3. Voluntas Antecedens and Voluntas Consequens.

3. Voluntas Antecedens and Voluntas Consequens.

antecedens, vol. prima) and a following or second will (vol. consequens, vol. secunda)® jst much impropriety has been taught for and against. The distinction is scriptural when it is used to express the thought expressed in Jn 3:17-18 etc. According to this scriptural statement, we should first of all imagine God in such a way that he wants to save all people through faith in Christ (vol. prima), v. 17-18a: "God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned. God only wants to condemn when people do not believe in Christ (vol. secunda), v. 18 b: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in (6y py meniotevKev) the name of the only begotten Son of God. ») As correct it is that there is no time in God, but only ditionem moralem, sub qua salvandus sis, sed necessitatem instrumenti, per quod salvandus es, significo. [Google] (Articulorum F. C. Repetitio, p. 235; in Baier ed. Walther. II, 268.) With regard to the ambiguity of the conditional clauses and their misuse by the Romans, Gerhard notes: Particula si aut est aitiodoyixy aut ovdhoyiotixn, id est, designat causam vel consequentiam. In concionibus legalibus: si feceris hoc, vives, particula si est aitiodoyixn, siquidem obedientia est causa, propter quam servantibus legem datur vita aeterna; sed in evangelicis promissionibus: si credideris, salvus eris, particula si est ovAdoyiotixy, denotatur enim modus applicationis divinitus constitutus, soli fidei competens. [Google] (Locus de ev., § 26.)

mponyovpEevov and mpatov, according to which God wants the sinners not to be lost, and of a SeAnua dedtEpov, according to which God wants the persistent sinners to perish eventually. John of Damascus (De orthod. fide II, 29): Aéyetat 16 Lev APwTOV (scil. that God wants the happiness of all people) zponyovpevov 9éAnue... TO dE devtepov (scil. that God wants to punish the sinners) exdpevov 9€éAnpa. Cf. the historical version in Buddeus, Jnstitutiones, 1741, p. 227.

recte distinguatur in antecedentem et consequentem? [Ts the will rightly distinguished into antecedent and consequent? thus: Si per antecedentem intelligitur voluntas proprie dicta seu beneplaciti, negandum. In Deo enim seu in actu volendi Dei seu a parte actus volendi nec prius est nec posterius, nec antecedens nec consequens, nec conditio nec conditio- Terminology in relation to God's will of grace. [English ed. ~ 37] "pure presence", as fundamentally wrong it is to want to determine our knowledge of God according to it. For our knowledge of God it does not depend on how things are in God— God in his nature is for us human beings yas ampdottov [the Light which no man can approach unto], 1 Tim. 6:16—but on how God reveals himself to us in gracious condescension to the imperfect human comprehension in the Holy Scriptures. According to the divine revelation in Scripture, however, we human beings must and should think one divine act before another. Lutheran theologians have rightly emphasized this very firmly to Calvinists.!°° We must hold this fast: True, there is no time in God, but God is the indiscriminately eternal one (Deus temporis est expers); also, there are no parts in God, but God is the absolutely simple one (Deus ab omni compositione vera et reali liber est). Thus the distinction between a first and second will of God must not be understood as if there were a temporal succession of thoughts and two divided wills (duae reapse distinctae voluntates) in God. But God in his indiscriminate eternity and in his absolute simplicity is God in his majesty and for us human beings unrecognizable. We human beings are bound to time and space with distant conceptions. But because God nevertheless wants to be recognized by us human beings, he himself has stepped out of his majesty, which is inaccessible to us, and has become man in his word. In His Word, God speaks to us in the manner of men, that is, in the way we humans can understand. Luther says: "God does not deal with us according to his majesty, but takes on human form and speaks to us throughout the Scriptures as a man speaks to a man... all he speaks to us without majesty and, that I may say so, natum, sed purus simplex et indivisibilis actus voluntatis, quo omnia vult, quae vult, sicuti uno simplicissimo actu intelligit, quae intelligibilia sunt. ([Google](Select. disputationum P. V, p. 88. Bei Heppe, Dogmatik der ref. K., p. 71 f.)

consequens, Lutheran theologians do not set a time in God or assume real parts in the will of God, but: dicitur voluntas Dei antecedens et consequens ab ordine rationis nostrae (according to the order of our understanding) diversos volendi actus in Deo pro diversa objectorum consideratione distinguentis et unum actum prae altero considerantis. (Examination, P. III, s. 1. c. 1. qu. 5.) Reusch: In puncto rationis (conceptual) saepe una Dei perfectio ante est concipienda, quam altera perfectio in Deo concipi potest. (Annotationes in Baieri Comp., p. 176.) [Ed. - citation also in Baier-Walther 2, 33 and 2,163]. with divine form removed (exinanita forma Dei)."!° The factual situation is therefore for our knowledge of God this one: Because we human beings cannot have any conception of the absolutely simple God, God reveals Himself to us in Scripture "piecemeal", that is, according to various characteristics (attributa) which, although they find in God completely one, must be distinguished from us on the basis of divine revelation. °?) And because people with distant thoughts are bound to a time sequence, God himself has revealed to us in his Word how we have to think one thing at a time, or in what order and sequence our thoughts about God and God's will must move if they are to be right thoughts. In this way, we human beings in this life do not have an adequate knowledge of God that completely covers the matter, but we do have a correct knowledge of God that is suitable for the weakness of this life. If we now ask: "What is God's will regarding the salvation and condemnation of men," we must first think, on the basis of Jn 3:17-18 etc., that God does not want to condemn any man, but wants to save all men without exception through faith in Christ; secondly, we must first think that God wants to condemn those who do not believe in Christ. Therefore, if the distinction between voluntas antecedens (prima) and voluntas consequens (secunda) is used to express the sequence of thoughts taught in Jn 3:17-18 and throughout Scripture, that God wants to save all people through the Gospel and condemn only those who do not believe, it must be recognized as fully in accordance with Scripture. The objection that there is no before or after in God does not apply here, as it is not a question of how God is in Himself, but how He has revealed Himself to us men in His Word. The "absolute knowledge of God" belongs to the sine mente soni in which the vocabulary of certain philosophers and philosophizing theologians is so rich. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that the distinction between a first and second will in God has been used by the Semipelagians and Synergists ever

