The Election Doctrine and the Book of Concord

BY ROSS M. BAGNE
In a Bible study with Pastor Bruce Hanneman
at Good Shepherd Lutheran church in Cheyenne, WY
(Note: the position of this book is not supported by Good Shepherd Lutheran Church)

(Since this study of the Bible was not originally meant to be published, it is currently under revision so that it will be publishable form soon.)

I

Introduction

When we enter into the election doctrine, by far the most difficult teaching in the whole of Scripture, we must take care that we are not lost in a labyrinth out of which we might never find our way -- for there are many pitfalls and many deep dark caverns of thought to be avoided in the complexity which this doctrine provides for our human understanding. The implications of this doctrine and its relation to God's omnipotence and his foreknowledge lead us to the brink of an infinite abyss where God revealed leaves off and God hidden and inscrutable and omnipotent begins -- a region where God's judgments are described by Scripture as the "great deep." We must not wish to tread one iota or one dot beyond what God has given for us to know, and we must not let our curiosity lead us over the edge into that abyss to be swept hopelessly into the endless ocean of God's boundless wisdom. Even if our learning were to exceed that of Solomon's which is compared in Scripture to the grains of sand on a seashore, it is still only an infinitesimal fragment of the wisdom of God.

Furthermore, the problem is compounded since the election doctrine involves a teleological suspension of the universal in our relation with God similar to what Soren Kierkegaard called a "teleological suspension of the ethical." Simply stated, it means that the universal no longer applies, in light of a higher relationship to God. Abraham is the prime example of such a teleological suspension in which his relationship to God took precedence over his duty toward his son. In the same way that Abraham's trial tested his faith, so too does the election doctrine test our faith.

Even though the election doctrine does not suspend the universal ethical per se, for the ethical remains unchanged, it still represents a suspension of the universal in relation to God. Where God asked Abraham to disobey the universal ethical, in the election doctrine it is God who no longer seems to us to act according to the universal, and it is we who must believe in God's justice even though we cannot see or understand it and this presents a trial to faith. To believe in God when he acts for our benefit and according to our universal concepts of justice is one thing, but to believe God when he works in ways which seem to suspend the regular ethical norm is quite another, and is a much more difficult.

To almost everyone, it seems very harsh that God predestines everything.  However, upon further practical reflection, there are observations that help us to understand.  For, example, upon reflection, there are many things we know that do not come about according to our "free will."  For example, one does not will to be born.  Once does not will whose parents one will have in life.  One does not will whom one will fall in love with as help-mate in life. One does not will what he dreams at night.  One does not will when he gets tired, goes to sleep or wakes up in the morning.  One does not will good weather, good government, good neighbors.  One does not will good health, good crops, great wealth or almost anything we can think of.  One does not will that the sun should come up in the morning or set at night.  One does not will the rain, the sun or the sleet, or the sun or the moon, or almost anything in creation.   One does not will when he should die.  All these things are determined by God's omnipotent hand, in predestining everything in the universe.  Because there is no power or strength in the universe, except from God.  God is omnipotent, and if any other creature or thing in the universe possessed a free will, then God would not be omnipotent.  Free Will is an attribute of God alone.  Amen.

In many ways, the issue of the election doctrine is similar to the teachings of Job. The same issues which make the book of Job so difficult make the election doctrine equally difficult. In the same way that Job's friends, even though they were very religious, could not grasp Job's concepts of God, so too, there are many religious people --including myself -- who have equally as many difficulties with the election doctrine. Job deals not only with human suffering but also with an incomprehensible and omnipotent God, and it is also God's omnipotence which is integrally related to the doctrine of election.

In light of such difficulties many people have labored diligently to explain it away and to deny very plain words. But as Luther says: "It is dangerous, and indeed impious, to twist the word of God without necessity and without authority."1 The Bible itself goes so far as to say that anyone who makes a mistake in one part is guilty of all of it: "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it." Furthermore, since all Scripture is profitable, "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work," it should all be learned and taught. We have no right to reject certain parts because we do not like them. We have a responsibility to accept it and to teach it all. St. Paul, for example, had a clear conscience only because he had taught the whole counsel of God: "Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God." In addition we are give a solemn warning concerning God's Word:

I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

Therefore, we should be extremely diligent to interpret God's Word precisely, and we should not shrink from declaring the whole counsel of God.

The view that all Scripture is consequential and should be taught straightforwardly and honestly with no evasion was the view of Martin Luther and in part compelled him to write Bondage of the Will, a book which he considered, along with his catechisms, to be his best work. For Luther "Truth and doctrine must be preached always, openly, and constantly, and never accommodated or concealed; for there is no scandal in it, for it is 'the scepter of righteousness' (Ps 45:6-7)."

At least with respect to the election doctrine, the Book of Concord did not follow Luther, or Luther's advice. Whether consciously or unconsciously the Book of Concord in many ways is a repudiation of many of Luther's teachings in "Bondage of the Will."

The two positions can be summarized as follows: Luther held in opposition to the Scholastic Theologians that all things happen by God's necessitating will: "Here then, is something fundamentally necessary and salutary for a Christian, to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but that he foresees and purposes and does all things by his immutable, eternal, and infallible will." The view of the Book of Concord is this: "God's foreknowledge is nothing else than that God knows all things before they happen..." This view is reminiscent in many ways of the Scholastic position.

For Luther, God's eternal election applies to both those who are saved and those who are lost:

"But if God is robbed of the power and wisdom to elect, what will he be but the false idol, chance, at whose nod everything happens at random? And in the end it will come to this, that men are saved and damned without God's knowledge, since he has not determined by his certain election who are to saved and who damned,. . ."

The Book of Concord takes great offense at this idea as they say: "Predestination or the eternal election of God, however, is concerned only with the pious children of God in whom he is well pleased." They go on to say that whoever does not agree with this position is not to be tolerated in the Church: "These are all blasphemous and terrible errors, for they rob Christians of all the comfort that they have in the holy Gospel and in the use of the holy sacraments. Hence they should not be tolerated in God's church." If they enforced this decree they would have to excommunicate not only Luther, but also such great Christian teachers as Wyclife,  Augustine, and Calvin in addition to St. Paul, St. Peter, Solomon, David, Isaiah, and Daniel. For example, Peter writes: "...for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do." Here, it is obvious that Peter does not apply God's predestination solely to the "pious children of God," but to unbelievers. Who is going to suggest that we excommunicate Peter and his teaching when what he teaches is the holy, eternal, Word of God? Or should we take the book of Jude out of the Bible because it teaches: "For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God in licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." Here the writer of Jude clearly states that they were "designated for this condemnation." Or should we censure Christ Himself when he says about Judas's betrayal: "...it is that the scripture may be fulfilled, 'He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me?'" Who is going to suggest that we censor this plain Word of God? What, for example, could be more clear than St. Paul's teaching that those who are damned were literally "fitted for destruction." These statements are perfectly clear. There is nothing obscure about them. And I don't think anyone would suggest that we excommunicate St. Paul, Jude, St. Peter, or Christ. Instead, we should strive to understand what we do not know, and not ignorantly denounce it because it challenges our preconceptions. Aren't the authors of the Epitome attempting to force Christians to sin by going against this doctrine, since "whatever is not of faith is sin?" What is more, they threaten them with excommunication if they don't go against this doctrine.

I am convinced that those who believe in the doctrine of election as taught in the Book of Concord need only to carefully consider the writings of St. Peter, St. Paul, Luther, Calvin and Augustine; to keep an open mind and to study the Scripture in depth to see the correctness of this teaching. And although we are unable to grasp the justice of God, the incarnate will passages actually harmonize very well with the omnipotent will passages. And even though there are some contradictions which we cannot reconcile, God's omnipotent, albeit, inscrutable will can be shown to be the firmest and most certain foundation possible for the incarnate will.

In defending their concept of universal grace they go too far in denying God's predestination. If they are unable to give their assent to this predestination, as Job's friends could not give assent to Job's concepts of human suffering and God's omnipotence, they should at least not denounce the teaching when it is correctly applied and understood -- because by doing so, they themselves are going against what the Scripture teaches, for it was Job who received God's approval while the teachings of his friends were rejected: "My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has."

Having said this, I am convinced also that this doctrine is not for everyone and it takes great care to explain it well. As great a dialectician as Kierkegaard was for example, he felt that no one could accurately describe where God's mercy begins and his wrath ends, and so it is with this doctrine. Furthermore, when one confronts this doctrine he will experience what the Germans have called anfectung, or which other theologians have called the "suspension of grace" which can be a very serious tribulation, and a temptation to faith. Even after four years of studying this doctrine, I still experience anfectung and I don't believe I'll ever have enough faith to completely get over it, because the election doctrine challenges to the greatest extent possible the wisdom of the flesh. Here, for example, is how Soren Kierkegaard described this experience:

Anfectung is in the sphere of the God-relationship what temptation is in the ethical sphere. When the ethical relationship to reality is the maximum for the individual, the temptation is his greatest danger.... In temptation, it is the lower that tempts, in anfectung it is the higher that, as if jealous of the individual, tries to frighten him back. Anfectung therefore originates first in the essentially religious sphere, and occurs there only in the final stage, increasing quite properly in proportion to the intensity of the religiosity, because the individual has discovered the limit, and anfectung expresses the reaction of the limit against the finite individual.

