For the time being — Several stories

Lutheran: Calvinism may well contain true and fuller accounts of the inner logic of God’s dealings with man, but Lutheranism seems to more certainly be a true account of what is already given to man to believe and do. Both groups agree that it isn’t our complete knowledge that saves, anyway. I’d rather live a life of emphasis on certainties than to spend anything more on connecting the dots within mystery.

Here’s something else. At 9’35” in this video (https://youtu.be/x0Kcz8ZXelc), Venema says “the warrant for faith is not God telling you you’re elect or not elect!” But isn’t that the chief source of comfort for Calvinists as against Lutherans when it comes to predestination (viz., that Calvinists can rest assured of their election?)

The Calvinist might dodge here and reply that the promise is that God will keep our faith—so why do Lutherans affirm this but without saying what it needs to be kept from? Against what? Sin is the only option, isn’t it? To this, however, I’d suggest that this is like asking why the garden was guarded, or why Adam and Eve were to steward the land. And if the Calvinist can’t answer the problem of evil entirely in all of its manifestations then he shouldn’t raise it to the Lutheran in this particular case.

To take another example, the Bible tells us to pray even though it also tells us of God’s omniscience. Do we change God’s mind? Reflection on divine foreknowledge says no, but if we only lived as God’s people in the biblical stories, with almost no thought of the inner logic of God’s foreknowledge, we’d pray with more confidence that we do change his mind. Apparently that’s a good thing to do because it’s what biblical figures did. Similarly, the Bible tells us to give the good news to everyone indiscriminately, even though it also tells us of God’s election.

To focus on the election and then construct a logical argument may lead us to a truth about evidences of how we can know who is saved and who isn’t, for example; but that’s the sort of truth that can grate against other things explicitly demanded of us in scripture—until at least we finally understand whatever other details in heaven that we’re missing now.

Calvinist: But there’s a lot that we have to reason about that isn’t explicitly stated in Scripture (e.g., the Trinity).

Lutheran: Then what is the standard for knowing when to seek knowledge of what “makes plain sense” and when to pull the “mystery” card (as you might accuse us of doing?)

Dylan: Receptivity as opposed to grasping. It’s a stance both Lutherans, Calvinists, and all others in the Spirit agree on.

Calvinist: Well, I’m receptive of these Calvinistic doctrines, so what difference does it make when you point to the fruit of the Spirit—the virtues of a regenerate heart—if it’s not actually to take our side by affirming what the Lutheran might cynically call “fruit-checking” for an assurance that one is truly regenerate?

Dylan: Both sides ought to acknowledge that what makes sense sometimes isn’t true. The doctrine of the Trinity makes sense and is true; all of its premises are accepted by all Christians because they are indisputably, explicitly, given to us in the Bible. Limited Atonement makes sense but the Lutheran says that it, at best, might not be true (and of course most confessional Lutherans would say it definitely isn’t true).

Maybe the best way forward, then, is to check what scriptural doctrines are accepted by all Christians before they’re treated as premises to a valid but not necessarily sound conclusion.

Lutheran: I’d go one further. Just because something necessarily derives from principles deductively-reasoned from Scripture alone, that doesn’t mean that it ought to be taught. Even if Limited Atonement can be deduced from premises we all accept, that wouldn’t necessarily mean we ought to teach it. After all, as (we’d argue) with the doctrine of Limited Atonement, sometimes by teaching a logically-deduced conclusion we risk even inadvertently contradicting another doctrine. Instead of finding a way to make both fit into one cohesive theological system, it’s better to err on the side of caution. Systematizing assumes there’s a system, and I’m not certain that’s a great way of considering persons and their relationships.

Dylan: If we never connected premises to conclusions, we’d have never arrived at the doctrine of the Trinity. How would we know what we’re permitted to teach that goes beyond what is explicit (as opposed to logically-derived) in the Bible?

But you make a good point about persons and relationships.

So, here’s my solution. The Trinity is eternally true but my dispositions are not. Anything in the Bible pertaining to sanctification should therefore be considered using principles of judgment other than deduction, the latter being applicable only to what’s unchanging or eternal. The knowledge that we are sanctified can be known from what is explicit in Scripture or properly deduced within these constraints, but knowledge of the state of our sanctification would involve special knowledge of what’s only infallibly known by God (viz., our hearts).

Neither can we infallibly deduce knowledge of relationships involving at least one time-bound person. For example, we hear the word of absolution (from the eternal God given in his Word to us) and believe it—but we shouldn’t go beyond that and speak more than hopefully of future words of absolution, or of future states. Though such things may look like they’re knowable by deductive reasoning from Scripture, they are actually inductive reasons; the biblical story in which we are still players is not a static one that gives itself over to perfect systematization; the biblical story is one in which we are enmeshed and time-bound. To make merely implicit—inductive—prognostications is not given to us to do.

For the time being, therefore, I’ll try to speak and live in a way that’s distinctively Lutheran.

I refuse to seek (with an over-anxious regard to sorting details of the divine mysteries) beyond what God reveals or to move beyond the worship of Christ as Savior. Properly wise historical thinking of a sanctified mind draws from a singular impulse in the Christian: to seek God (in his revealed Word) and then to delight in the mystery and wonder at the discovery that the Word speaks directly to us of our being—and this is a historical aspect—caught-up in his inner trinitarian life by our death and rebirth in Christ.