sint in Deo distincta, tamen sigillatim de illis ut agatur, intellectus nostri imbecillitas requirit.,Condescendit nobis Deus, ut nos consurgamus', Augustinus de spec., c. 112., et cum homines simus, humano modo nobis loquitur. [Google] (De nat. Dei, §51.) Terminology in relation to God's will of grace. [English ed. ~ 38-39] to accommodate their error. One refers the second will not only to the damnation of the unbelievers, but also to the salvation of the believers. And the latter is done in such a way that the first will of God or the general will of grace can only be carried out and bear fruit with human participation, which is partly pushed into the faith itself (self-determination, right conduct etc.). In order to ward off this abuse from the outset, it is advisable to follow the way of theologians, who refer the voluntas consequens only to those who are lost for the sake of their unbelief.!° This is appropriate. In fact, as far as those who are saved by faith are concerned, no new will is carried out on them, but only what God, according to his general will of grace or voluntas antecedens, wants in relation to all men. The general will of grace has no other content than this, that God, by grace without human works and participation, wants to make all men saved through faith in Christ. There is therefore no objective reason to divide the will of God into a first and a second will with regard to those who are saved by faith in Christ. On the contrary, this division encourages error, as if the general will of grace were not a serious and effective will, but only through faith, conceived as a human achievement, is it made into a strong will of grace. In order to keep a clear distinction between voluntas antecedens and consequens, we should therefore say: according to the vol. antecedens, God wants to make all men saved through faith in Christ; according to the vol. consequens, he wants to condemn those who do not believe in Christ. This is the same terminology, according to which the vol. antecedens was called the will of mercy (vol. misericordiae) and the vol. consequens the will of judgment (vol. justitiae).

(voluntatem consequentem) quidem aliqui exponunt praecise de ea, quae ex nostro vitio ortum ducit seu qua vult Deus propter peccatum v. g. punire, damnare etc.; alii latius accipiunt de ea, quaecunque in nobis sive a peccato sive aliunde causam vel occasionem habet. [Google] (Comp. Il, 36.)

benignissimus pater omnes homines vult salvos fieri et ad agnitionem veri- (voluntas revelata, signi—volnntas abscondita, beneplaciti) has also been much misused, but it is not to be rejected as such, but must be put into the light and recorded in its written sense. On the one hand, Scripture teaches us a will of God that is fully revealed to us.!°) On the other hand it points to a sense of God that no human being has recognized or can recognize.!°° Both the will of God in the law and the will of the gospel are fully revealed to us from the Scriptures. According to the will of the law, God demands that all human beings in all their nature and in all their thoughts, words and deeds conform to His law, and He pronounces judgment of condemnation on all who transgress.!°’ According to the Gospel or according to His will of grace, God wants to make all people ywpic Epywv vouov [without works of law] saved for Christ's sake and by faith in Him. It is true that Scripture calls God's will of grace the secret, hidden wisdom of God, which has never entered into a person's heart.!°8) But the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, revealed to us the whole mystery, namely: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.! But in regard to the extent of God's will of grace, there is not the slightest darkness when we keep to the revelation of Scripture. According to Scripture, God does not want to glorify Himself to man in two parts, in one part His love and mercy, in the other His wrath and His punitive justice, as the Calvinists think, but according to Scripture, God wants to glorify His grace to all men, because God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.!! Judgment takes its place only when someone has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son.!) tatis venire; consequens voluntas est, qua Deus.ut justissimus judex finaliter impoenitentes et incredulos vult damnari. [Google] (Locus de nat. Dei,§ 271.)

eye has seen etc. v. 16: voiv XpiBtov (vovv Kupiov) ExorEv.