The writers of the Book of Concord misinterpret this experience and reject the true doctrine of election in part because it causes anfectung. They mistakenly interpret this as a sign that this is not God's Word. Or they are concerned about the reaction it might create in listeners, without realizing that precisely this concern is a sure sign that the person experiencing it is accepted by God. Indeed, such concern may be the only way some can be saved, according to Luther:

But if, as you advise, we left these dogmas alone and concealed this Word of God from men, so that they were deluded by a false assurance of salvation and no one learned to fear God and be humbled, so as to come through fear at length to grace and love, then we might very well have closed your window, but in its place we should be opening for ourselves and all men floodgates, or rather great chasms and gulfs, not only to impiety, but to the depths of hell. In this way we should neither enter heaven ourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in (Matt. 23:13).

Admittedly, this approach tends to be frowned upon by the modern church which today, because of its Gospel orientation possesses a moderate and pleasant theology "sanitized for our protection," so that no one should ever be offended. But Christ saw the salvation of souls quite differently:

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household."

The theology of our time tends to find this unnerving, and as Kierkegaard says, many of the teachings of Luther would not today be accepted by the Lutheran Church. But if God could have won the world over solely by the Gospel he would not have given us Law, and the election doctrine is precisely one-half pure, unmitigated Law. This particular teaching of the Law, however, in no way minimizes grace, (unless grace is left out). Instead it magnifies grace, because it teaches us true fear, humility, and silence before God. Where we neglect Law, we also neglect grace, forgiveness and mercy -- although it might seem otherwise. Where the Gospel is left out, it leads to despair; where the Law is left out, it leads to carnal security and this -- more than anything is the tendency of our age as Kierkegaard also abundantly points out.

A person's response to the doctrine of election is, at the same time, an indication of how far one's faith has come. But many people, are not ready to pursue it, for it is the strongest of wine and solid food. For those who need spiritual milk, as we all do, it is undoubtedly better that they do not explore this doctrine. We must take care that our knowledge is not the cause of another Christian's falling. This is something I have learned by hard experience -- that not every Christian is ready to receive this doctrine.

Luther, after he had written Bondage of the Will, also seemed to have had some second thoughts on who should delve into this doctrine. In "Bondage," Luther indicates that it is "salutary for every Christian to know," but by the time he gave his lectures on Genesis, he seems to hedge this view somewhat and he gives some very well taken advice on involving oneself in the omnipotent will of God:

This is the first stage of error, when men disregard God as He has enveloped Himself and become incarnate, and seek to scrutinize the unveiled God. Later on, when the hour of judgment arrives and they feel the wrath of God, when God is judging and investigating their hearts, then the devil ceases to puff them up, and they despair and die. For they are walking unsheltered in the sun and are abandoning the shade, which gives relief from the heat. (Is.4:6) Let no one, therefore, contemplate the unveiled Divinity, but let him flee from these contemplations as from hell and the veritable temptations.

At first glance, it seems that Luther has changed his views. Nevertheless, here he is not denying any knowledge of the omnipotent will of God, but rather any investigation whatsoever into that Will. And who would really want to investigate such profound depths?

The existence of this omnipotent will, however, can and should be known: "The secret things belong to the Lord our God; but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." Therefore, if it is revealed in Scripture, it can and should be known and if possible, learned by heart and proclaimed upon the housetops for the whole world to hear! For God has willed that it be known. But beyond this we should cease from any and all investigations and be content with relating to God through the Word and Sacraments alone.

It is interesting that Spinoza's concept of God insofar as it deals with the Hidden Will, is correct.  That is, God as Luther would say, is Omnipotent.  In the Hidden Will, there is no right and wrong, it is what God chooses to take place.  As St. Augustine said,  "God works evil in us, and punishes us,' and works good in us and "Rewards it."  "From God, to God through God are all things."

This seeming contradiction has confused many people about Luther's views on the election doctrine. Yet, even toward the end of his life, Luther never took back Bondage. He was concerned however that people would forget what he had taught about the incarnate will of God and only remember what he had taught about the omnipotent will, and for this reason he probably wished to emphasize the former. In his lectures on Genesis he was not dealing specifically with the election doctrine, but on how God can be said to "grieve" and have other human emotions which are ascribed to him in Scripture. So even though these views have a bearing an important bearing on views of God's omnipotence they should not be taken as a repudiation of Bondage because he is primarily concerned with dissuading people from investigating the will itself and not the knowledge of the existence of this will, which if dealt with properly is important for us to know, as will be shown below.

For those who are responsible for true doctrine, and for those who are ready for solid food, the election doctrine can and should be fully explored, for God has put it in his Word -- and therefore must want us to be aware of its existence. It isn't as though God has left something in his Word by mistake which he doesn't want us to find out about.

II

Definitions

I think that some confusion can be avoided by defining terms from the beginning. Election, according to the original Greek word means choice. The word predestination means appointed. Usually the two terms are used pretty much interchangeably, as in the Book of Concord, in the passage cited above. Both those who are saved and those who are damned serve God`s purpose of election according to St. Paul, in the ninth chapter of Romans, although St. Paul is primarily concerned with those who are saved and the word election or chosen everywhere else in Scripture is applied to those who are saved.

To apply the word election then to those who are damned seems too severe and incongruous. The Greek term for election seems to be applied to both Jacob and Esau equally in Romans 9:11: Literally, "...for not yet being born nor practicing anything good or bad, in order that the purpose of God might remain, according to choice." However, if one looks at the context of this passage, it is clear that St. Paul is primarily concerned with the choice of those who are saved. But the selection of Esau to be lost, prior to works also serves this purpose of election. So the meaning is that both Jacob and Esau were selected or chosen prior to works, to serve God's purpose of election.

Furthermore, St. Paul goes on to apply this doctrine that he has set forth both in his discussion of Pharoah and in the analogy of the potter and the clay, saying that the damned were "fitted for destruction." Consequently, even though the Holy Spirit in this passage uses the word election to refer to those who are saved, it would not be wrong to say that there is an election to salvation and an election to damnation -- which is exactly the way Luther uses the term in Bondage of the Will:

But if God is robbed of the power and wisdom to elect, what will be but the false idol, chance, at whose nod everything happens at random: And in the end it will come to this, that men are saved and damned without God's knowledge, since he has not determined by his certain election who are to be saved and who damned. . ."

I believe that since the Holy Spirit reserves this term for those who are saved, it should be applied to the elect primarily. If one applied the word election to those who are lost, as Luther does above however, it would not have a false meaning and I don't believe it would be blasphemous. In Romans, there is primarily and most importantly an election then for those who are saved, but also a secondary and far lower election clearly stated for those who are damned, for both serve God`s "purpose of election." Since the word means literally choice it would mean the same as saying God's choice of who would and who would not be saved was determined from eternity.

The meaning, however, is identical either way: that God foreordained in eternity who would and who would not be saved. Since St. Paul warns us not to dispute about "words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions.. .," the use of the word election would not seem to be paramount as long as the meaning is correct. Every objection to a two sided election or predestination, involves not the terminology itself but rather the idea that God foreordained the fates of both those who are saved and those who are lost.

It is the idea, then, of whether the fates of both those who are saved and those who are damned are decided in eternity that really matters and is the point of contention. The terminology is certainly no more offensive than St. Paul's expression that the damned are "fitted for destruction," and it means exactly the same thing. Yet if anyone is offended by the use of the term election for those who are damned, I would not use it and since the Holy Spirit reserves the term election to those who are saved, I would follow the same procedure.

The omnipotent will of God refers to that will "according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the purpose of his will." This will works all things in heaven and earth. It works in the very smallest sub-atomic particles and in the greatest galaxies and in all the host of heaven and in the inhabitants of the earth. In this will God does not always will according to the incarnate will, yet without any contradiction in his divinity, working everything for his glory and for the benefit of the saints. This will is also called the secret or hidden will of God.

The incarnate will is the will of Christ, or the Word of God. Luther describes it this way:

The incarnate Son of God is, therefore, the covering in which the Divine Majesty presents Himself to us with all His gifts, and does so in such a manner that there is no sinner too wretched to be able to approach Him with the firm assurance of obtaining pardon. This is the one and only view of the Divinity that is available and possible in this life. But on the Last Day those who have died in this faith will be so enlightened by heavenly power that they will see even the Divine Majesty Itself [when the mystery of the secret will is revealed.] Meanwhile we must come to the Father by that way which is Christ Himself; He will lead us safely, and we shall not be deceived.

The incarnate will is also called the "preached Word."

The will "of God's good pleasure" are those things in the omnipotent will which God works and finds pleasure in, such as creation, life, joy, and forgiveness. The other things which he wills in his omnipotent will, he wills but does not find pleasure in, for "He does not willingly afflict the sons of men." And also: "The Lord is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. The Lord is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made." When, therefore, God works evil in his omnipotent will, no one should suppose that he finds pleasure in it. The will of "God's good pleasure" is identical to his incarnate will.

III

The Position of the Epitome

No public dissension has developed among the theologians of the Augsberg Confession concerning this article. But since it is such a comforting article when it is correctly treated, we have included an explanation of it in this document, lest at some future date offensive dissension concerning it might be introduced into the church.

It is certainly true that the election doctrine, as with all the Scripture, is comforting when it is correctly understood. It is however, at times, extremely difficult to understand to our limited human ability, and in the process of understanding it, there can be a good deal of tribulation insofar as this doctrine tests one's faith immensely. Luther, for example, relates how when he first learned about the doctrine he experienced so much tribulation that he wished he had never been born a man:

Admittedly, it gives the greatest possible offense to common sense or natural reason that God by his own sheer will should abandon, harden, and damn men as if he enjoyed the sins and the vast, eternal torments of his wretched creatures, when he is preached as a God of such great mercy and goodness, etc. It has been regarded as unjust, as cruel, as intolerable, to entertain such an idea about God, and this is what has offended so many great men during so many centuries. And who would not be offended? I myself was offended more than once, and brought to the very depth and abyss of despair, so that I wished I had never been created a man, before I realized how salutary that despair was, and how near to grace.