Finally, a long passage taken from a lauded Reformed text by a trusted theologian on the doctrine of predestination:

“What About the Well-meant Gospel Offer?

In the historical discussion regarding election, one of the more controversial issues is that of the so-called free or well-meant offer of the gospel. During the dispute between the Arminians and the Calvinists in the Netherlands in the early seventeenth century, the Arminians complained that the Calvinist doctrine of election nullified the genuineness of the gospel offer of salvation. In their opinion, if God has unconditionally elected to save a certain number of persons, then the gospel-call could not seriously or genuinely summon all persons to faith. Because some of these persons are not elect, and since God has no intention of bringing them to salvation, the call of the gospel, when extended to the non-elect, is disingenuous. Neither God nor those who speak for Him can sincerely call all sinners through the gospel to salvation, expressing a genuine desire that they would believe in Christ and be saved. In the estimation of Arminius and his followers, the doctrine of unconditional election calls into question what the Bible teaches about God’s goodness and love toward all fallen sinners. They judged the doctrine of unconditional election as contrary to the Bible’s teaching that God desires for all to be saved, taking no delight in the death of any fallen sinner. While it may be difficult, even impossible, for us to comprehend, the only biblical answer to this question is that God’s will regarding the salvation of fallen human beings must be distinguished into two aspects.18 On the one hand, God’s purpose of election expresses His gracious will and intention to save those toward whom He chooses to be merciful. The biblical doctrine of election means God uniquely and particularly wills to save some sinners in and through the work of Christ. On the other hand, God also reveals through the gracious call of the gospel how He nonetheless genuinely wills that all fallen sinners should respond in faith and so be saved. When fallen sinners are urgently, seriously, and sincerely summoned through the gospel to come to Christ in faith in order to be saved, this summons expresses God’s desire for them to do so. The call of the gospel is born out of God’s mercy, and expressly reveals God’s good will toward all fallen sinners. For this reason, the Canons of Dort affirm that ‘all who are called through the gospel are called seriously. For seriously and most genuinely God makes known in his Word what is pleasing to him: that those who are called should come to him. Seriously he also promises rest for their souls and eternal life to all who come to him and believe’ (I/8).19 Despite the difficulty of explaining how these two distinct aspects of God’s will are compatible, both are clearly taught in Scripture. Indeed, there are several ways in which the Scriptures attest God’s gracious will that all fallen human beings turn from their sin and find salvation through faith in Christ.20 For example, several biblical passages in the Old Testament represent God to desire the salvation of all to whom He reveals His mercy (e.g., Deut. 5:29; 32:29; Ps. 81:13; Isa. 48:18). In these passages, God expresses His desire for the salvation of those who do not fear Him or keep His commandments. In a similar way, a number of biblical passages reveal how God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but earnestly calls them to turn from their sinful ways and be saved (e.g., Ezek. 18:23; 33:11; Matt. 23:37-39; Luke 13:34-36). In the gospel accounts of Jesus’ lament over the unbelief of many inhabitants of Jerusalem (‘O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to it! How often I would have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!’; Luke 13:34), Jesus expresses His deep anguish at the unwillingness of many of Jerusalem’s inhabitants to believe. When this is interpreted in the light of the context, which speaks of their failure to enter into the kingdom of God, it is evident Jesus is lamenting their unwillingness to be saved. Another, often overlooked, biblical argument regarding the well-meant offer is the apostle Paul’s poignant expression of his heart’s desire and prayer to God for the salvation of his ‘kinsmen according to the flesh’ (Rom. 9:1-5; 10:1). In the face of the unbelief of many of his contemporaries among the people of Israel, the apostle declares his own personal desire that they should come to faith in Christ. Strikingly, in the same passage in which the apostle teaches particular election, he also expresses his desire for the salvation of all his unbelieving kinsmen. In a similar way, there are other passages in the New Testament speaking of God’s desire for the salvation of all to whom the gospel is preached (cf. 1 Tim. 2:3-4; 2 Pet. 3:9). Admittedly, it is difficult to comprehend the consistency or coherence of these distinct aspects of God’s will. To affirm simultaneously the teachings of unconditional, particular election and the well-meant gospel offer seems to violate ordinary canons of logic. How can God sovereignly decree not to save a lost sinner, and yet nonetheless desire his or her salvation? This seems tantamount to saying that God has two contrary impulses: to save and not to save, to love and to hate. It appears to introduce, so far as God’s will with respect to the salvation of lost sinners is concerned, a kind of duality into God’s purposes. Though it is not possible to comprehend fully the harmony within God’s will in this respect, some observations can help alleviate the difficulty. First, the wisest course at this point is to insist that, though the tension here is apparent, it is ultimately not real. Though the mystery of the full harmony of God’s will may finally lie beyond our grasp, we must be content to follow the teaching of Scripture wherever it leads. If the Scriptures teach unconditional election, we should affirm this teaching. If the Scriptures teach the well-meant gospel offer, we should affirm this teaching as well. That we are unable to see through the consistency of these things says something about the limits of our understanding. But it is conceit on our part to insist that, because we cannot fully comprehend it, it is not true. As is often the case, Calvin offers wise counsel in this area: Although, therefore, God’s will is simple, yet great variety is involved in it, as far as our senses are concerned. Besides, it is not surprising that our eyes should be blinded by intense light, so that we cannot certainly judge how God wishes all to be saved, and yet has devoted all the reprobate to eternal destruction, and wishes them to perish. While we look now through a glass darkly, we should be content with the measure of our own intelligence. (1 Cor. 13:12). When we shall be like God, and see him face to face, then what is now obscure will then become plain.21 Second, we must remember that the well-meant offer has to do with the revelation of God’s will in the preaching of the gospel. When we speak of the well-meant gospel offer, we are in the orbit of what Reformed theology calls God’s revealed will, not His decretive will. Though this distinction may only seem to paper over the apparent contradiction between the free offer of the gospel and God’s decree of election, it does remind us that the divine desire and good will expressed in the gospel offer do not exactly coincide with God’s sovereign purposes of election. Therefore, it is an unfortunate confusion when the language of God’s ‘will’ to save the lost, as it relates to the free offer of the gospel, is regarded to have the same meaning as the language of God’s ‘will’ to save the lost, as it relates to His decree of election. Third, it is at least conceivable to imagine a circumstance in which God might desire something that He has not simultaneously determined to effect. Robert Lewis Dabney addresses this point in his essay, ‘God’s Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy, As Related to His Power, Wisdom, and Sincerity.’22 In this essay, which is an extraordinarily complex handling of our question, Dabney maintains that we can imagine circumstances in which a person might harbor a strong desire or ‘propension’ to show mercy but at the same time, for reasons sometimes unknown to us, determine to effect something quite different. He mentions, for example, General Washington’s decision to sign a death-warrant during the Revolutionary War for Major André. Though Washington felt deep and genuine compassion for Major André, he resolutely fulfilled his obligation in bringing him to justice for his treason during war-time. While admitting that this and other analogies drawn from human experience are inadequate to account for the harmonious, yet complex, ways of God in dealing with lost sinners, Dabney maintained that it might help us see how God could be simultaneously and sincerely compassionate toward lost sinners while, for reasons known alone to Him, be resolute in His sovereign determination not to save them. Though God’s complex will toward lost sinners would not involve the kind of tension and disharmony that often accompanies human motives and purposes, His will with respect to lost sinners is undoubtedly an infinitely complex one, which could accommodate at the same time a propensity to show mercy to lost sinners while sovereignly determining not to save them. Only an ‘overweening logic’, Dabney argued, would insist that God could not simultaneously reveal a sincere desire to show mercy to lost sinners and yet harbor in His sovereign designs a purpose to save some and not others. Although Reformed theology recognizes the difficulty of harmonizing the scriptural teachings of a sovereign decree of election and a well-meant gospel offer, it seeks to affirm both, to insist upon their ultimate harmony, and to admit that the ‘ways of God’ in this and other respects lie beyond our capacity fully to comprehend. In doing so, it witnesses to the truth that God’s work of election is a work in which He takes great delight, whereas His work of withholding His saving mercy from some is a reluctant work” (Venema, Cornelis P.. Chosen in Christ: Revisiting the Contours of Predestination (Reformed Exegetical Doctrinal Studies series) (pp. 360-365). Christian Focus Publications. Édition du Kindle).

