3. Synergism Contradicts Scripture, Luther, and the Lutheran Confession.
contradictions. Although it springs from rationalism, its objections to the sole efficacy of God in the conversion of mere paralogisms are gross violations of logic, as we have seen when examining the individual objections. Furthermore, synergism puts its protectors, if they are Christians, in contradiction with themselves and with the whole of Christendom on earth, because all Christians believe that God alone is effective in conversion. In particular, synergism brings theologians who want to be Lutheran into contradiction with Luther and the Lutheran confession. They take Erasmus' side against Luther, because Luther does not know different behavior when comparing the saved with the lost, but teaches the same guilt and the same evil behavior. corrections to Luther's writing without explicitly saying so. '°7® All assertions are a violation of historical truth. As late as 1537, Luther called his De servo arbitrio his best book, along with his Small Catechism. '°’?) Nor would we know of any of Luther's writings in which he insists so ex professo and so often and so powerfully that every sinner should and can hold on to the revealed God, that is, to the means of grace, with all confidence, as his writing against Erasmus. Just as clearly he teaches in this Scripture God's earnest will of grace in relation to all hearers of the Word. Luther says of God, in so far as he acts with people in the means of grace: He mourns the death he finds in the people, and he seeks to remove it (amovere studieren). For this is what God revealed (hoc agit Deus praedicatus) does, that he may take away sin and death and we shall be saved."('*®° Furthermore, "The incarnate God" (that is, God in Christ and in the Means of Grace) "says: I have willed and you have not willed; the incarnate God, I say, is sent (in hoc missus est) to want, to speak, to do, to suffer, to offer to all everything necessary for salvation (ut offerat omnibus omnia, quae sunt ad salutem necessaria). And as far as the Formula of Concord is concerned, it does not secretly correct Luther's writing De servo arbitrio, but openly professes to it, as in which Dr. Luther "this thing" ("of the captive will of man") "well and thoroughly carried out and preserved" (egregie et solide explicuit atque sententiam hanc piam et invictam esse demonstravit). '*°" Just as the Formula of Concord confesses clearly and in detail the same truth for which the "initial" Luther is accused of particularism, namely, the truth that when comparing the saved with the lost, it is not a different guilt and behavior, but the same guilt and the same evil
Manichaean nonsense" was rejected in the 2nd article of the Formula of Concord. (L. u. W. 1886, p. 492 [sic - p. 193])
193 ff. The article is directed against Dieckhoff's paper "Missouri Predestinatianism and the Formula of Concord", Rostock 1885. behavior was to be recognized. And just as Luther considered it necessary to hold to this truth so that the Christian doctrine of grace might remain intact, so too the Formula of Concord says: "that when we hold against them [the lost one] and compare with them (cum illis collati etf quam simillimi deprehensi), the more diligently we may recognize God's pure grace on the vessels of mercy and learn to praise". And just as Luther, in this situation, holds the general grace and refers to the /umen gloriae for the resolution of this apparent contradiction, so too does the Formula of Concord through the whole passage, pp. 716, 57-64 [Zrigl. 1081 f., Sol. Decl., XI, 57—64]. A Lutheran who explains the actual conversion of a person from his different behavior, right conduct, etc., is a contradictio in adiecto, like "wooden iron" and "dry water". '3°?) We must call upon every synergist, no matter in what form he dresses his synergism: Ipsum iugulum petisti! Luther and Erasmus are not compatible.!*8) Unfortunately, synergism has become a characteristic of modern theology, including that which calls itself Lutheran, both in Europe and in this country. 8
fundamental theorem of modern Lutherans and all synergists, namely the free decision for grace. (Luthers Theologie 2 I, 79; I, 67.) — Kahnis proves the same in relation to the Formula of Concord: "The Formula of Concord as it stands rejects all participation. (Dogmatik I, 251.)