It is clear from this that Luther did not understand the Election Doctrine in the same way it is understood by the Book of Concord. There is no tribulation in the way in which the election doctrine is dealt with in the Book of Concord because there is nothing offensive to the wisdom of the flesh in it. Their position is simply that God chooses to save some while the others are given their just deserts. This is completely within the realm of human concepts of justice -- and no one could find much that would be offensive in this.

St. Paul admonishes Christians that we must enter the Kingdom of Heaven through many tribulations. This happens simply because as we change our lives and our wisdom to conform with God's wisdom, there is a rebellion in our flesh which prevents us from fully following the Word of God. As Jesus said: "...the spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak." It is precisely this struggle which perfects our faith, so that we advance from one stage to the next. As St. Paul admonishes us: "Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." Jesus Christ in fact has told us that whoever enters the Kingdom of Heaven enters it violently. Therefore we cannot always expect God's Word to be easy to digest. When, for a time, it causes us tribulation, it is not the Word of God which brings this upon us, but our own flesh. We cannot always expect the Word to be at once comforting, because of the rebellion which we experience.

It is this suffering, however, as well as the persecution by the world which perfects our faith. This is what Peter is referring to when he says: "In this you rejoice, though now for a little while you may have to suffer various trials, so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold which though perishable is tested by fire, may redound to praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ." It is by our obedience to the Truth that we purify our souls: "Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth...." It is the doctrine of election above all others which exercises our faith to the utmost and helps us put to death the deeds of the flesh.

For my part, I would much prefer dealing with less difficult subjects, but since the Bible reveals it, and we are warned not to teach anything contrary to Scripture, we must seek to understand and teach the whole Bible, not just the parts that are pleasing to us. Hence, instead of denying it or ignoring it, we should try to understand and believe in it. And even though the election doctrine is meat and strong drink there is a time to go beyond spiritual milk. And it was one of Job's consolations that he did not deny the Word of God even though his friends were offended by what he said.

AFFIRMATIVE

Pure and True Doctrine concerning this Article

1. To start with, the distinction between the foreknowledge and the eternal election of God is to be diligently noted.

2. God's foreknowledge is nothing else than that God knows all things before they happen, as it is written, "There is a God in heaven who revels mysteries, and he has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will be in the latter days." (Daniel 2:28).

This foreknowledge extends alike over good people and evil people. But it is not a cause of evil or of sin which compels anyone to do something wrong; the original source of this is the devil and man's wicked and perverse will. Neither is it the cause of man's perdition; for this man himself is responsible. God's foreknowledge merely controls the evil and imposes a limit on its duration, so that in spite of its intrinsic wickedness it must minister to the salvation of the elect.

It is important here to carefully distinguish between cause and fault. It is certainly true that God, being omnipotent is the ultimate cause of all things that happen. Nevertheless, this in no way should be interpreted to mean that God is at fault or is guilty. Furthermore, no one would want to say that God creates evil from scratch because Genesis says that he created everything, and it was good. The authors of the above statement equate cause with fault and according to human reason, this would seem to follow; but as will be shown, even though God causes all things to happen he is in no way at fault for the evil which he predestines and he in no way condones it but emphatically hates it and punishes it.

This is Luther's argument: Once it is assumed that God is immutable and omnipotent, it irrefutably follows that God's foreknowledge imposes necessity upon all things. "God foreknows nothing contingently but that he foresees and purposes and does all things by his immutable, eternal, and infallible will." God's foreknowledge imposes necessity on us, not in and of itself, but through his will for the following reasons:

1. If God is immutable and omnipotent in all things, then he is also immutable in his foreknowledge, but he could not be immutable in his foreknowledge unless he also willed what He foreknew. Only an omnipotent being can make anything immutable. If some other agent controlled the subject of his foreknowledge, and God simply foresaw it -- then even if God foresaw everything perfectly, his foreknowledge would not be immutable for things could have happened differently, even though they did not. As Luther says, "to happen contingently, however -- in order that we may not misuse terms -- means in Latin, not that the work itself is contingent, but that it is done by a contingent and mutable will, such as there is not in God." He would then foreknow without willing and his foreknowledge would be contingent.

2. If God is immutable and omnipotent in all things then He is also immutable in his will, but He could not be immutable in his will unless he willed all things according to his foreknowledge. His will is eternal, omnipotent and unchanging, so that before he willed it, it must have existed eternally in his foreknowledge, otherwise his will would be, as it were, subject to chance as something he happened to hit upon without having thought about it before. Thus he would be willing without foreknowing and his will would be contingent.

Luther rejects the necessity of the consequent of Scholastic Theology since their attempted proof results in a play on words. Even though God does not will necessarily but with complete freedom, it is nevertheless true that the things he wills are willed with absolute necessity. All Scholastic theology proves is that created things are not God, or that they do not have a divine and necessary nature. This, however, should be obvious, yet it nevertheless remains true that granted the omnipotence and immutability of God, all things must happen by necessity and the idea of a conditional necessity of the consequent proves to be a fable.

The example which Luther uses has to do with building a house. A man might strike upon the idea of building a house and the will to do so, but the idea and the will were not eternal as they are for God. If God wills to build a house, the plan was always present in his foreknowledge, not as it is with man -- something that he one day embarked upon, not having thought about it before. In addition, since God is omnipotent, he wills everything according to that foreknowledge.

It is interesting to note that there are two types of necessity which God works, the necessity of willingness and the necessity of unwillingness, or as some have defined it, necessitas immutabilitatis, and necessitas violenta. These two types of necessity are not, as in Scholastic Theology, an immutable necessity and a conditional necessity -- rather both constitute two forms of immutable necessity. Luther confines his discussion to the necessity of willingness, and seems to reject the idea of any other kind of necessity: "...will would not be a will if it were compelled."

So, the remarkable fact comes about that, when correctly understood,  Predestination and Free Will are not mutually exclusive. When God Predestines everything, He does so in such a way that what is willed in Man is done willingly. So, I have no problem with those who assert Predestination and those who assert Free Will.

This is how it works. God Works Everything at all times. He does this either directly, or indirectly. When we move a finger or walk a mile, it is God working this directly in us.

More importantly, when He works Good Works, Grace and Salvation, He works these things directly. When He works evil, God in no way creates it, or rewards it, but instead hates it and punishes it. Why He does not cease in this work of His Omnipotent Word, we can only surmise. This belongs to the "Hidden Things" of God, as we said above.

When God limits, or suspends his Grace and the working of the Holy Spirit, Evil is surely going to come in. Just as when light is absent, darkness takes over. God, with absolute certainty knows that this will happen and through the Omnipotent working of His Word, it indeed takes place. In this way, indirectly, it is Predestined.

In a similar way God Predestines even our own thoughts. God is intimately familiar with everything there is to know about us, for He is our Creator and has created us. He knows with absolute certainty what a man is going to think before he thinks it. Yet, the thought in a man's mind is thought freely and willingly. This is why it says in Scripture that a man "plans his own way, but God directs his steps." In this way it is Predestined, and yet the thought was thought willingly and freely by man. 

Here, a very interesting question arises and one that is not dealt with by Luther. There is clearly such a thing as a compelled will. St. Paul describes it: "I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me." Clearly, here is a will that is compelled. It is not the kind of will that is compelled by an outward force to do something else, but a will which could be called the necessity of compulsion, which Luther seems to reject.

St. Paul equates will with wanting, for he uses two expressions interchangeably, "I can will what is right" and "the good I want," about willing the good. It is plain therefore, that for St. Paul, to want is to will -- but not to do. He goes on to explain that in his members is a law at war with the law of his mind which is the law of God in which he says he "delights." Since he is speaking in the present tense it is clear that he is speaking about a dilemma not only under the Law but also under grace, although it is clearly in the process of being overcome, so that it is not only a will which presents itself under grace but also outside of grace, for St Paul had been without the Spirit under the Law in willing righteousness, even though the spirit was clearly present, since as St. Paul attests: "We know that the law is spiritual."

It is not hard to explain this particular necessity of unwillingness. It is still necessity, but it is a necessity that involves contradictory forces, one from God, the other from Satan (although this too stirred up by God's inscrutable and omnipotent will). Whereas in the necessity of willingness a person's will and volition are the same, here St. Paul's thoughts are in opposition to his volition.

It is clear then from this passage of St. Paul that God predestines thoughts differently from his predestination of our actions. The Scripture attests that "Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will be established." This would seem to indicate that there is freedom of thought in man, and yet if God is immutable in all things, then he predestines all things also, as was shown above.

How then does he predestine our thoughts? The Bible clearly says that, "A man's mind plans his way." He predestines our thoughts indirectly. In much the same way that no one should suppose that God creates evil from scratch, but yet he nevertheless predisposes it to happen by withdrawing or withholding his spirit and then stirring everything up by his omnipotent will, in a similar way he predestines our thoughts. He supplies or withholds his spirit and all our abilities for thinking, and while knowing with absolute certainty the nature of our thoughts which will result, he stirs up everything according to his divine will. In this way, he wills it to happen, although indirectly: "Even before a word is on my tongue, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether. Thou dost beset me behind and before, and layest thy hand upon me." Since God knows thoughts "altogether," then he must also predestine them to occur as was shown above concerning the immutability of foreknowledge.