Terminology in relation to God's will of grace. [English ed. ~ 40-41] This is the voluntas Dei revelata. This will has also been appropriately called voluntas signi in the sense that God, invisible in his essence and not recognizable for us human beings, steps out of invisibility and unrecognizability through his Word and makes himself known to us through his Word as a sign (signum) falling into the human senses.!! On the other hand, Scripture points to a sense of God that is unrecognized and unrecognizable here on earth, when it speaks of "incomprehensible judgments and unfathomable ways" of God and exclaims: "Who has recognized the sense of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?"!! Scripture also does not omit to indicate the points at which the judgments of God become unfathomable for us and we lose track of His ways, namely when we compare the fates of the individual persons and the individual peoples (Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Jews and Gentiles, Rom. 9-11). Then the question arises: "Why the one before the other?" (Cur alii pras aliis?) The question would be answered if we could say: "Some behaved better than others." Then we would have an "explanation" for the fact that the one gets converted and becomes saved before the other. But the apostle says: Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? (Rom. 11:35) The synergistic solution of the difficulty by setting a causa discriminis in homine thus contradicts Scripture. Even then the question would be answered if we were allowed to say that God is only gracious in a particular way, and so passes by a part of human beings with his grace and the effect of his grace, who, who in fact remain unconverted, do not want to convert at all. That is Calvinism. But also this explanation is not admissible. The earnest mercy-

nos, nobiscum agens per aliquod involucrum et externas res, quas possumus apprehendere, sicut verbum Dei et caeremoniae ab ipso institutae. [Google] (Opp. ex. 2, 173. St. L. I, 489.) Luther usually has the Gospel in mind when he speaks of voluntas signi. But that he also deals with the law, insofar as it is revealed in Scripture, is not only self-evident, but is also occasionally pronounced by him. He says of the ten commandments and examples of the wrath of God: "etiam sunt voluntas signi" [These also are the will of the sign’’]. (1. c., p. 176. St. L. I, 491.)

The apostle does not only testify to God's earnest will of grace against the disobedient Israel in Rom. 10:21 by quoting from Is. 65:2 thus introducing God speaking: "All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.",'!* but he also declares, immediately before referring to the existing incomprehensible judgments of God, that God has given "them all" (tovc aavtac, the Jews and the Gentiles) over to unbelief (ovvékAé1os), "so that he may have mercy on all". '!>) Divine mercy is thus general, extending as far as human unbelief. So the question why the one is converted before the other and becomes saved remains unanswered. To this the apostle adds, for further explanation and justification of the incomprehensible power of God, the statement that everything that is and happens is "from God and through God and to God".!'® These are, as Luther recalls, words of divine majesty. They describe God as the independent One, who is the beginning, middle and end of all things, and in this of His majesty rules everything according to His wisdom and knowledge, which is completely incomprehensible to us. In short, there is a rule of God whose reasons we do not recognize. This is the deus absconditus, the voluntas abscondita. We must therefore leave the distinction between the revealed and the hidden God as Scriptural. But in making this distinction it is important to beware of a folly which consequently makes the whole of Christian teaching, as it is revealed so clearly and distinctly in Scripture, uncertain.

Gentiles, i.e. of the gratia universalis. The context is this: the Gentiles should not rise above the Jews. The apostle gives as a reason for this that God has not completely rejected the people of the Jews either, as the Gentiles were inclined to assume (vv. 17-24), but that his Church also gathers from the Jews - during the time of the Gentiles - according to the promise given to the fathers (vv. 25-29). The present unbelief of the Jews can prevent him from doing so, just as the former unbelief of the Gentiles prevented him from showing mercy to the Gentiles (v. 31-32). The apostle justifies this with the final sentence of v. 32: "For he has given all of them (Jews and Gentiles) into unbelief, so that he might have mercy on them all. We are talking here of Jews and Gentiles, not in so far as they are elect, but in so far as they find unbelief and God wants to remove unbelief in both.

45 = Terminology in relation to God's will of grace. [English ed. ~ 42] Folly consists in mixing the vol. abscondita into the vol. revelata. This is folly, because it is simply unacceptable to try to explain the known by the unknown. Calvinism, however, commits this folly by frankly and freely drawing the conclusion from the historical authority of God, incomprehensible to us human beings, that one people has the Gospel before the other and that the one before the other is converted and becomes saved, that there is nothing wrong with God's general will of grace (gratia universalis) as revealed in Scripture. The same folly is committed by synergism. From the historical authority of God, which we do not understand, that the one is converted and becomes saved before the other, he frankly and freely concludes that with the sola gratia revealed in Scripture it is nothing, that man's conversion and happiness do not depend solely on God's gracious disposition and on God's action of grace in the means of grace, but also on human self-decision, better behavior and lesser guilt. Synergism mixes the voluntas abscondita into the voluntas revelata in_such a way that it cancels out the voluntas in sola gratia. The right way is that we do not deny the existence of incomprehensible judgments and unfathomable paths and, in this sense, of voluntas dei abscondita—for Scripture teaches them—but when we ask how God is disposed towards men and what he intends to do with and to man, we turn our eyes away from voluntas abscondita_altogether and judge God's will against us solely according to the will witnessed to in Scripture, which is both universalis gratia and sola gratia. This is the way of the Lutheran Church in her confession. The Formula of Concord fixes exactly the point where God is incomprehensible to us. Besides the fact that God knows all things and that all things are subject to his will and destiny,!! it is especially the fact that God gives His Word at one place [to one kingdom or realm], but not at another [to another nation]; removes it from one place [people], and allows it to remain at another; also, that one is hardened, blinded, given over to a reprobate mind, while another, who is indeed in the same guilt, is converted again. [FC 11 57] This historical authority of God, with reference to Rom 11:33, the Formula of Concord leaves as a mystery of God incomprehensible to us and does not in any way drag it into the

