not minded in the least to carry on a dispute or discussion with our opponents concerning God and His secret counsel, purpose, or will in so far as He has not in His Word revealed Himself and His counsel. The reason is the one quoted above from the words of Luther himself, viz., that concerning God, so far as He has not been revealed [to us], or has not made Himself known in His Word, there is neither faith nor knowledge, and one cannot know anything of Him, etc., which also in itself is true. Why, then, should we, together with our opponents dive into the abyss of the incomprehensible judgments of God and presumptuously assert with them that from His mere counsel, purpose, and will, irrespective also of sin, God has ordained some to damnation who cannot be converted, moreover, whom He, according to His secret purpose, does not want to be converted, despite the fact that through the office of the ministry He declares Himself friendly towards them and offers them His grace and mercy? My dear friend, where is it written in the Word of God that it is not the will of God that all should be saved, but that, irrespective of their sin, He has ordained some to damnation only from His mere counsel, purpose, and will, so that they cannot be saved? Never in all eternity, try as they may, will they prove this proposition from God's revealed Word. For nowhere do the Holy Scriptures speak thus. Yet from sheer foolhardiness they dare employ, contrary to Scripture, such blasphemous doctrine and speech and spread it in all Christendom." (108 b.)