When the people of Israel built the tabernacle, for example, the Lord "put ability and intelligence to know how to do any work in the construction of the sanctuary..." Consequently, we have the phenomenon which St. Paul speaks of, where his thoughts are at variance with his actions, producing what might be called a necessity of compulsion. Nevertheless, the thought is thought willingly and the action is performed willingly in and of themselves, yet they are also at variance with each other as far as St. Paul was concerned, so that St. Paul acted against his will.

As in the simile of the beast of burden, two wills are contending for the same person and in the process neither one is fully in possession of the will -- but rather a struggle ensues in which the individual is pulled back and forth by the two contending for possession, although this happens by pure necessity and is itself ultimately directed by the omnipotent will of God, so that the struggle of an unwilling will is also foreordained by God, the outcome for the elect inevitably bringing them to salvation -- the outcome for the reprobate never having taken place since the will was never enlightened to even begin the struggle. But as Luther says: "Hence it follows that free choice without the grace of God is not free at all, but immutably the captive and slave of evil, since it cannot of itself turn to the good."

This type of necessity implies no free choice which might be considered to have some small power. It is rather, the necessity of two contending forces, which are ultimately both foreordained by God. The knowledge of this necessity simply cannot be comprehended by man as David writes: "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it." If this knowledge was too high for a David, it should not be surprising that we who have only ordinary gifts of the spirit should find it incomprehensible. Furthermore, it should not be surprising if many of our explanations are incomplete or inadequate in some way, since although David had extraordinary gifts, we have only ordinary ones.

The Scriptures are filled with references to this omnipotent and immutable will. For example, Daniel writes:

...for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing; and he does according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him 'What doest thou?'

Here there is nothing unclear, it simply says that God does "according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth" -- indicating how God directs the fate of all in heaven and on earth.

In Lamentations the Bible tells us: "Who has commanded and it came to pass, unless the Lord has ordained it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and evil come?." Also, in Proverbs it says: "A man's mind plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps." Also in Ephesians: "In him, according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will."

In the book of Genesis, Jacob interprets the dream which pharaoh has had, that there will be seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine. Joseph concludes: "And the doubling of Pharaohs dream means that the thing is fixed by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass." A famine is obviously an evil thing but the Bible clearly states that "God will shortly bring it to pass." One of the most interesting examples is Ahab:

And Micaiah said, 'Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left; and the Lord said, 'Who will entice Ahab the king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said one thing, and another said another. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, saying, 'I will entice him.' And the Lord said to him, 'By what means?' And he said, 'I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' And he said, 'You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go forth and do so.' Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these your prophets; the Lord has spoken evil concerning you.'

To put a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahab's prophets is more than foreknowing evil and even though the thought came from some evil spirit and is entirely the fault of this evil spirit -- nevertheless, God accepted the thought and predisposed it to happen. Yet God does this with complete and absolute justice.

Another example is the one of Shim'e-i who cursed David:

And Shim'e-i said as he cursed, 'Begone, begone, you man of blood, you worthless fellow! The Lord has avenged upon you all the blood of the house of Saul, in whose place you have reigned; and the Lord has given the kingdom into the hand of your son Absalom. See, your ruin is on you; for you are a man of blood.'

Then Abi'shai the son of Zeruiah said to the king, 'Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over and take off his head.' But the king said, 'What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah? If he is cursing because the Lord has said to him, 'Curse David,' who then shall say, 'Why have you done so?'

Cursing is of course an evil act on Shim'e-i's part, but God, using the evil that was already in Shim'e-i stirred him up by his omnipotent Word and commanded him to curse although the evil in no way originated with God, but as with the evil spirit in the prior example, it originated in the evil spirit of Shem'e-i. And God, after withholding or withdrawing his Spirit from Shem'e-i found the evil in Shem'e-i and commanded him to curse. Here are some other examples of God's will working all things:

Have you not heard that I determined it long ago? I planned from days of old what now I bring to pass, that you would turn fortified cities into heaps of ruins, while their inhabitants, shorn of strength are dismayed and confounded...

But it was ordained by God that the downfall of Ahazi'ah should come about through his going to visit Joram. For when he came there he went out with Jeho'ram to meet Jehu the son Nimshi, whom the Lord had anointed to destroy the house of Ahab.

Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing: Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, 'The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth...'

He takes away understanding from the chiefs of the people of the earth, and makes them wander in a pathless waste. They grope in the dark without light; and he makes them stagger like a drunken man.

I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps.

...for truly in this city there were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the Peoples of Israel, to do whatever thy hand and thy plan had predestined to take place.

If Balak should give me his house full of silver and gold, I would not be able to go beyond the word of the Lord, to do either good or bad of my own will; what the Lord speaks, that will I speak.

Thy eyes beheld my unformed substance; in thy book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

...for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose...I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.'

The former things I declared of old, they went forth from my mouth and I made them known; and suddenly I did them and they came to pass.

...God in whose hand is your breath, and whose are all your ways...

The Lord of hosts has sworn: 'As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand....' This is the purpose that is purposed concerning the whole earth; and this is the hand that is stretched out over all the nations. For the Lord of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back?

In the thought of one who is at ease there is contempt for misfortune; it is ready for those whose feet slip. The tents of robbers are at peace, and those who provoke God are secure, who bring their god in their hand.... Who...does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this? In his hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind.

For he crushes me with a tempest, and multiplies my wounds without cause; he will not let me get my breath, but fills me with bitterness.

With him are strength and wisdom; the deceived and the deceiver are his.

He deprives of speech those who are trusted, and takes away the discernment of the elders.

Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why do all who are treacherous thrive? Thou plantest them, and they take root; they grow and bring forth fruit; thou art near in their mouth and far from their heart.

And God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem,...

For it was the Lord's doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be utterly destroyed, and should receive no mercy but be exterminated, as the Lord commanded Moses.

But Sihon the king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him; for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that he might give him into your hand, as at this day.

His father and mother did not know that it was from the Lord; for he was seeking an occasion against the Philistines.

Now the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him.

Thus says the Lord, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house;'

Naaman, commander of the army of the king of Syria, was a great man with his master and in high favor, because by him the Lord had given victory to Syria.

Behold, I will put a spirit in him, so that he shall hear a rumor and return to his own land, and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land.

So the king did not hearken to the people; for it was a turn of affairs brought about by God that the Lord might fulfil his word, which he spoke by Ahijar the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat.

They were broken in pieces, nation against nation and city against city, for God troubled them with every sort of distress.

And the Lord stirred up against Jehoram the anger of the Philistines and of the Arabs who are near the Ethiopians...

...for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and giving over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

...for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do

All of these passages together prove one thing: God predestines all things whether in righteous Job, or the tyrant Saul, or the betrayer Judas. Whoever wishes to deny it has to deny the plain words of Scripture and subvert what it teaches. Whoever presumptuously takes it upon himself to do so risks being "least in the Kingdom of Heaven," and whoever preserves and defends this teaching even though the whole world rejects him will be called, "great in the Kingdom of Heaven." These passages indeed prove Luther's view concerning what he called, the "hidden will of God." We know that it exists, but we do not know the why or the wherefore of it, and we have no right whatsoever to investigate it or go beyond what God was revealed about it. Thus it is hidden and is no concern of ours, for "The secret things belong to the Lord our God; but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law."

Some will respond: "When God works evil he does it only as a punishment for sin." Even though this is true, when the statement is made in order to prove that God does not predestine evil necessarily, the underlying assumption cannot be proven because of the universality of evil. The statement presupposes that he does not work evil for those who are righteous, because if it didn't presuppose this, it would not serve their purpose -- yet the book of Job testifies that he can and does work evil even for the righteous, since no man is righteous before God -- thus God has the right to do so over all of his creation. But, not to make God too severe, God is in no way at fault for this evil, he hates and punishes this evil, and for the elect he brings salvation out of this evil -- which is the will of "good pleasure" and when he works evil through evil instruments he finds no pleasure in it.

These passages should be sufficient to convince anyone who desires to be honest about the Bible. All these passages prove what was stated above: that God does all things by his eternal, immutable and omnipotent will. One may call it predestination, election, or the appointment of all things, but the meaning is the same: everything happens by pure necessity according to the immutable foreknowledge and the omnipotent will of God.

4. Predestination or the eternal election of God, however, is concerned only with the pious children of God in whom he is well please. It is a cause of their salvation, for he alone brings it about and ordains everything that belongs to it. Our salvation is so firmly established upon it that the "gates of Hades cannot prevail against it (John 10:28; Matt. 16:18).

If the reprobate are lost and it is not God's certain infallible will which determines it, the question naturally arises: What cause or whose will is it? Is Satan so strong that he can prevent God's will from being done? Or has God become bored and gone on to something else, or perhaps, fallen asleep? Where was God when these men were lost? And if God was not able to save them, then how can we be certain that he can save the elect? Here is how Luther puts the issue:

But if God is robbed of the power and wisdom to elect, what will he be but the false idol, chance, at whose nod everything happens at random? And in the end it will come to this, that men are saved and damned without God's knowledge, since he has not determined by his certain election who are to be saved and who damned. . .

It is such a God that Aristotle, too, depicts for us, that is to say, one who drowses and lets all and sundry use and abuse his kindness and severity.

When St. Paul speaks of the predestination of the elect, he prefaces it by a statement concerning God's omnipotence: "In him, according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will..." in order to assure us that God can and will bring it about. Yet, if we were to accept the position of the Epitome we would have to wonder if God can truly bring it about since he could not bring it about in the case of the reprobate.