voluntas revelata. From here it neither breaks down the sola gratia, as the synergists do, nor from here it destroys the universalis gratia, as is the way of the Calvinists. The revealed sola gratia leaves it intact, in that of those who are converted and become saved, it does not testify to a lesser guilt and a better behavior, but to the same guilt and the same evil behavior. And the revealed universalis gratia leaves them intact, in that it does not justify the loss of them by a particular will of grace, but by contempt for the will of grace.!'8) The authors of the Formula of Concord are clearly aware that with the universalis gratia and the sola gratia they confess two truths which seem to cancel each other out. But they hold on to both truths, because both are revealed in Scripture and it is God's will that we, in our distant thoughts about God and God's will, "hold on to his revealed word" (in verbo ipsius revelato acquiescere nos oportet)'') and subtle incomprehensible judgments and unfathomable ways, as they confront us in the historical rule of God, be and remain incomprehensible and unfathomable to us.! This is also the place to go into Luther's position on voluntas revelata and abscondita in particular, because up to our time people have not ceased to identify Luther's teaching with Calvin's teaching and to attribute to Luther the assumption of contradictoriae Dei voluntates, differing from the doctrine of the Formula of Concord. 7) But Luther's position is factually consistent with the position of the Formula of Concord. This is expressed in a brief summary in Luther's letter to an unnamed person dated 1528.!? Here, Luther first of all admits that God Almighty "knows all things, and all works' and thoughts in all creatures must be done according to His will, juxta decretum voluntatis suae". But he immediately adds: "Thus his (God's) earnest will and opinion, also command, is decided from all eternity to make all men saved and to make them partakers of eternal joy, as Ezekiel is clearly reported in the 18th chapter, when he says [Ezek. 18:23]: God does not desire the death of the wicked; but

55. [Trigl. 1081, 55

Terminology in relation to God's will of grace. [English ed. ~ 43-44] that the wicked turn and live.’ If he now wants to save sinners who live and move everywhere under the wide, high heavens, you will not separate yourselves from the grace of God by your foolish thought, inspired by the devil. Note that, according to Luther, it is "foolish thoughts, inspired by the devil," if someone mixes God, inasmuch as he 1s absconditus to us, in his knowledge, work and will, into the certain revealed word, thereby making general grace uncertain. In a letter of 1531 '7°) Luther says: "Such thoughts are vain research of divine majesty" and "certainly of the wretched devil blowing in and fiery arrows". He adds very roughly: "If they fall in, let them fall out again, as one would quickly spill manure in his mouth. One should "give such thoughts to the devil" and say to him, "If you are so wise in such matters, go to heaven and dispute with God himself; he can answer you enough. This is Luther's consistent way of speaking of a revealed and unsearchable will 'in God.!* Summarized, Luther teaches this: There are unfathomable depths to our human knowledge and an unfathomable will in God. This is where he counts God's omniscience, omnipotence and especially the question: Cur alii prae aliis? But this will is not an object of knowledge for us humans. To want to explore it and to judge God's attitude against us according to it is folly, presumption and ruin. We can and should judge God's attitude towards us and all people only by the revealed will. How God revealed Himself to us in Christ, as He lies in the manger and hangs on the cross, and in the objective signs ordered by Him, in word and sacrament, namely that He wanted to save all men, that is how God is really meant toward us. This will is certain. Knowledge should be directed towards it and faith should rely on it confidently (cum certa fiducia). It should be noted here that Luther did not only begin in the later period of his activity,

VIII, 785 ff; IX, 1353 f.; X, 1526 ff; X, 1736 ff; X, 1744 ff; XIII, 199 ff. as in his explanation on Gen. 6:5,!*> and on Gen. 26:9,!, but especially in 1525 in De servo arbitrio '* and ina

coenam Domini, absolutionem et ministerium verbi. Haec sunt, ut scholastici vocarunt, voluntas signi, in quae intuendum est, cum Dei voluntatem scire volumus; alia est voluntas beneplaciti, substantialis Dei voluntas seu nuda ipsius majestas, quae est Deus ipse. Ab hac removendi sunt oculi.... Sed hoc curemus singuli, ut maneamus in symbolis istis, quibus se ipse Deus nobis revelavit, in Filio nato ex virgine Maria, jacente inter jumenta in praesepi, in verbo, in baptismo, in coena Domini et absolutione. Nam in his imaginibus videmus et invenimus Deum, quem sustinere possumus, qui nos consolatur, in spem erigit, salvat.... Filius incarnatus est illud involucrum, in quo divina majestas cum omnibus suis donis sic se nobis offert, ut nullus tam miser peccator sit, quin ad eum accedere ausit cum certa fiducia consequendae veniae. [Google