Now let’s hear from the C.F.W. Walther, representing the Lutherans:

“You should dread the question by which Satan once misled our mother Eve: ‘Did God actually say (this)?’ Nor should you ask with Nicodemus: ‘How can these things be?’ For if you do this, you have already departed from God’s Word. But rather speak humbly to God with Samuel: ‘Speak; for Your servant hears.’ If you find that in the Holy Scriptures two doctrines are clearly and plainly revealed which appear to contradict each other, you must not endeavor to reconcile them with your reason, much less must you accept the one and reject the other, but you must then believe both heartily, and wait until the next world, where God will then reveal to you how both doctrines most gloriously harmonize. Many have already thought and said: ‘In the Bible it is written that there is only one God, and yet, at the same time, it is written, that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; but this can, indeed, not be reconciled!’ Hence some following their reason, have drawn the conclusion: Hence, the Father only can be true God; others, on the contrary, following their reason in like manner, have accepted three gods; and thus both have shamefully trifled away and lost the true God and, consequently, their salvation. O beware then, dear reader, of such desire to reconcile! Even now many desire to explain and make the unsearchable and inexplicable mysteries, which the doctrine on predestination contains, agree with reason by saying: Why the elect are predestinated may be explained from this: that God foresaw their conduct, that they, namely, would accept the Gospel in faith, and remain steadfast in every cross and temptation, and endure in the true faith to their end. True, many now say in order to justify this subtle reasoning, that many pure teachers of our church have also taught that the elect are predestinated in view of their foreseen faith; but if our present opponents only taught this, they would then not decry our doctrine as heresy, and much less would we accuse them of heresy, although we, indeed, regard that method of teaching by which it is taught that God has elected in view of foreseen faith, as subject to misunderstanding, which can not only easily be misused in favor of false doctrine, but also has really been thus misused, and is still misused. For this reason, the Formula of Concord also expressly warns against drawing conclusions from the foreknowledge of God. Hence beware, beware, beware, dear reader, from reconciling articles of faith with your reason! Leave to God His mysteries unsearched, and do not wonder that God knows more than you, and that He does not permit us poor short-sighted mortals, yea, not even angels and arch-angels to look into His secret counsels, until the day of the revelation of His glory. Luther says in his House-Postil: ‘The Bible and Scripture is not such a book which flows out of reason and human wisdom. Therefore, whoever undertakes to measure and compass the Scripture, how it agrees with reason, abandons it entirely. For all heretics, from the beginning, have arison on this account, because they thought that what they read in the Scriptures, they might so interpret according to the teachings of reason…St. Augustine complains that, at first, he entered the Scripture with his reason and studied it for nine entire years, and desired to grasp the Scripture with his reason; but the more he studied it, the less he understood it, until he had finally experienced by his loss, that a man must put out the eyes of reason, and say: What the Scriptures say, that I leave unsearched by reason; but believe it with an honest heart. If a man will do this, then the Scriptures will become clear and plain, which were dark before. Thus St. Gregory also says: ‘The Holy Scriptures are a stream in which an elephant may swim and drown; but a lamb goes through it, as through a shallow brook.’ At another place, Luther writes: ‘If reconciling were permitted, we could not retain a single article of faith.’”