Moreover, such a statement as contained in this paragraph of the Epitome is all too human in its thinking, inverting the whole relationship of man to God, assuming that it is perfectly natural that God should elect men to salvation which no man deserves and rejecting an predestination to perdition which all men deserve. Here is Luther: "But faith and Spirit judge differently, for they believe that God is good even if he should send all men to perdition." And in stronger terms he says:

Observe, therefore, the wickedness of the human heart! When God saves the unworthy without merits, or rather justifies the ungodly with their many demerits, it does not accuse him of injustice; it does not demand to know why he wills this, which in its judgment is most unjust, but because it is advantageous and pleasing to itself it deems it just and good. But when he damns those without merit, then since this is disadvantageous to itself, it is unjust, it is intolerable, and here there is protesting, murmuring, and blaspheming.... When therefore Reason praises God for saving the unworthy, but finds fault with Him for damning the undeserving, she stands convicted of not praising God as God, but as serving her own interests. That is to say, what she seeks and praises in God is herself and the things of self, not God or the things of God."

If we find it acceptable that God predestines some to be saved, we should not view God's predestination of those who are damned to be unacceptable. It is from human reason that the Epitome says that election has only to do with those who are saved. In a certain sense it could be blasphemous to say that God rewards the completely undeserving like a wicked and corrupt judge. Man, however, turns the relationship around and wants to accept things from God only when they serve his selfish interests. It is a higher relationship to God to praise him and thank him for whatever he wills, not only for those things which we consider to be to our advantage, but also those things which are not in our selfish interest -- since we know that God works all things ultimately for his own glory and that he cannot possibly do anything unjustly although it may seem otherwise to us.

The Bible for example teaches that, "God has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble." Should we blaspheme God on account of this and say that he is not fair, and that his predestination should do nothing of the sort, but should only be concerned with those who are saved? What right do we have to change this clear teaching of Scripture? Is it not instead the height of presumption and arrogance to take away this absolute and certain election -- as if God should secretly be embarrassed that he has chosen some to damn according to his inscrutable will, and as if we knew better, to presumptuously take away this right when we should instead revere and adore this mystery with the greatest humility and respect of an omnipotent and immutable God?

And when the Bible says: "...he who fashions the hearts of them all," should we not stand in awe and reverence knowing that God by his inscrutable will fashions the hearts of some to believe and some he hardens so they cannot believe, since we know that the heart is the seat of faith, as St. Paul says?: "For man believes with his heart and so is justified...."

And when the Scripture says: "O Lord, why dost thou make us err from thy ways and harden our heart, so that we fear thee not," should we not recognize this as a right of God's inscrutable will? Instead the Book of Concord makes it false and blasphemous to say such a thing. Are they not blaspheming God, exchanging his inscrutable will with their weak thoughts of what is right and wrong for God to do?

And then when St. Paul writes:

And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call, she was told, "The elder will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'

Here it is clearly evident that both Jacob and Esau were included in God's purpose of election because both are included when St. Paul says, "they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad...." Also, dual election is indicated because St. Paul quotes Scripture and says: "'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'" Or as Luther concludes from this passage: "God's love toward men is eternal and immutable, and his hatred is eternal, being prior to the creation of the world, and... everything takes place by necessity in us, according as he either loves or does not love us from all eternity...." How God can hate Esau prior to works, since "God is love," must be explained in light of God's higher purpose for creation: "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power,... in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy." This might not be a completely adequate answer and I confess I cannot in all respects reconcile God's hatred of Esau with God's love.

It is clearly evident that St. Paul wishes to teach a dual election because he goes on to say: "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!." There would be no reason to go into this human question if St. Paul had not meant to indicate a dual predestination since there is no offense to human wisdom if God only punishes on the basis of evil works, but there is great offense in the thought that God predestines or elects both the evil and the righteous. What follows is an irrefutable proof for dual predestination:

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, 'I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.' So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.

You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?' But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me thus?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

In this passage is an indication of why God elects some men to be lost and damned eternally, namely to show his wrath and make known his power. His glory is so unspeakably great and beyond all comparison that he can choose men to be eternally lost according to that inscrutable will of his, so that he can show his very justifiable wrath and make known his power to the elect. Yet once more, when God saves he does so according to the "will of his good pleasure" as Luther calls it in his lectures on Genesis, and when he predestines someone to be lost, he finds no pleasure in it. Why he nevertheless does it must be referred to the higher purpose of his creation as pointed out above.

Dual predestination, or election can be proven in another way, by considering the alternatives, that either their is a cause in us which makes God merciful to us, or that the power of Satan is so strong that it can prevent God's will from being done.

That we are unable to cooperate in any way in this wish that God has for us to be saved is proven by Scripture: "For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God...." An enemy is certainly not seeking reconciliation with God, but rather, just the opposite. St. Paul also says: "Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, 'I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.'" Christ is found by those who did not even seek God and were actually enemies of God. Or, once again: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God...." In Genesis God's opinion of mankind is revealed: "...every imagination of the thoughts of his heart were only evil continually." Christ says that the "flesh is of no avail." It is clear that even repentance itself is a work of God: "God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth,..." Or Jeremiah 17:9: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?" Therefore, there is no cause in us which makes God gracious to us.

Is Satan, then, the cause which prevents God from being gracious to unbelievers? In this case God would not be omnipotent. For if any creature can prevent God's will from being done, or if God does not will everything in heaven and earth, then God is not omnipotent, contrary to what is taught in Scripture: "In him according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will." I doubt if any Christian would wish to accept this view.

The authors of the Epitome accept the first alternative, but give no answer to the second. The only other alternative is one which they also reject: that God himself choses who will and who will not be saved. This explanation avoids the pitfalls of the two previous explanations. Even though grace is universal as it is preached and offered throughout the world, it is limited to the elect at the same time according to his omnipotent will which however, is reserved exclusively for God alone. For example, Christ says: "for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." When he says in this case, "for many" it is clear that he does not include all. Also: "Therefore they could not believe. For Isaiah again said, 'He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they should see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.'" Here it is clear that God, according to that omnipotent will of his, hardens so that some cannot believe. Christ says that he does not pray for the world but only for the elect: "I am not praying for the world but for those whom thou hast given me,..." In all these passages we see that God chooses to limit his grace -- for he does not give it to all. Since there is no cause in a man which causes God to be gracious since all men are equally guilty before God, and since Satan cannot prevent God's election of any man, whether he works faith or hardens can only be attributed to his will.

The contradiction as to why God earnestly seeks and offers salvation to all and which is also the "will of his good pleasure," while at the same time hardening and abandoning some to be lost is an irreconcilable contradiction according to human reason. It is precisely because human reason cannot understand it, that it is necessary to believe. In just the same way that we believe that God is one but also three distinct persons at the same time, or that God who is eternal became a temporal man, or that in communion the same flesh and blood which died on the cross is present, we must believe in God's eternal predestination. As Luther writes:

Hence in order that there may be room for faith, it is necessary that everything which is believed should be hidden. It cannot, however, be more deeply hidden than under an object, perception, or experience which is contrary to it. Thus when God makes alive he does it by killing, when he justifies he does it by making men guilty, when he exalts to heaven he does it by bring down to hell, as Scripture says: 'The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up' (I Sam. 2:6). This is not the place to speak at length on this subject, but those who have read my books have had it quite plainly set forth for them.

Thus God hides his eternal goodness and mercy under eternal wrath, his righteousness under iniquity. This is the highest degree of faith, to believe him merciful when he saves so few and damns so many, and to believe him righteous when by his own will he makes us necessarily damnable, so that he seems, according to Erasmus, to delight in the torments of the wretched and to be worthy of hatred rather than of love. If, then, I could by any means comprehend how this God can be merciful and just who displays so much wrath and iniquity, there would be no need of faith. As it is, since that cannot be comprehended, there is room for the exercise of faith when such things are preached and published, just as when God kills, the faith of life is exercised in death.

Even though human reason cannot understand many of the things which pertain to God, there are some observations which make the election doctrine easier to accept. First of all, if God gave no one the grace to be saved, which would be perfectly within his rights because he owes no one anything, it would seem not nearly as contradictory. If we believe in original sin and the guilt of all men, we should find no difficulty if God should elect all men to be lost. God is then, free to distribute his mercy on whomever he chooses. For he could still desire men to be saved, yet because of the inability of man to believe, he would justly condemn him, for in a sense, man has made his bed and now he must sleep in it. The mystery is why he gives some the grace to be saved and not the others even though he wants them all to be saved.

In addition, God wills to harden the hearts, not of innocent people, but rather, of evil and unbelieving people. Election is not to be understood as if God took innocent people, made them unbelievers and then condemned them. Once again Luther, as usual, explains it vividly:

Let no one suppose, therefore, when God is said to harden or to work evil in us (for to harden is to make evil), that he does so by creating evil in us from scratch. You must not imagine him like an evil-minded innkeeper, full of wickedness himself, who pours out blends poison into an innocent vessel, which itself does nothing but receive or suffer the malignity of the blender. That is the way people seem to imagine that man in himself is good, or at least not evil, and that he suffers an evil work at God's hands, when they hear it said by us that God works in us good things and bad, and that we are subject by sheer passive necessity to God's working; for they do not sufficiently consider how unrestingly active God is in all his creatures, allowing none of them to take a holiday. But anyone who wishes to have any understanding of such matters should think as follows. God works evil in us, i.e., by means of us, not through any fault of his, but owing to our faultiness, since we are by nature evil and he is good; but as he carries us along by his own activity in accordance with the nature of his omnipotence, good as he is himself he cannot help but do evil with an evil instrument, though he makes good use of this evil in accordance with his wisdom for his own glory and our salvation."