Book of the Erasmus Proposal for Church Unification.
contribution of human freedom must be regarded as an undeniable result of the newer theology. G. Fritschel, "Monatshefte" 1872, p. 87 f.: "In this lies the real, innermost difference between the Biblical and the Predestinatian teachings, according to which man's eternal destiny is rooted in his personal free decision for or against the grace offered to him by Christ.... He [God] makes it depend on the decision of man, whom he will have mercy on and whom he will harden. "Zeitblatter" 1887, p. 325: It is "undeniable that in a certain sense conversion and salvation also depend on man and not only on God". As long as someone does not want to learn from the Scriptures that monergism does not include praeteritio (Acts 7:51; Rom. 10:21), he cannot be helped. He is either a synergist or a Calvinist, and in doing so he still feels himself to be scientific and pious, even though he is the opposite of both. Finally, a few words should be said about the evil influence that synergism has on young students. Apart from the fact that the synergistic teacher of theology constantly endangers the personal state of grace of the students by instructing them, instead of believing in God's grace in their "different behavior", their "self-determination", etc., he cannot help but be harmful in logical and moral terms. As far as logical damage is concerned, it must be said that because the objections to monergism are based on paralogisms, as we have seen, synergism is a formal education in the illogical. The moral damage is particularly evident in the following points: a. In order to gain the appearance of justification, synergism is induced to continually shift the status controversiae. It pretends to have to save from monergism the truths that man is not an animal, that man is not forced into conversion, that it is not the Holy Spirit but man in conversion who believes. These shifts in the point of contention can only be based on the spiritual disposition to deceive oneself and others, b. Synergism has a very clear way of moving in ambiguous terms (aeguivocationes). For example, when it says: "In man there is a point of reference for conversion", which could be correctly understood by capacitas passiva, but which is incorrectly understood by synergism as a concession or a right behavior of man towards grace. The expressions belong in the same class: Conversion is a moral rocess, conversion is free, man's responsibility must be respected, etc.
of Scripture and therefore also the inner conviction of truth, there is a noticeable tendency among its representatives to ascribe to themselves
also have proved in fact what Fabius teaches: that one should avoid an ambiguous word like a cliff. And if such a thing is omitted from our minds, we can forgive it; but to seek it with diligence and resolution is not worthy of forgiveness, but of the most just of all. over against monergism, which stands only on the clear words of Scripture, a higher scholarship, more thorough exegesis, "looking at the matter in a cool, philosophical way. How harmful this phraseology is to students of theology, who after all have to learn ovéev atep ypagye [nothing but Scripture], knows every theological teacher who has some experience of office. 138°
of Kahnis, Dogmatik 2 Il, 248 ff., 225 ff.; Luthardt, Die Lehre vom freien Willen, p. 122 ff. (the criticism of Luther), p. 270 ff. (the criticism of the Formula of Concord), p. 314 ff. (the criticism of Quenstedt and Calov); Luthardt, Dogmatik '°, p. 178 ff. 269 ff. A comparison of the various editions of his dogmatics shows that Luthardt became more cautious in his criticism of Lutheran doctrine. But from his last dogmatic writing, Die christliche Glaubenslehre, p. 306 ff. 439 ff., it is clear that he firmly rejects the scriptural doctrine of conversion. According to him the divine effect of grace ends "at the limit of our self-determination". Luthardt has stuck to the teaching that without self-determination there is no human responsibility, thus directly contradicting the Scriptures and consequently denying the whole doctrine of original sin, Rom. 8:7; Eph. 2:3. Julius Késtlin has also become more cautious in his criticism of Luther's teaching, as can be seen from a comparison of the first and second editions of his writing "Luthers Theologie". Historically correct, K6stlin reports that Luther does not know the self-determination for grace demanded by modern theology, neither in De servo arbitrio nor later (Luthers Theologie 2 I, 67 f.; II, 71 ff.); but KG6stlin at the same time indicates that he considers the lack of self- determination to be a lack in Luther's theology. Cf. also Késtlin, Luthers Leben I, 691 ff. — What has been said in the United States for the protection of synergism is quite completely compiled by Leander S. Keyser in Election and Conversion. (1914,184 