docui, esse distinguendum, quando agitur de notitia vel potius de subjecto divinitatis. Aut enim disputandum est de Deo abscondito aut de Deo revelato. De Deo, quatenus non est revelatus, nulla est fides, nulla scientia et cognitio nulla, Atque ibi tenendum est, quod dicitur: Quae supra nos, nihil ad nos. Ejusmodi enim cogitationes, quae supra et extra revelationem Dei sublimius aliquid rimantur, prorsus diabolicae sunt, quibus nihil amplius proficitur, quam ut nos ipsos in exitium praecipitemus, quia objiciunt objectum impervestigabile, videlicet Deum non revelatum.... Deus revelat nobis suam voluntatem per Christum et evangelium.... En, habes Filium meum; qui audit eum et baptisatur, is in libro vitae scriptus est; hoc revelo per Filium, quem potes manibus contrectare et oculis intueri. Haec studiose et accurate sic monere et tradere volui, quia post mortem meam multi meos libros proferent in medium et inde omnis generis errores et deliria sua confirmabunt. Scripsi autem inter reliqua, esse omnia absoluta et necessaria, sed simul addidi, quod adspiciendus sit Deus revelatus.... Ibi potes de fide et salute tua certus esse ac dicere: Ego credo in Filium Dei, qui dixit:,, Qui credit in Filium, habet vitam aeternam. Ergo in eo non est damnatio aut ira, sed beneplacitum Dei Patris. Haec eadem autem alibi quoque in libris meis protestatus sum et nunc etiam viva voce trado. Ideo sum excusatus. [Google

majestate et natura sua, sic enim nihil nos cum illo habemus agere, nec sic voluit a nobis agi cum eo, sed quatenus indutus et proditus est verbo suo, quo nobis sese obtulit, cum eo agimus, quod (namlidh das geoffenbarte Wort) est decor et gloria ejus, quo psalmista eum celebrat indutum.... Nobis spectandum est verbum relinquendaque illa voluntas imperscrutabilis, verbo enim nos dirigi, non voluntate illa inscrutabili oportet. Atque adeo, quis sese dirigere queat ad voluntatem prorsus inscrutabilem et incognoscibilem? Satis est nosse tantum, quod sit quaedam in Deo voluntas imperscrutabilis, quid vero, cur et quatenus illa velit, hoc prorsus non licet quaerere, optare, curare aut tangere, sed tantum 49 = Terminology in relation to God's will of grace. [English ed. ~ 45-46-47] letter to the Christians in Antwerp '7® written in the same year, gives the same instruction. It is true that Calvin also says that one should not want to investigate the secret will of God, but should adhere to Christ and the Gospel.!?? But Calvin finds himself in a great self- timere et adorare. Igitur recte dicitur: Si Deus non vult mortem, nostrae voluntati imputandum est, quod perimus. Recte, inquam, si de Deo praedicato dixeris, nam ille vult omnes homines, salvos fieri, dum verbo salutis ad omnes venit, vitiumque est voluntatis, quae non admittititit eum, sicut dicit Matt. 23: "Quoties volui congregare filios tuos, et noluisti." [Google] That Luther, especially in De servo arbitrio, does not ascribe to the Deus praedicatus an unpowerful, ineffective illusory will, but rather a voluntas seria et efficax with regard to the salvation of all listeners, is evident from the fact that he says immediately before from God, in so far as he approaches us in the Word: Deplorat mortem, quam invenit in populo et amovere studet. Hoc enim agit Deus praedicatus, ut ablato peccato et morte salvi simus. [He deplores the death which he finds in the people and endeavors to remove it. For this is what the preached God does, so that we may be saved from sin and death

previously visited Luther in Wittenberg) " insists that God's commandment is good, and God does not want sin; which is undoubtedly true, and did not help that we also confessed it. But there he did not want God to add that although he does not want sin, he does impose it, and such a fate does not happen without his will. For who forces him to impose it? Yea, how could he impose it if he would not impose it? Here he went up with his head and wanted to understand how God did not want sin and yet wanted to impose it, and meant to exhaust the abyss of divine majesty, how these two wills want to exist together. (From this it is clear that Luther counts the omnipotence of God, according to which everything is from, through and to God, Rom. 11:36, among the mysteries of divine majesty, from which one must not draw conclusions against the gratia universalis, the human responsibility etc.) "I also have no doubt that he will offer me up with you, as if I had said that God wants to have sin. To this I will have answered that he does me wrong and, as he is otherwise full of lies, does not tell the truth here either. I say that God has forbidden sin and does not want it. This will is revealed to us and we need to know it. But how God forbids sin or wants it, we are not to know, because he has not revealed it to us.... Wherefore I beseech you, whether this spirit with the high question of the secret will of God will grieve you much, depart from him, and say therefore: Is it too little that God teaches us of his public will which he hath revealed unto us? Why do you fool us and want to lead us into this, which is forbidden and impossible for us to know and you yourself do not know? Let God be commended as this is; it is enough for us that we know how he wants no sin. But how He can give men over to sin or wills it, that is not our concern." (E. A. 53, 345 f.; StL. X, 1531.)