How this can be perfectly just and good in every way is something, as Luther says, that we must wait to see in eternity:

Let us take it that there are three lights -- the light of nature, the light of grace, and the light of glory, to use the common and valid distinction. By the light of nature it is an insoluble problem how it can be just that a good man should suffer and a bad man prosper; but this problem is solved by the light of grace. By the light of grace it is an insoluble problem how God can damn one who is unable by any power of his own to do anything but sin and be guilty.... But the light of glory tells us differently, and it will show us hereafter that the God whose judgment here is one of incomprehensible righteousness is a God of most perfect and manifest righteousness. In the meantime, we can only believe this, being admonished and confirmed by the example of the light of grace, which performs a similar miracle in relation to the light of nature.

5. We are not to investigate this predestination in the secret counsel of God, but it is to be looked for in his Word, where he has revealed it.

In the revealed Word of God there is nothing concerning predestination except its existence, therefore I assume the authors here wish to say that instead of investigating predestination in the secret counsel of God, in order to find our own salvation, we should look for salvation in the revealed Word, where it is abundantly clear what we should do in order to obtain it; while in God's secret counsel nothing can be clear to us. Although this is true, it is still not true that we should possess no knowledge of this will.

Luther, too, often admonished in very strong terms that we should not try to investigate predestination in the secret counsel of God:

For he is here, (Ezekiel 33:11), speaking of the preached and offered mercy of God, not of that hidden and awful will of God whereby he ordains by his own counsel which and what sort of persons he wills to be recipients and partakers of his preached and offered mercy. This will is not to be inquired into, but reverently adored, as by far the most awe-inspiring secret of the Divine Majesty, reserved for himself alone and forbidden to us much more religiously than any number of Corycian caverns."

For Luther there were many of these questions throughout the Bible: "That in God there are many things hidden, of which we are ignorant, no one doubts -- as the Lord himself says concerning the Last Day: 'Of that day no one knows but the Father' (Mark 13:32), and in Acts 1:7: 'It is not for you to know times and seasons'; and again: 'I know whom I have chosen' (John 13:18), and Paul says: 'The Lord knows those who are his' (II Tim. 2:19), and so forth.'"

Nevertheless, the mystery of the existence of this hidden will was, for Luther, firmly established in Scripture and consequently something we should know about:

Here, however, Reason in her saucy, sarcastic way will say: 'This is a splendidly devised way out, if every time we are hard pressed by arguments, we have recourse to that awful will of the Divine Majesty, and can reduce our opponent to silence whenever he becomes troublesome; it is just the same as when the astrologers with their epicycles dodge all questions about the motion of the heavens as a whole.' Our answer is that this is not our invention, but a principle firmly based on Divine Scriptures.

Consequently, if as Luther says, the existence of the secret will of God is revealed, we should be aware of its existence, even though nothing concerning the contents of this will are revealed.

By limiting the discussion of predestination to the elect, the authors of this article seem to wish to relegate the issue of the predestination of the reprobate entirely to the hidden will of God; thus putting it outside of any legitimate discussion and thereby ignoring it. The authors seek to banish dual predestination entirely to the hidden will of God, while teaching only a one sided predestination of the elect. In so doing, the authors themselves unwittingly ignore half of the election doctrine. Their efforts are well meant, especially in light of the difficulties it presents to human reason. But this really isn't the honest way out and it puts man's judgment in the place of God's as to what should be known and taught about the election doctrine.

Sometimes I wonder myself, if it is really all that important to know about the election doctrine, and since Paul warned us to "avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only runs the hearers," we should be very careful not to get into useless discussions that only create arguments. However, nothing that is revealed in Scripture is useless, because: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

In addition, we should treat Scripture with the appropriate respect. For Luther, for example, it was no small matter to trifle only a little bit with Scripture:

It is no game or joke to give instruction in Holy Writ and godliness, for it is very easy to fall here in the way that James describes: 'Whoever fails in one point has become guilty of all' (James 2:10). For thus it comes about that when we think we mean to trifle only a little, and do not treat Holy Writ with sufficient reverence, we are soon involved in impieties and immersed in blasphemies.

In answer to Erasmus who also taught against the election doctrine, Luther with his usual indomitable spirit says concerning the censorship of this doctrine:

Naturally, your Creator must learn from you his creature what it is useful or useless to preach! That foolish, that thoughtless God did not previously know what ought to be taught until you his master prescribed for him to be wise and how to give commandments! As though he himself would not have known, if you had not taught him, that the consequences you mention should follow from this paradox! (that whatever is done is done from sheer necessity) If, therefore, God has willed that such things should be openly spoken of and published abroad without regard to the consequences, who are you to forbid it?

Again, Luther puts it this way: "I will not only consistently adhere to and assert the sacred writings, everywhere and in all parts of them, but I will also wish to be as certain as possible in things that are not vital and that lie outside of Scripture." Or, "I said above that things which are either contained in or proved by Holy Writ are not only plain, but also salutary, and can therefore safely be published, learned, and known, as indeed they ought to be." Also, "Truth and doctrine must be preached always, openly, and constantly, and never accommodated or concealed; for there is no scandal in it, for it is the 'scepter of righteousness.'"(Psalms 45:6-7)

In addition, the Scripture reveals that anytime we reject anything that God's Word says we in fact make God into a liar: "He who does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne to his Son." Also, God admonishes his prophets: "Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak my word faithfully." In addition, God curses those who are slack in doing his work: "Cursed is he who does the work of the Lord with slackness; ..."

Therefore, if dual predestination is revealed in Scripture it is profitable; it is profitable to teach it, to use it for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness. It is without doubt the most awe inspiring and humbling of all the teachings of the Bible. It is of the utmost importance to teach God's Word just as it is, regardless of what it may say.

6. The Word of God, however, leads us to Christ, who is "the book of life" in which all who are to be eternally saved are inscribed and elected, as it is written, "he chose us in him before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4).

7. This Christ calls all sinners to himself and promises them refreshment. He earnestly desires that all men should come to him and let themselves be helped. To these he offers himself in his Word, and it is his will that they hear the Word and do not stop their ears or despise it. In addition he promises the power and operation of the Holy Spirit and divine assistance for steadfastness and eternal life.

I don't think that any Christian would have a problem with this statement, and I have no objection to it at all. In fact the Word of God is always meant to lead all men to salvation and is not to be limited in any way. Every part of the Word of God is salutary in leading all men to salvation, and it is always to be applied in this way; for this is the work of the incarnate will of God through the Word, even though God nevertheless predestines some to salvation and some to perdition. It is this distinction which provides the greatest difficulty in understanding the election doctrine. The logical human conclusions, based on this incarnate will, lead however to false assumptions by the authors.

If there were no will in God which determined who would be lost; but rather only a will which determined to save all, then all would be saved since God is omnipotent. Why should anyone really be concerned? In an almost somnolent way we are drawn into a false since of carnal security, where a moderate and pleasant theology rules -- where the fear of God is antiquated and God's inscrutable judgments are made reasonable.

By robbing God of his wisdom to elect and of his omnipotence, no one really need fear his threats or his judgments, thus leaving out much of the fear and the humility which we should feel toward God. In a general way, modern Christendom is lulled into a false sense of security where all men are basically saved in the end. This doctrine creates a world where God is in control of only part of his creation, not working "all things according to the purpose of his will," but only working some things, the others simply happening by chance.

This doctrine perhaps makes God into more of a Being we may be able to understand, but not a being we need faith to believe in. The authors of the Epitome seem to wish to avoid the struggle of faith which the election doctrine presents to us. To them it is inconceivable that God could earnestly wish for men to be saved and yet predestine some not to be saved, and because they follow their reason and not the Word of God, they come up with false conclusions perhaps more acceptable to human reason.

There is, however, something superficial about this representation of an absolute God. It robs us, in fact, of our birthright as the spiritual Israel -- to struggle with God as Jacob did. In the Old Testament it relates, for example, how Jacob wrestled with God in the dead of night until daybreak until he prevailed:

And Jacob was left alone; and a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day. When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and Jacob's thigh was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. Then he said, 'let me go for the day is breaking.' But Jacob said, 'I will not let you go, unless you bless me.' And he said to him, 'what is your name?' And he said, 'Jacob.' Then he said, 'Your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.'

But we don't need to struggle with a God who is understandable and predictable -- and not even omnipotent or wise enough to elect who will and who won't be saved. Who then can put a sure trust and reliance on such a god? Here is how Luther expressed it:

For if you doubt or disdain to know that God foreknows all things, not contingently, but necessarily and immutably, how can you believe his promises and place a sure trust and reliance on them? For when he promises anything, you ought to be certain that he knows and is able and willing to perform what he promises; otherwise, you will regard him as neither truthful nor faithful, and that is impiety and denial of the Most High God.

Yet there are very many people who are offended by the idea of a "hidden will" as if there is something sinister in it, especially when that will seems to contradict the revealed things, according to human reason. It is just this aspect about God which Luther discussed in one of his most poignant statements:

Yet he offends very many, who being either abandoned or hardened by that secret will of the Divine Majesty do not receive him as he wills, speaks, does, suffers, and offers,.... It is likewise the part of this incarnate God to weep, wail, and groan over the perdition of the ungodly, when the will of the Divine Majesty purposely abandons, and reprobates some to perish. And it is not for us to ask why he does so, but to stand in awe of God who both can do and wills to do such things.