They’re not so far apart, are they? Lutherans and Reformed have the same complexity in the will of God to save, but the Reformed add his reluctant damnation. Neither party escapes a confounding encounter with mystery.

https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc486/ 41’ forward. I’m not convinced by his answer to how this doesn’t make God the author of sin, which seems to be the main problem with Reformed thought. It’s starting to look like mystery is a bit of excess paint that theologians within different traditions want to clean up on their portrait of God, or to brush away, but that they only end-up pushing into some corner or other. For the Lutherans, it’s the mystery of monergistic predestination combined with universal atonement and the ability to mortally sin (and lose one’s salvation)—a doctrine they have to grin and bear, calling it a « crux theologorum. » For the Reformed it’s all pushed into the mystery of God’s authorship of evil, a rose called by other names which smells just as sweet (if you find some comfort in the idea of divine command voluntarism); evil is smudged into an ugly little blemish raised between primary and secondary causes. For the Eastern Orthodox, the mystery residue is on everything if you challenge any ideas on any grounds, including by using the contradictory ideas of other theologians within their own tradition. « The fathers say lots of things… » they’ll quip with an affect of being wise. For the Roman Catholics, it’s the equating the development of doctrine with the development of God’s character itself; a dialectical development of the authoritarian church in history coincides with its development as a source of revelation of mystery, effectively making the Roman Catholic Church a god on earth standing-in for an absconding prime-mover god that can’t be known quite as certainly as they know the pope’s infallibility, made concrete by declarations about Mary’s flawlessness (the church using its own reflections over centuries to decide the unrecorded character and actions of real people like Mary and Joseph).

—————————————————————————————————————————————————

C.F.W. Walther:

« 34. Is the call of God by His Word always meant in earnest? Yes: this call of God, which is given through the preaching of His Word, we should not regard as pretended and unreal, but we ought to know that through it God reveals His will; namely, that in those whom He thus calls, He will operate through the Word; so that they may be enlightened, converted, and saved. For the Word through which we are called is a ministration of the Spirit, which imparts the Spirit, and through which the Spirit is conferred, 2 Cor. 3:8; and is the power of God unto salvation, Rom. 1:16. And since the Holy Spirit will be efficacious through the Word, strengthen us, and administer power and ability, it is the will of God that we should receive and believe the Word, and be obedient to it.

35. Hence, how are those who belong to the elect, described in the Scriptures, in order that every one may know whether he belongs to them or not? Hence the elect are thus described: ‘My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life,’ John 10:27;28. And Euh. 1:11,13: ‘In Him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him.’ We hear the Gospel, believe in Christ, pray, and return thanks, and are sanctified in love, have hope, patience, and consolation in trials, Rom. 8, 16, 25; and although all these are very weak in them, yet they ‘hunger and thirst after righteousness,’ Matt. 5,6. Thus the Spirit of God bears witness unto the elect, that they are the children of God, and as they know not what they should pray for as they ought, He makes intercession for them with groaning which cannot be uttered, Rom. 8, 16, 26.

36. But, must we not doubt whether we belong to the elect, when we remember that many, who were called and came to faith, have not persevered unto the end? By no means: the Holy Scriptures, moreover, testify that God, who has called us, is so faithful that when He has begun this good work in us, He will also maintain it unto the end, and accomplish it, if we do not turn ourselves away from Him, but hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end; whereunto also He has promised His grace, 1 Cor. 1:9; Phil. 1:6-7; 1 Pet. 5:10; 2 Pet. 3:9-15-18; Heb. 3:14.

39. But is it not written: ‘Many are called and few are chosen’; how then can the call be a sure sign by which God reveals the mystery of His will towards us? The divine vocation, which takes place through the Word, is not the cause that many are called, while few are chosen, Matt. 20:16; as if such were the meaning of God: ‘Externally, through the Word, I call you all, indeed, to My kingdom, unto whom I give My Word, but in My heart I do not intend it for all, but for a few only; for it is My will that the greater part of those, whom I call through the Word, should not be enlightened and converted, but be and remain damned, although I have declared Myself otherwise towards them, through the Word by which they are called.’

46. To what has God rather ordained those who are elect unto salvation at the same time in His eternal counsel? To this, 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.

47. But what has God at the same time decreed in His counsel concerning those also, who do not follow the call? This, 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.

48. Why, then, are many called, but few chosen? Because few receive the Word and obey it. The greater part despise the Word, and will not come to the marriage feast.