quaerimus, ad Christum convertendi sunt oculi, in quo solo Patris deception. He cannot refer to Christ and the Gospel at all, because he does not make Christ and the Gospel available to all hearers of the Word. In fact he does not refer to Christ and the Gospel, but to an interior renewal and sanctification, to an expected gratia infusa. The Christ to whom Calvin refers is not the Christ who bore sin to the world and is preached in the Gospel as the Savior of all sinners, but an interior Spiritus illuminatio. Calvin therefore expressly says that God's will against us is not to be judged according to the universal call (universalis vocatio), whereby God invites everyone to himself without distinction, even those whom he does not want to make saved at all, but only to lead them into greater damnation by presenting the Word, but according to the special call (specialis vocatio) that consists in the inner illumination of the Holy Spirit. °° Calvin also deceives himself with his distinction between the hidden depths of the Godhead and the revelation of God in the Word.! The depths of the Godhead are not hidden to Calvin, but are so clear that he makes a dash of the revelation in the Word (through the gratia universalis). It is striking how often Calvin contradicts himself in setting forth his teaching of the will of God against men. Thus he says time and again that the call through the Word is also generally formulated so that the rejected could not excuse themselves, but would have to condemn themselves doubly because of the contempt of the love and grace of God. ' In doing so, Calvin completely forgot that according to his anima acquiescit (Mattii. 3:17).... Christus ergo speculum est, in quo electionem nostram contemplare convenit et sine fraude licet.

praedicationem omnes pariter ad se invitat Deus, etiam quibus eam in mortis odorem et gravioris condemnationis materiam proponit. Est altera specialis, qua ut plurimum solos fideles dignatur, dum interiori sui Spiritus illuminatione efficit, ut verbum praedicatum eorum cordibus insideat.... Pauci electi sunt ex magno vocatorum numero; non tamen ea vocatione unde fidelibus dicimus aestimandam esse electionem. [Google]

peccatoris (Ezech. 33, 11): ut confidant pii, simulae poenitentia tacti fuerint, sibi paratam esse apud Deum veniam; impii vero sentiant, duplicari crimen suum, quod tantae Dei clementiae et facilitati non respondent. [Google] 24, 17: Cur omnes nominat (scil, in den evangelischen VerheiBungen)? Nempe quo tutius piorum conscientiae acquiescant... impit 48] doctrine, there is no love and grace of God for the rejected at all, so they cannot be despised by them either. '*°) It has become a fairly common custom to find substantial agreement between Luther and Calvin regarding the assumption of a revealed and hidden will of God. But between the two there are points of contact only in expression. In substance they differ completely. The complete factual difference becomes apparent in the following points: 1. What it is about the will of God for grace, how far it extends and what it works, Luther wants to know only according to the Word of God itself, according to the statement of Scripture. Calvin wants to determine what is to be thought of God's will of grace only from the result (effectus) or from historical experience (experientia). 2. Luther leaves the general will of grace witnessed in the Scriptures completely intact and says that it is "foolish" not to believe him because of the presence of the incomprehensible judgments of God. '*4) Calvin, on the other hand, is surprised at the folly of people who still believe the general will of grace, since the success of the Gospel is only a particular one. '*°) 3, Luther teaches that God is also active in those who are lost in order to bring about faith and to avert damnation,!*° but that God's activity, autem non causentur sibi deesse asylum, quo se a peccati servitute recipiant, dum oblatum sibi ingratitudine sua respuunt. 24, 2: Reprobos manet gravius judicium, quod testimonium amoris Dei repudient. [A heavier judgment remains for the reprobate, because they reject the testimony of God's love. ]

7:51 notes: Observa emphasin in his dictis. Pharisaei et legis periti dicuntur sprevisse consilium Dei non baptizati a Johanne: quodnam fuit id consilium? Utique illud, quod per concionem et baptismum Johannis voluit Deus eos vocare ad poenitentiam et ad regnum Messiae. Absolutum quoddam decretum et consilium de ipsorum perditione nequit hoc loco intelligi. Illud enim non sprevisse, sed potius implevisse dicendi fuissent. Judaei dicuntur resistere Spiritui s., utique ergo Spiritus s. voluit in illorum cordibus' operari; si absoluto. decreto denegata ipsis conversio, non dici possent Spiritui s. resistere, quia potius obsecuti fuissent decreto isti ab aeterno facto. [Google] (De elect., § 68.)

mortem peccatoris, sed magis ut convertatur et vivat. Si hoc ad totum humanum genus extendere placet, cur plurimos ad resipiscentiam non sollicitat? (A passage from Ezekiel (33:11) is quoted, that God does not want the death of the sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live. If it pleases to extend this to the whole human race, why does it not concern the majority to repentance?

mortem, quam invenit in populo et amovere studet. Hoc enim agit Deus praedicatus, ut ablato peccato et morte salvi simus. [(God) deplores the death which he finds in the people and seeks to remove. For this is what the preached God does, so that we may be saved from sin and death.’] which takes place through the means of the Word, can be resisted, '*) and that therefore the failure of the Word is to be attributed to human resistance. '38) Calvin rejects the idea that there is a will of God that does not happen, and denies any effect of God on the lost that is aimed at conversion. 14° 4, Luther assumes only a pseudo-contradiction between the revealed will of God and the incomprehensible judgments of God, which will be resolved in eternal life. '4!) Calvin places the incomprehensible judgments of God ina real contradiction with the revealed will of God, and his method of harmonization consists in the fact that he abolishes the revealed will by the hidden one. A more recent Reformed theologian, E. F. Karl Miiller, has pointed out the factual difference between Luther's and Calvin's teachings with the following words: " In fact, Luther's way of faith, resting directly on word and sacrament, often emphasized the so-called objectivity of the means of grace, that is, not only their

ego contra excipiam quod alibi scribitur, Deum nostrum esse in coelo, ubi faciat quaecunque velit (Ps. 115:3).