Here we have a profound statement about a deep mystery about God, namely, that what he wills in one sense, he does not necessarily will, in another sense. Isaiah 63:17 speaks about this mysterious working of God, even in the elect: "O Lord, why dost thou make us err from thy ways and harden our heart, so that we fear thee not?"

When some people hear that there is a certain hidden will of God which determines who will and who will not be saved they conclude falsely that the preached Word is somehow limited by that inscrutable will. This brings us to perhaps the most difficult issue in the election doctrine, how to reconcile the universal passages with God's predestination.

We know that all Scripture must be interpreted in the light of the entire Bible, and only when we do this, will we be able to interpret the universal passages. Moslems, for example, often quote John 14:28 "...for the Father is greater than I," in their attempt to disprove the Trinity of God and the divinity of Christ. We know that this passage must be interpreted in the context of the rest of Scripture which teaches, "For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell..." and also, "I and the Father are one." In the same way, if we are to interpret the Bible correctly, we must interpret the universal passages in a qualified way.

Let us, with this in mind, deal with the universal passages. The first quotation which is most commonly quoted is 1 Tim. 2:1-4:

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for Kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

If we are to honor the truth above all and if we truly wish to be honest with the Scripture, (and as Christ said, "the truth will set you free"), then we are forced to interpret this passage in a qualified sense. For at the same time that the Bible says this it also says: "he hardens the heart of whomever he wills," that he fashions the "hearts of them all," that "they disobey the Word as they were destined to do" and that "God has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble," and "I shall have mercy upon whom I shall have mercy," all of which have been quoted above. How then do we reconcile this passage in light of the others?

There are two ways. Calvin ascribed this passage to refer to all races, creeds, and colors of men and not men individually:

This text, then, must be explained with another, where God says, 'I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.' (Exodus 33:19) He who makes a selection of objects for the exercise of his mercy, does not impart that mercy to all. But as it clearly appears that Paul is there speaking, not of individuals, but orders of men, I shall forbear any further argument.

Luther, on the other hand, ascribed this passage as well as the other universal passages to the incarnate will of God: "...we have to argue in one way about God or the will of God as preached, revealed, offered, and worshiped, and in another way about God as he is not preached, not revealed, not offered, not worshiped."

Personally, I feel that Luther's interpretation may be the best because St. Paul goes on to say: "For there is one God and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all," quite clearly, it seems to me, speaking of all men individually -- because Christ did give himself for all men individually, even though God dispenses it to some and not to others according to his inscrutable will. This interpretation, in addition, is also in agreement with the other universal passages.

Among these, for example, is Titus 2:11-12: "For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men, training us to renounce irreligious and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world," Or where Christ commanded: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation." Or also where St. Paul says: "Him we proclaim, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man mature in Christ. For this I toil, striving with all the energy which he mightily inspires within me." If it is God himself who mightily inspired St. Paul to work for the salvation of all men it is clear that God earnestly wishes for all men to be saved in that incarnate will although as shown in Exodus 33:19, according to his omnipotent will, he has mercy upon whom he has mercy.

Nevertheless, even in this hidden will, God still wants the reprobate to be saved in this sense: that he does not find pleasure in the death of anyone. No one should suppose that when God predestines some to perdition that he finds pleasure in it -- even though he does it nevertheless. Therefore, even in his hidden, or omnipotent will he wishes them to be saved, but does not will it.

Another universal passage is Ezekiel 18:23: "I desire not the death of the sinner, but rather that he may turn and live." Here is Luther's interpretation of this passage in Bondage of the Will:

This word, therefore, 'I desire not the death of a sinner,' has as you see no other object than the preaching and offering of divine mercy throughout the world, a mercy that only the afflicted and those tormented by the fear of death receive with joy and gratitude, because in them the law has already fulfilled its office and brought the knowledge of sin.... For he is here speaking of the preached and offered mercy of God, not of that hidden and awful will of God whereby he ordains by his own counsel which and what sort of persons he wills to be recipients of his preached and offered mercy."

A very similar passage is 2 Peter 3:9 where Peter says: "The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." At first glance this would seem to be a universal passage, as even Calvin interprets it, and yet on closer examination, the context clearly indicates that Peter is speaking to the elect, because when he says that God "is forbearing toward you," the persons being addressed are the beloved as is evident from verse 8 where he says "...do not ignore this one fact, beloved." One could of course also interpret it as an incarnate will passage.

It is the nature of this paradox which reveals the difference between Calvin and Luther on the election doctrine. For Calvin, God's Word is preached in order that God can convert the elect, but also in order that he can harden the hearts of the reprobate: "For there is a universal call, by which God, in the external preaching of the word, invites all, indiscriminately, to come to him, even those to whom he intends it as a savour of death, and an occasion of heavier condemnation." Luther, would not accept this interpretation because it implies that the incarnate will is mis-representing God, even though he comes close to making the same conclusion concerning Christ's teaching in Matt. 22:14 when he says: "What could be harsher (to the flesh at least) than Christ's saying: 'Many are called, but few chosen.'" Luther would actually find this to be a "wicked interpretation," because it makes Christ out to be a hypocrite and it takes the heart out of the Gospel, as if God did not want all men to be saved and is misrepresenting himself.

Therefore, it is important to note that in the omnipotent or hidden will, God also earnestly and sincerely desires the salvation to all to whom the Word of God is taught, in the sense that he "has no pleasure in the death of anyone." And that when he wills someone not to be saved according to his inscrutable, omnipotent will it is not as if he enjoyed it -- but rather, because of the evil which he finds in them, which also he has predestined, God wills for them to be lost against what he otherwise would desire, but as it were -- against his will.

The contradiction is not between the incarnate will and the hidden will, but rather between willing and wanting in God -- why that is, God chooses to will what he does not want, not because of compulsion but due to conscious choice. When God elects or predestines someone to be damned it is entirely the fault of the will which will not accept him -- so that even from the standpoint of the omnipotent will God is still long-suffering toward them, (a fuller discussion on this continues below). By saying that God has his Word preached in order to harden hearts (especially without explaining the role that man's fault plays in perdition) makes God too severe and it makes him hypocritical.

I don't feel however, that we should be too hard on Calvin for this oversight, since in light of the great difficulties of this doctrine it is a fairly easy mistake to make, and Luther too comes close to saying the same thing. Nevertheless, the implication of Calvin's view would suggest that God misrepresents himself in the incarnate will -- a totally wicked conclusion. Therefore, even though the incarnate will passages must be understood in a qualified sense, in light of the omnipotent will passages, the incarnate will passages reflect a perfectly sincere and earnest wish of a long-suffering God in his omnipotent will.

The contradiction which reason cannot resolve is why God chooses in his omnipotent will to will what he does not want. God, accordingly, desires earnestly for all men to be saved, and yet because of unbelief which he himself has predestined, he hardens the heart of whomever he wills. The offer is completely earnest and genuine, and it is the fault of the will that will not accept. The question then remains, why does he not will for it to come about in his omnipotent will when he so earnestly seeks and desires it in the preached Word. We can reconcile this contradiction in the same way in which we reconcile many other contradictions in the way in which God acts and speaks in his incarnate will, and in his omnipotent will.

There are many examples of this two-fold nature in Christ himself, the divine nature and the incarnate nature. For example, when he says that no one knows the time of the end of the world, not even Christ himself: "But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels, in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father," yet at the same time Christ says: "All that the Father has is mine." Presumably, therefore, all the knowledge that the Father has is also Christ's. However, in Mark 13:32, Christ is speaking according to his human nature and not according to his divine nature, otherwise he would be hypocritical when he says he does not know the time for the end of the world. In the book of Revelation it is clear that Christ according to his divine nature does know the time for the end of the world. Yet He is not lying when he says according to that incarnate nature that He does not -- for according to his human nature, he did not.

Christ, giving Judas communion, is another case in point. The incident is clearly recorded by Luke: "But behold the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table." According to his divine nature Christ knew everything that Judas was going to do, and it would seem quite unlikely that he would have given Judas communion on the basis of this knowledge since as St. Paul says: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord." Yet Christ, acting according to his incarnate nature, based presumably upon the outward confession of Judas, nevertheless gave Judas communion, when had he been giving it according to his divine nature it would have been a profanation of the body and blood of Christ and without regard for Judas. For if Christ had acted on the basis of his divine knowledge of Judas's betrayal it would have been better to exclude Judas from communion. But as it is, he wished to give the church an example to commend everyone to his own conscious, and therefore did not seek in investigate and try to act as a judge over Judas, and thus proceeding according to this incarnate will alone, Christ did not act hypocritically.

Another example which proves the existence of this two-fold nature in Christ is when Christ says: "Not as I will but as thou wilt." Here again it is clear that even though Christ and God are one, there was a two-fold nature to Christ's will, (his momentary wish to avoid the cross was not a sin since it was a spiritual trial and not a carnal temptation).

In the same way, when Christ says: "How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers its brood under her wing and you would not," Christ is referring to himself and the long line of prophets who taught in the Old Testament and wished earnestly to bring the Jews into the fold. At first, this too seems contradictory, for why would Christ lament about those who are lost if he knew that many of them would be hardened by the inscrutable will of God? This can be explained by that two-fold nature in Christ. Christ was not being hypocritical, for according to his incarnate will Christ earnestly desired for them to be saved, while it was nevertheless true that God, according to his inscrutable will had determined to harden their hearts so that many could not believe because of the unbelief which He had predestined in them: "The elect obtained it but the rest were hardened."