49. Hence what is not the cause of this despising the Word? The cause of this contempt of the Word is not the foreknowledge of God, but the perverted will of man, which rejects or perverts the means and instrument of the Holy Spirit, which God offers unto it through the call, and it resists the Holy Spirit, who would be efficacious and operate through the Word; as Christ, Matt. 23:27, says: ‘How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing.’

50. What is also not the cause, that many indeed accept the Word with joy, but afterwards again fall away (Luke 8, 13)? The cause is not, because God would not grant unto those, in whom He has begun this good work, His grace in order to perseverance; for this is contrary to the declaration of St. Paul, Phil. 1:6; but because they contumaciously turn away again from the holy command, grieve and offend the Holy Spirit, entangle themselves in the pollutions of the world, and garnish the habitation of their hearts for Satan again. The latter end with these is worse than the beginning, 2 Pet. 2:10-20; Luke 11:25-26; Heb. 10:26; Eph. 4:30.

55. Is, then, the true doctrine of election comforting in general only, or does it also give each individual Christian comfort for his own person in particular? Yes: this doctrine also affords the eminent and precious consolation, that God took so deep an interest in the conversion, righteousness, an 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.

56. Doe the true doctrine of election give the Christian a beautiful and glorious comfort then also, when they consider that they can so easily lose their salvation through the weakness and wickedness of the flesh, or through the fraud and power of the devil and the world? Yes: the true doctrine of election also gives the beautiful and glorious comfort, that God wishes to scare 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?’

82. Should, therefore, a person who desires to be saved trouble or harass himself with thoughts concerning the secret counsel of God, whether he is also elected and ordained to eternal life, by which anxieties Satan is accustomed maliciously to disturb and torment pious minds? By no means; but he should rather listen to Christ, who is the Book of Life and of the divine, eternal election of all the children of God to everlasting life; and who testifies to all men without distinction, that God desires all meant to come to Him, who are burdened with sins and heavy-laden, in order that they may have rest and be saved.

83. What should all those who desire to be saved do, according to this doctrine of Christ, instead of tormenting themselves with God’s secret counsel? We should abstain from sin, repent, and believe His promise, and rely wholly and entirely upon Him. But, since we are unable to do this by our own powers and of ourselves, the Holy Spirit desires to work in us repentance and faith, through the Word and Sacraments. And, in order that we may be enabled to proceed onward in this course, persevere therein, and remain steadfast, we should call upon God for His grace, which He has promised us in Holy Baptism, and not doubt that He will impart it unto us according to His promise. For thus Christ has promised, saying, ‘If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? Or, if he shall ask an egg, will he offer a scorpion?’

84. Dare believers, who can and shall accept the doctrine of election to their comfort, be inactive or even resist the operation of the Spirit of God? No: inasmuch as the Holy Spirit dwells in the elect, who now believe in Christ, 1 Cor. 3:16, as in His temple, and is not inactive in them, but impels the children of God to obey the commands of God, believers should likewise not be inactive, much less resist the operation of the Spirit of God, but exercise themselves in all Christian virtues, in all piety, modesty, temperance, patience, and brotherly love, and use all diligence to make their calling and election sure, 2 Pet. 1:10.

85. Why should believers, who can and shall accept the doctrine of election to their comfort, not be inactive, but exercise themselves in all Christian virtues? That they may doubt the less, the more they feel the power and energy of the Spirit in themselves. For the Spirit of God bears witness to the elect that they are the children of God, Rom. 8:16.

86. Must not believers doubt in their election and salvation, when at times they do not perceive the power of the Spirit? Far be it! If at any time they fall into such strong temptations, that they think they no more perceive the power of the indwelling Spirit of God, and say with David, Psalm 31:22: ‘I said in my alarm, ‘I am cut off from Your sight’; yet, as David immediately adds, they should say again with him, whatever they may discover in themselves: ‘But You heard the voice of my pleas for mercy when I cried to You for help.’

87. But must we not on this account doubt in our election and salvation, because it is possible for us to fail? No: since our election is not founded upon our piety or virtue, but alone upon the merit of Christ and the gracious will of His Father, who cannot deny Himself, because He is immutable in His will and essence; therefore, if His children fall from obedience and stumble, He causes them to be called again unto repentance, through the Word; and the Holy Spirit will be efficacious in them unto conversion, through the Word; and when they return unto Him again in true repentance, through genuine faith, He will even manifest His paternal love towards all those who tremble at His Word, Isa. 66:2, and return unto Him with their hearts, for thus it is written, Jer. 3:1.

88. Should we, perhaps, on this account doubt in our election and salvation, because it is written: ‘No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him’? Not at all; the declaration that ‘no man can come to Christ unless the Father who sent Him draws him,’ John 6:44, is righteously and truly made. The Father, however, will draw no one without means; but He has instituted His Word and Sacraments as the ordinary means and instruments for this purpose. And it is not the will of the Father or of the Son that any person should neglect the preaching of His Word, or condemn it, and wait until the Father draws, with the Word and the Sacraments. For the Father draws indeed by the power of His Holy Spirit, yet according to His ordinary mode, through the hearing of His holy, divine Word, yet according to His ordinary mode, through the hearing of His holy, divine Word, as with a net, by which the elect are snatched out of the jaws of Satan. And to the preaching of this Word, each miserable sinner should betake himself, hear it diligently, and not doubt the drawing of the Father. For the Holy Spirit with His power will accompany the Word and operate through it: and this is the drawing of the Father.