pages). This book rightly found universal approval among all those who ascribe a pro and contra position to man before conversion. That Keyser's book is regarded as inferior by one or the other in his own camp, we do not think is right. That he consistently distorts "Missonri's position" is something he has in common with all those who want to give synergism the appearance of justification. It also has illogic in common with all those who attempt the impossible, on the one hand, to establish the sola gratia and, on the other hand, the "free moral agency" as the decisive factor. This impossible position is quite aptly revealed in Nitzsch-Stephan, Ev. Dogmatik 1912, p. 709 f. Perhaps Keyser appears somewhat more confident than others in the lion's skin of scholarship ("the ethical and psychical character of conversion", "the real nature of free will") and the deeper study of Scripture. By the way, Kahnis, Beamat. 21,225, abo ascribes Melanchthon's deviation from Luther tothe "deeper The synonyms of conversion. It cannot be denied that a "chaos" has already penetrated the doctrine of the appropriation of salvation in older and especially in more recent times. In more recent times one speaks of people who have become believers in Christ but have not yet been justified and born again,'*8 of converts who have not yet been born again, and conversely of born-again people who have not yet been converted, of enlightened people and those who have been raised from death but who still lack conversion through "self-determination" or "self-decision", of members of the body of Christ but who have lost faith in Christ from the heart, etc. This is truly a "chaos", a very harmful chaos. For now basically no frightened soul can know whether it is under wrath or under grace, and the secure ones are strengthened in their carnal security. It is therefore of the utmost importance to recognize that and to what extent regeneration, awakening and vivification, illumination, calling and repentance ‘coincide objectively’ with conversion and are only conceptually different from it. The Lutheran Symbols clearly express the factual identity of these terms. Repentance, conversion and regeneration are used synonymously Apol. 191, 34 [Zrigl. 291, VI, 34]: Nos dicimus, quod poenitentiam, hoc est, conversionem seu regenerationem, boni fructus, bona opera in omni vita sequi debeant. [We say that good fruits, good works in every kind of life, ought to follow repentance, i. e., conversion, or regeneration.] Also Apol. 176, 58 [Trigl. 264, X II [V], 58]: Nos eas partes poenitentiae ponimus, quae propriae sunt in conversione seu regeneratione. [We assign to repentance those parts which properly belong to it in conversion, or regeneration.). ] — Conversion and revival are used as synonyms F. C. 609, 87 [Zrigl. 913-915, 87]: "The conversion of our corrupt will, which is nothing else than a resuscitation of it from spiritual death, is only and solely the work of God (just as also the resuscitation in the resurrection of the body must be ascribed to God alone). Illumination, conversion, regeneration, renewal and drawing to Christ are used as synonyms F. C. 694, 24 [Trig/. 891, Sol. Decl., I, 24]: Before man is
Ill, 185. enlightened, converted, regenerated, renewed, and drawn by the Holy Ghost, he can of himself and of his own natural powers begin, work, or concur in working in spiritual things and in his own conversion or regeneration just as little as a stone or a block or clay That here illumination, conversion, regeneration, renewal and drawing are not meant to be different and divergent processes is evident from the fact that these processes are immediately subsumed under "conversion or regeneration". In the immediately following words, the same processes are then dealt with under "faith": For although he [man] can control the outward members and hear the Gospel... nevertheless he regards it as foolishness and cannot believe it. And in this respect he acts worse than a block, inasmuch as he is rebellious and hostile to God’s will, unless the Holy Ghost is efficacious in him, and kindles and works faith and other virtues pleasing to God, and obedience. Examples of the factual equality of the above-mentioned terms in later theologians will be given below. The use of the Lutheran symbols corresponds to the use of Scripture. Just as conversion or conversion to God comes about when a person becomes a believer in the gospel (Acts 11:21), so too does regeneration, the bringing to life or raising from spiritual death, the enlightenment to a saving knowledge of God, the calling by which a person actually enters into God's community of grace, repentance to God through the emergence of faith in God who is gracious for Christ's sake. This is to be briefly demonstrated in detail, although it must always have been mentioned in the description of saving faith.