creavit, ut irae suae organa forent et severitatis exempla, eos, ut in finem suum perveniant, nunc audiendi verbi sui facultate privat, nunc ejus praedicatione magis excaecat et obstupefacit.

naturae, lumen gratiae, lumen gloriae, ut habet vulgata et bona distinctio. In lumine naturae est insolubile, hoc esse justum, quod bonus affligatur et malus bene habeat. At hoc dissolvit lumen gratiae. In lumine gratiae est insolubile, quomodo Deus damnet eum, qui non potest ullis suis viribus aliud facere quam peccare et reus esse; hic tam lumen naturae quam lumen gratiae dictant, culpam esse non miseri hominis, sed iniqui Dei, nec enim aliud judicare possunt de Deo, qui hominem impium gratis sine meritis coronat et alium non coronat, sed damnat, forte minus vel saltem non magis impium. At lumen gloriae aliud dictat et Deum cujus modo est judicium incomprehensibilis justitiae, tunc ostendet esse justissimae fet manifestissimae justitiae tantum, ut interim (in this live) id credamus, moniti et confirmati exemplo luminis gratiae, quod simile miraculum in naturali lumine implet. [Google] Thus Dorner also says of Luther: "A contradiction" (between the secret and revealed will of God) "Luther, however, does not assume, but rather that the contradiction is only appearance, that he demands to believe. (History of prot. Theol., p. 206.) reliability, but their efficacy in every case to the 'sacramenters' in a way that eventually had to undermine the faith in predestination."!*’, That is correct. But it must be added that Luther never had the faith of predestination in the sense of the gratia particularis. Concluding remark. The position of Luther and the Formula of Concord, according to which, with regard to God's will of grace, the two predicates: universalis gratia and sola gratia are to be held without rational mediation, and therefore the question: Cur alii prae aliis? [Why some over others?] is declared unsolvable in this life, has through the centuries up to our time provoked an all-round criticism. Criticism runs the entire scale from the most determined condemnation to the most benevolent apology. From the Calvinist point of view, Shedd denies any justification for existence from the position of Luther and the Formula of Concord, claiming that there are only "two great systems of theology which divide evangelical Christendom, Calvinism and Arminianism."!*4) Luthardt does the same from the synergistic point of view when he claims that one must let the sola gratia go if one wants to hold on to the universalis gratia. ' Even well-meaning later Lutheran dogmatists, such as Gottfried Hoffmann [PRDL], count it among the "somewhat hard phrases" (duriusculas phrases) when Luther and Brenz—the Formula of Concord is to be added—declare that they could not answer the question: Cur alii prae aliis? in this life. >) This criticism reveals

Melanchthon: Cum promissio sit universalis nec sint in Deo contradictoriae voluntates, necesse est, in nobis (scil, in man) esse aliquam discriminis causam, cur Saul abjiciatur, David recipiatur. (Loci, ed. Detzer I, 74.) Also the newer American and German synergists. See L. u. W. 18, 193 ff.; 37, 293 f.

solent, inprimis petuntur ex Lutheri libro De servo arbitrio, Brentii Comment. in ep. ad Rom, ubi ad quaestionem: quid est igitur, quod Deus clementer conferat donum fidei Jacobo et non Esavo, Davidi et non Saulo, Petro et non Judae, alteri latroni et non alteri, cum eadem sit peccati massa etc., justo citius ad Baiog consilii divini confugit. The whole version in Gottfried Hoffmann (I. c., p. 598-603) is very instructive with regard to the position of later theologians on Luther and the Lutheran confession. the theological backwardness of the critics. The question can only and indeed is only answered by Calvinism or synergism. But since Scripture teaches neither Calvinism nor synergism, but both the universalis gratia and the sola gratia, in answering the question the principle of Scripture is given a prize. Then, either of the two attempted solutions makes faith in Christ completely impossible. This is first of all the case with Calvinism. Wherever it is taught that the grace of God is not present in Christ for the majority of people, every listener, especially the sinner affected by the law, must remain in doubt as to whether the grace also concerns him. But this doubt excludes faith per se. The reason why many in Calvinist communities nevertheless come to faith is that both preacher and listener forget the gratia particularis. Calvinist teachers also expressly insist that one must look especially in the challenge to the statements of Scripture which are based on general grace.

representatives and mocks the adherence to general grace as ignorance, completely refutes itself. Also Arminianism and Synergism, which makes salvation, instead of depending solely on God's grace in Christ, depend decisively on human self-determination, self-decision, better behavior, less reluctance, less guilt etc. As long as there is the delusion in the heart that grace is only available to those who have the right behavior, the lesser guilt etc. before God, the very sinner affected by the law of God will not dare to access it. Faith cannot arise at all, because it is the nature of faith that it is based_only on grace. '48) Ascribing to oneself an advantage, a lesser debt and thus a relative right to grace in comparison with other people,