109. How do you prove that the doctrine of election is certainly not understood and interpreted according to the Word of God when it does not give the troubled and tormented Christians the surest comfort? This I prove thus: as the apostle testifies in Rom. 15:4: ‘For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.’ But where this comfort and hope are impaired, or taken away from us entirely by the Scripture, it is certain that the Scripture is understood and explained contrary to the will and meaning of the Holy Spirit.’

« …there is no sense in this also, to speak of an election, or what is the same thing here, of a choosing out from, if the same pertains to ALL men; for a choosing out from among which pertains to all men without exception, is nothing, a contradiction in itself. A choosing out already shows, that not all are taken, but from among all only certain ones, be they few or many. This even a little child can understand. And the Formula of Concord says very expressly that the eternal election of God or God’s ordaining to salvation does not pertain at the same time to the good and the wicked, hence, not to to all men, but only to the children of God, who are elected and ordained to eternal life before the foundation of the world. How, then, can it be said that the Formula of Concord teaches an election in the wider sense, which pertains to all men, to the good and the wicked?! We have, therefore, already admonished the reader above all to hold fast to the two chief sentences of our confession. Election does not pertain to all men, but only to the elect children of God, who are elected and ordained to eternal life before the foundation of the world was laid, and this election of God, which does not pertain to the pious and wicked, is a cause which procures, works, aids, and promotes our salvation and whatever pertains to it, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. O do not permit yourself to be led astray! The Formula of Concord is not such a confused document, that it should first say that election pertains alone tot he elect children of God, and then, a few lines afterward, it should say of election, that nevertheless it pertains to all men. Our adversaries, indeed, appeal to this, that the Formula of Concord itself says that if we would reflect and discourse correctly and with advantage upon election, we must, as Paul does in Rom. 8:29ff., comprise the entire doctrine together, of the purpose, will, and ordination of God, belonging to our redemption, call, justification, and salvation; hence (say our opponents) the entire decree of salvation made for all men belongs to election. But in the first place, we still assert that there is no sense even in this that the general decree of salvation is a part of the decree of election; for Christ says clearly and distinctly: ‘Many are called, but FEW are chose.’ But the Formula of Concord also says expressly, that it speaks of ‘OUR redemption, call, justification, and salvation,’ whereby it clearly shows that it speaks of all this in reference to the elect, because God does not lead them to salvation in any other way than by which He would lead all men to salvation. Therefore the Formula of Concord also declares according to question 24, that in what precedes, where it speaks of the call, justification, sanctification, and constancy under the cross, it has described the ‘manner holy God would bring, assist, promote, strengthen, and preserve the elect by His grace, gifts, and work thereto,’ namely to salvation. Hence, everything which the Formula of Concord says in questions 21-23 refers to the elect, wherefore it is said in the conclusion where it again repeats in a summary what it has already said: ‘That He will finally eternally save and glorify THOSE, even in eternal life, WHOM HE ELECTED, called, and justified.’ That this is the true sense of our dear confession may be seen from this also that the Formula of Concord after question 20 says that Paul also treats and explains this article thus, Rom. 8:29f. But how does Paul treat and explain this article in Rom. 8:29f.? Thus, that he, indeed, speaks of the call, justification, and glorification but only in reference to the elect; for thus he writes: ‘For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate 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,’ Rom. 8:29-30. … Of the general decree of salvation so far as it pertains to all men, Paul had treated in the preceding chapters of the Epistle to the Romans; but from the second half of the eighth chapter on, he speaks of this decree in relation to the elect. … But, it is said, does not the Formula of Concord after question 33 expressly say this also, that the promise of the Gospel is universal, and, consequently, pertains to all men? We answer: Yes, of course! But where does the Formula of Concord say that this is election? Nowhere! In this passage, it rather treats of this: concerning what ‘above all we must hold vastly and firmly, if we would advantageously consider our eternal election to salvation,’ if we, namely, desire to know whether we also belong to those ‘who can and shall accept this doctrine’ (of election) ‘to their comfort.’ Hence, there is nothing more said in this passage concerning the nature of election, or what it is, properly speaking, but concerning what we must hold fast if ‘we would discourse with advantage upon our eternal election to salvation.’ For this, we can evidently do then only when we, in the first place, hold fast to this that God has from eternity loved all men, and hence, us also; that God has redeemed all men, and hence us also; that God earnestly calls all men to Himself, and hence us also; that God would bring all men, and hence, us also, to repentance and faith, and preserve them therein to their end, and save them eternally. For God has promised no one that He would reveal His election unto him without means. How, otherwise, can we dare to believe that even we belong to the elect, if we cannot first and above all hold to the general decree of God, which most certainly pertains to all men, and hence, most certainly to us also? … The doctrine of the justification of a poor sinner before God can most assuredly not possibly be presented for the benefit and comfort of the penitent sinner if the redemption of all men be not first established as the basis; but is, therefore, the redemption of all men a part, yes, the principal part of the doctrine of justification of a poor sinner before God? By no means! It is not a part of it, but the ground on which it rests. And this is also the relation of the doctrine of the general decree of salvation and of election. Even the general decree is not a part of election, but the ground upon which election rests. The doctrine of universal grace is rather the chief doctrine of all Christianity, with which alone we must begin, and also afterwards continue and never cease, if man is to be brought to salvation; but the doctrine of election does not belong to the first letters of God’s Word, and is not milk as the doctrine of universal grace, but strong meat, which belongs to those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil (Heb. 5:12-14); it has this object only to give those who have already become believers a particular comfort, namely, the glorious comfort: that their salvation does not rest in their hands, but in the hand of Christ; that God Himself, as He has begun the good work in them, will also accomplish it unto the day of Jesus Christ; that their salvation is so firmly grounded upon God’s eternal election, that even the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and that, therefore, nothing, nothing can pluck them out of the hands of Christ. … The Calvinists teach that God has elected certain men absolutely, that is, entirely unconditionally, by His mere good pleasure, not influenced by the merits of Christ; but our dear Lutheran Church teaches that God has elected on account of Christ’s merits and through faith in Christ, which He at the same time decreed to give. Whoever is elected is, according to God’s Word and our Confession, because God out of pure mercy has on Christ’s account ‘ordained’ to bring him to faith, to preserve him in faith to the end, and in this and no other manner, to give him eternal life » (C.F.W. Walther, Predestination).

—————————————————————————————————————————————————

Francis Pieper:

«In the Strassburg Form of Concord, of 1563, we read: ‘However, why this grace, or this gift of faith, is not bestowed on all by God, while He calls all to Himself, and, accordingly to His infinite goodness, calls them with serious intent, this is a mystery that is hidden from us and known to God alone. It cannot be searched out by any man’s reason, and must be reverently contemplated and worshiped. …. Joachim Moerlin: ‘It has been revealed to us that God will save only those who believe in Christ, and that unbelief is of our own doing. However, the judgements of God, viz., why He converts Paul, but does not convert Caiaphas, why he restores fallen Peter while He leaves Judas to despair, are hidden from us.’ … Chemnitz: ‘What is the reason why Judas is not received, and does not obtain forgiveness of sin when he repents of what he has done? What is there lacking in his contrition and repentance that shuts him out from grace? He had not faith in Christ, he did not believe that God is gracious and forgives sin. That is the damaging fault in him. For where there is no faith, there is no grace of God nor forgiveness of sin. Now, our Catechism says in the Third Article of our Christian Creed that no man can by his own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ or come to Him, but the Holy Ghost must induce him to believe; for faith is a gift of God. How, then, does it come that God does not implant such faith in the heart of Judas, so as to enable him also to believe that Christ could help him? At this point we must turn back with our questioning and say (Rom. 11): ‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgements, and His ways past finding out!’ We cannot and may not search out this matter, and we must not stray too far in such musings, but engage in all these matters in such a way as not to rush head-long into the sin of tempting God, lest God withdraw His hand from us and suffer us to sink and perish. For if we do this, we shall fall into sin upon sin, and shall gradually become merged in sin so deeply, that it is become impossible for us to return and we cannot regain our former standing, as happened to Judas’. ‘Nor does the Christian Book of Concord deny that there is in God reprobation, or that God casts some away. This is the acme of faith, to believe that this same God who saves so few persons is nevertheless the most gracious God, and to be careful not to ascribe to God the real cause of such casting away and condemnation of men, which is the purport of the teaching of our adversaries, and to hold that, when this question is mooted, all men must put their finger on their lips, and, first, say with the Apostle Paul (Rom. 11, Rom 6): ‘The wages of sin is death.’ In the second place, when this question is raised, why our Lord God does not convert all men by His Holy Spirit, and make them believers, which He could easily do, we must by no means charge God with having willfully and really caused the casting away and damnation of those who do not repent. …We are in no wise minded to make God the cause of reprobation (which really has its origin, not in God, but in sin), nor shall we ascribe to God the real cause of the damnation of the wicked, but we shall take our stand on the saying of the Prophet Hosea, where God says: ‘O Israel thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help.’ …. Scripture and the Confessions are also quite clear and unmistakable in what they say regarding the relation which the faith of the children of God here in time holds to their election in eternity. In all passages which treat of this relation the faith of the children of God and their entire state of grace is represented as a consequence and an effect of their eternal election. Scripture names as a consequence and an effect of eternal election the entire spiritual blessing which has been imparted to Christians here in time, Eph. 1:3ff., their calling, justification, and glorification, Rom. 8, 28-30, their being taken out of the world which is perishing (conversion), and their being placed in safety in the state of salvation, 2 Tim. 1, 9, their becoming believers, Acts 13, 48. Yea, according to Scripture it is a consequence and an effect of the election of grace that there exists at all in this world a Church, a communion of believers, and that, even in times of the greatest defection, such as the days of the Prophet Elijah, the days of the Apostle Paul among the Jewish nation, and the times of falling away prior to the day of Judgement, Rom. 11, ; Matt. 24, 22-24. Could the Scriptures have stated with greater distinctness that faith and perseverance in faith are not an antecedent, but a result and effect of the eternal election? Likewise our Lutheran Confessions state in the oft-quoted words: ‘The eternal election of God not only foresees and foreknows the salvation of the elect, but is also, from the gracious will and pleasure of God in Christ Jesus, a cause which procure, works, helps, and promotes what pertains thereto; upon this divine predestination also our salvation is so founded that ‘the gates of hell cannot prevail against it’ (Matt. 16-18). …. the called are persons toward whom God has omitted no effort, as regards their being invited, with earnest and urgent pleading, to the kingdom of God. But God has expended His efforts upon them in vain. The great majority of them do not obey the call. They are not translated from the world to the Church; they remain extra ecclesia. In this passage of Holy Writ ‘call’ and ‘conversion’ are not identical in meaning. The call, in this instance, is a person’s invitation to the kingdom of God, without including his conversion. The same meaning appears in two more passages, Matt. 20, 16; Luke 14, 24. Hence there is Scriptural warrant for using the term ‘call’ in distinction from ‘conversion’. Concerning this calling, however, which is not identical with, but must be distinguished from, conversion, two sorts of persons teach error, viz., Calvinists and synergists. According to Calvinism the calling which is not identical with conversion is no call unto the kingdom of God, but a mere pretense of calling. Calvin would determine the character of the call by reference to the result. … Charles Hodge, the American dogmatician of Calvinism, argues: ‘We must assume that the result is the interpretation of the purposes of God.’ Over against this it should be maintained: The call is a divine quantity in itself, regardless of the result. This is most powerfully exhibited in Matt. 22. The king’s benevolence, evidenced by the gracious terms of his invitation to the supper he has prepared, as well as his anger, enkindled by the contempt with which his invitation is received, demonstrate the intense, divine earnestness of the calling even in the case of the ineffectual call. Matt. 22 is in subject-matter a parallel of Is. 5, 4: ‘What could have been done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it?’ And of Matt. 23,37: ‘I would have gathered you—and ye would not.’ Hence it is quite proper to say that all who live under the sound of the Gospel may be converted and saved, as was shown in the preceding chapter. Hence, too, our Confession treats of the call which God directs to all hearers of the Word in such terms as these: ‘this call of God, which is made through the preaching of the Word, we should not regard as being a mere delusion, but know that God thereby reveals His will, that He would work by His Word, in those called in such manner that they might become enlightened, converted, and saved. For the Word by which we are called is ‘a ministration of the Spirit,’ giving the Spirit, or by means of which the Spirit is given, 2 Cor. 3, and ‘a power of God unto salvation,’ Rom 1. And since the Holy Spirit would, through the Word, be active, strengthen, and give power and ability, it is God’s will that we should receive and believe the Word and be obedient to it.’ Also the calling which remains ineffectual has behind it the gracious workings of divine omnipotence and the omnipotent workings of divine grace. The reason why men are able to resist the call: Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest,’ while they cannot resist the call of doom which summons them before the judgement-seat of Christ, is, because in His call of grace in time God works through means, while on Judgement Day He operates in glory unveiled. Not only in the latter, but in the former instance as well, the operative power is a divine and omnipotent power. ‘We believe according to the working of His mighty power which He wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the dead.’ But the operations of God through means have the property of being resistible. God working without means, in majesty unveiled, cannot be resisted, as is evident from Matt. 25, 31 sqq., and as is shown at length by Luther in De Servo Arbitrio. To say that ‘the result is the interpretation of the purposes of God’ is the smart talk of a would-be wise person. » (Francis Pieper, Conversion and Election).