means the faith which rests on pure grace. Luther, Opp. v. a. VII, 154: Quamdiu (homo) persuasus fuerit, sese vel tantulum posse pro salute sua, manet in fiducia sui, nec de se penitus desperat, ideo non humiliatur coram Deo, sed locum, tempus, opus aliquod sibi praesumit, vel sperat vel optat saltem, quo tandem perveniat ad salutem. (As long as (a man) is convinced that he can do even a little for his salvation, he remains in his confidence, and does not completely despair of himself, therefore he does not humble himself before God, but presumes for himself some place, time, or work, or at least hopes or wishes for which at last reach salvation. is expressly defined by Scripture as falling away from grace. 4°) But also here practice is often better than theory. Already Luther in De servo arbitrio reminded us that many who place salvation with their mouths on their behavior are based before God and in their hearts solely on grace.!>° Finally, it is also clear that both the Calvinist and the synergistic attempts to resolve the concept of saving grace as gratuitus Dei favor propter Christum [gratuitous favor of God for Christ's sake’] in the Scriptures has been translated into gratia infusa. Whoever denies the general graciousness of God proclaimed in the Gospel must necessarily point those who ask for grace to the effects of grace, in man, that is, to the gratia infusa. The synergists do this from the outset by asserting that conversion and salvation do not depend solely on God's grace in Christ, but also on better human behavior. Thus all those who wish to be wise beyond Scripture and answer the question: Cur alii prae aliis? in this life, end up in Roman territory, in the doctrine of works. This proves the firmly established inner coherence of the Christian doctrine revealed in Scripture, which Luther compares to a closed ring. If one makes corrections to individual teachings in order to eliminate gaps and apparent contradictions, that is, in the interest of a so- called scientific system, the result is the destruction of the central teaching of Christianity, the justification from faith without works.

the branches" (the Jews), and impresses on them that they only stand in faith as long as they do not attribute any preference to themselves over the Jews, but remain in goodness (ypnotdt1¢).

sancti, quales jactatis, quoties ad Deum oraturi vel acturi accedunt, quam penitus obliti incedant liberi arbitrii sui, desperantes de semet ipsis, ac nihil nisi solam et puram gratiam longe alia meritis sibi invocantes, qualis saepe Augustinus, qualis Bernardus, cum moriturus diceret: Perdidi tempus meum, quia perdite vixi. Non video hic allegari vim aliquam, quae ad gratiam sese applicet, sed accusari omnem vim, quod nonnisi aversa fuerit. Quamquam illi ipsi sancti aliquando inter disputandum aliter de libero arbitrio locuti sunt, sicut video omnibus accidisse, ut alii sint, dum verbis et disputationibus intenti sunt, et alii, dum affectibus et operibus; illic dicunt aliter quam affecti fuerunt ante, hic aliter afficiuntur quam dixerunt, ante. Ex affectu vero potius, quam ex sermone metiendi sunt homines, tam pii, quam impii. [Google] The Doctrine of Christ. » Christologia. The Importance of the Doctrine of Christ.‘ We have already recognized, when defining the concept of grace, that the grace of God against the world of sinners is not an absolute grace founded in God's perfection of power, but a grace mediated by Christ or acquired by Christ. From this the importance of the doctrine of Christ is illuminated. According to church terminology, we usually call the doctrine of justification the central article of Christian doctrine or the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae. But the doctrine of justification is based directly on the doctrine of Christ, and more precisely on the doctrine of Christ's God-man [or theanthropic] person and of Christ's God-man work. God justifies us sinful people by grace, ywpic épyov vouov, but da tic ATOAVTPHGEWS Tic év Xptot@ Inood, because Christ has made payment for us. And here Scripture places particular emphasis on the fact that the person who makes payment is none other than the Son of God, katn\Adynuev 1 Os 51d tod Savatov tod Yiod adtod. Even the faith by which justification is carried out does not have any arbitrary content, not even Christ only in some way as an object, for instance as a teacher of the law, model of virtue, revelator "of the universal fatherhood of God" etc, but faith is directed to the Christ who is 6 Yidc tod Osod tod Cdvtos is » and has given himself for all for salvation (vtiAvtpov). Despite Harnack °) not only the Father, but also the Son belongs in the gospel. Whoever does not want to let Christ, in his God-man person and in its God-man work of reconciliation, be the object of saving faith, abolishes the Christian doctrine of justification and thus the whole of Christianity. The doctrine of Christ must therefore be purified from all falsifications with the greatest diligence. © proclaims it, has to do with the Father only and not with the Son. gentilibus salutem tribuunt, quod ex Pontificiis et Calvinianis quosdam facere atque ex Photinianae doctrinae hypothesibus consequens esse suo loco demonstravimus 2. oblique eam labefactant Cal- Classification of the doctrine of Christ. In order to confront the multifarious error that has arisen in the course of time to present the scriptural teaching of Christ in all its aspects, it has become customary to treat this teaching in three subdivisions. One deals with I. the God-human person of Christ (de persona Christi sive de Christo Seav8pano), II. the states of Christ (de statibus exinanitionis et exaltationis), because according to human nature the Scriptures show Christ in a double state, in nopgn dobdov and in nopey Seov, IIL. of the work of Christ (de officio Christi), because it had to be shown again and again to the error that Christ not only taught the law of God and exemplified it to men, but is the Savior of men precisely because he took the place of men under the duty ® and under the curse *) of the law of God. The idle and dangerous speculation that the Son of God would have become man even if men had not sinned will be judged in the doctrine of Christ's work.