————————————————————————————————————————————

https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/10/why-lutheran-predestination-isnt-calvinist-predestination : “Calvin himself writes, “We assert that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all determined both whom he would admit to salvation and whom he would condemn to destruction” ( Institutes 3.21.7).

Such a doctrine is abhorrent to Lutherans. And, indeed, contemplation of such a doctrine was abhorrent also to Luther. In his Lectures on Genesis , given in the last decade of his life, Luther speaks at length on the subject of predestination once more (I will quote only bits of it in what follows, but you can read the whole thing in LW 5:43-50): “I hear that here and there among the nobles and persons of importance vicious statements are being spread abroad concerning predestination or God’s foreknowledge. For this is what they say: ‘If I am predestined, I shall be saved, whether I do good or evil. If I am not predestined, I shall be condemned regardless of my works.’ . . . If the statements are true, as they, of course, think, then the incarnation of the Son of God, His suffering and resurrection, and all that He did for the salvation of the world are done away with completely. What will the prophets and all Holy Scripture help? What will the sacraments help?”

A fair point, indeed. If salvation is dependent solely upon God’s predestining us—His sovereign will—then what is the point of the Sacraments or the Word, or even the Sacrifice of Christ? Luther defines for us here the problem which arises when Christians fixate on predestination—namely, that we begin to consider the subject apart from the actual salvific act of Christ at the cross. We move away from Scripture’s teachings and substitute our own reason and logic (resulting in thoughts like those listed above, eg, “If I am already predestined one way or the other, then nothing I do or believe can change that.”)”

To the above I’d say that it sounds a lot like Paul’s adversaries mockingly asking if the truth of the gospel means that we can go on sinning. What help would the sacraments be? This is the same misunderstanding of God’s use of means to his ends that I encounter constantly. It’s the same thinking that would reason that if I believe, then it’s of my own doing because it’s either me doing it or God. Obviously this is false, and the same can be applied to the question of the utility of sacraments in attaining to salvation.

And as usual, with regard to Lutherans on this point, I find their biblical interpretations convincing enough; but also as usual, I find the reasoning insanely inept and made even uglier by their denial of applying reason to the things of God (as if they weren’t coming to their own conclusions through rational arguments).