When we pray in the Lord's prayer: "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven," we are praying that God's will be done in every way, both in his incarnate will -- that righteousness rule the world, and in his omnipotent will, if that be His will, that we accept our fate according to God's inscrutable judgments -- whether good or evil.

There are three crucial points to remember in order to maintain the integrity of the preached Word or incarnate will of God when discussing the hidden will:

1) The unbelief and sin found in man is in no way the fault of God. It is entirely the fault of the will that will not accept God, even though it is true that God has predestined it. Furthermore, it is clear that Christ made satisfaction for the sins of all men: "And he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." In addition, all men to whom this Word is preached are given the opportunity to become sons of God. Here is Luther, once again: "By the coming of Christ into the world through the gospel, whereby grace is offered and not work demanded, the opportunity is provided for all men, truly a glorious opportunity, of becoming children of God."

How God can so love the world that he gives his only Son that whosoever believes should not perish, yet holds against man the unwillingness to believe which God has predestined, by with-holding or withdrawing his spirit, we can not understand -- for we are not capable of grasping God's inscrutable but absolute justice in doing so. Yet, we should in no way think less of God. We know that he is perfectly just in doing so and this will of his will ultimately lead to his glory and will work for the benefit of the elect.

2) God does not willingly afflict the sons of men: "...for he does not willingly afflict or grieve the sons of men" even in that omnipotent or hidden will. For God is long-suffering toward sinners, even in that omnipotent will -- wishing their repentance, like a father with his son, even though it is true that he predestines them not to believe by withdrawing or with-holding his spirit. Luther, for example interprets Ezek. 33:11 in this same way in his lectures on Genesis:

But what need, someone will say, has God of such a complaint? [that his spirit will not abide in men forever] Can He not suddenly destroy the entire world when he wants to do so? Certainly he can, but he does not do it gladly, as he says: 'I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.' This disposition proves that God is ready to pardon, to forbear, and to forgive sins if only people were willing to come to their senses. But because they continue to be stubborn and to reject every remedy, he is tortured, as it were, by their wickedness.

Here, Luther is including Ezek. 33:11 in the omnipotent or hidden will to show that even in his hidden will, though God wills for them not to be saved because of their unbelief which he himself has predestined, he certainly finds no pleasure in it and is long-suffering toward sinners. This may be the best interpretation of Ezek. 33:11 -- as a hidden will passage.

In the same way all the incarnate will passages should be understood, namely, that even in the omnipotent will of God, God is long-suffering and earnestly desires to save, although he determines by his certain election who will and who will not be saved. Because of the unbelief that God himself has elected, predestined, or appointed he choses not to save all. In this way, it is clear that the incarnate will passages are not a mis-representation of the hidden will, it is just that they must be interpreted in a qualified sense in the light of the omnipotent will passages. Wanting, in this case must be interpreted in the sense of wishing or desiring and not in the sense of willing, otherwise God would be wanting but not able to will. When understood in this sense, there is no contradiction to human reason between the incarnate will and the hidden will. Thus, St. Paul is not misrepresenting God when he says that "God wants all men to be saved and come to th knowledge of the truth." It is simply that this passage and passages like it must be understood in a qualified sense.

Therefore, the remarkable fact comes about, that even though there is no difference in wanting and willing in God per se, since he is omnipotent and as the Bible says, "he does whatever he pleases," there is a difference in wanting and willing in God in the sense that he chooses not to will what he would otherwise want -- that he does not will willingly, because of choice and not because of compulsion.

The contradiction presented to human reason is not between the incarnate will and the omnipotent will, but rather in why God, in his omnipotent will, wills what he does not desire. Why he afflicts the sons of men and yet does not do this willingly. There is, moreover, an infinite difference between the way in which God elects to save and the way in which he predestines to damn. His election to salvation is entirely the work of his grace and spirit in men, while his election to damnation is entirely the work of the evil will of man and of Satan.

I cannot stress these observations enough, because this is the way to reconcile the position of the Book of Concord with Luther and the election doctrine as found in Scripture. Why he holds this fault against man when man has it by necessity we cannot understand in this life. Neither can we understand why God, since he does not willingly afflict men, predestined even original sin "according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the purpose of his will." These things have to do with his inscrutable judgments which are infinitely beyond all comprehension.

3) We are unable in any way to guide our lives according to this hidden will of God, but must plan and direct our lives according to the revealed will which God has given us as a certain guide. We should act and plan our lives just as if there were no such thing as a hidden will in God since man cannot direct himself by a will which is hidden. As Luther says, "It is enough to know simply that there is a certain inscrutable will in God, and as to what, why, and how far it wills, that is something we have no right whatever to inquire into, hanker after, care about, or meddle with, but only to fear and adore."

These observations insure the integrity of the incarnate will passages and prevent any suggestion of hypocrisy in God. It is simply that the incarnate will passages must be interpreted in a qualified sense, just as many other passages in Scripture must be interpreted. Why God does not always will in his omnipotent will as he wishes and wants in his revealed will is a contradiction much like Christ's statement that he does not know the time of the end of the world, when it is obvious that in Revelation he reveals the time of the end. In one he speaks according to his incarnate nature and in other he speaks according to his omnipotent nature.

When St. Paul says "God wants all men to be saved" we can, by simply interpreting this in a qualified sense, (IE.- in the sense of desiring) avoid any suggestion of mis-representing God. Why he does not will in his omnipotent will what he wants according to his incarnate will and the "will of his good pleasure," according to his omnipotent will we can explain in much the same way in which we must explain the two-fold nature of Christ.

8. Therefore we should not judge this election of ours to eternal life on the basis either of reason or of God's law. This would either lead us into a reckless, dissolute, Epicurean life, or drive men to despair and waken dangerous thoughts in their hearts. As long as men follow their reason, they can hardly escape such reflections as this: "If god has elected me to salvation I cannot be damned, do as I will." Or, "If I am not elected to eternal life, whatever good I do is of no avail; everything is in vain in that case."

It goes without saying that we should not judge the election doctrine on the basis of reason, just as we should not judge anything that Scripture reveals: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart.... For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.". That people wish to judge the election doctrine on the basis of reason is not the fault of the election doctrine. Here is where many theologians go wrong. What they call false and blasphemous in the election doctrine is really the false and blasphemous conclusions people draw concerning it.

What the writers here mean to say when they write that we should not judge our election on the basis of God's Law, escapes me. We should certainly judge the state of our own salvation on the basis of the Ten Commandments because this is what the Ten Commandments are for: "Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God." I cannot believe that they truly wished to deny the utility of God's Law.

What they seem to wish to say is that one should not draw the conclusion that he has been predestined to be lost and therefore despair over forgiveness due to a lack of adherence to the law. Nevertheless, since they deny the existence of such an election, an admonition seems to be pointless. Furthermore, their concern that such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that: "If I am not elected to eternal life, whatever good I do is of no avail," is also pointless because they have rejected the existence of such an election. In these contradictions they seem to betray the suspicion that such an election exists because I can't see why they would be concerned about such matters if there is no such thing as a dual election. It would have been better in that case to simply say: "Do not worry about it, there is no such thing." Nevertheless, what they would then need to explain is, why God was not able to save them too? Was Satan too powerful for God, or did God lose interest in his creation and go off to do something else, leaving them to whatever fate might befall them. This is what the Epitome should explain if election only applies to those who are saved.

The concerns of the writers here are identical to the concerns which Erasmus had, and their conclusions are similar in nature. Here is how Luther dealt with this concern:

Who, you say, will take pains to correct his life? I answer: No man will and no man can, for God cares nothing for your correctors without the Spirit, since they are hypocrites. But the elect and the godly will be corrected by the Holy Spirit, while the rest perish uncorrected....

Who will believe, you say, that he is loved by God. I answer: No man will or can believe this; but the elect will believe while the rest perish in unbelief, indignant and blaspheming as you are here. So some will believe.

As to your saying that a window is opened for impiety by these dogmas, let it be so; such people belong to the above-mentioned leprosy of evil that must be endured. Nevertheless, by these same dogmas there is opened at the same time a door to righteousness, an entrance to heaven and a way to God for the godly and the elect....

What then, you may ask, is the utility or necessity of publishing such things when so many evils appear to proceed from them? I answer: It would be enough to say that God has willed them to be published, and we must not ask the reason for the divine will, but simply adore it, giving God glory that, since he alone is just and wise, he does no wrong to anyone and can do nothing foolishly or rashly, though it may seem far otherwise to us. With this answer the godly are content.

The answers to their concerns are clearly dealt with by St. Paul too, who often deals with human reason in his Epistle to the Romans. Similar questions actually did arise on account of Paul's teaching, as when St. Paul writes: "But if our wickedness serves to show the justice of God, what shall we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? But if through my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come? -- as some people slanderously charge us with saying." St. Paul does not dignify the question with an answer but simply says: "their condemnation is just." The human response is, if our wickedness serves God, then God is unjust to inflict wrath, and that he should not condemn us, and also that we should then do evil that good may come. These are all human conclusions. Yet St. Paul does not deny in this passage that God uses our evil in order to prove his truthfulness, he rather affirms it, yet he condemns those who draw the false conclusions. He does not deny the doctrine, but he denounces those who draw false conclusions. This should have been the procedure with those who wrote this article, but instead they mistakenly deny the doctrine rather than the false conclusions which people draw from it.

Another case in point is the 9th Chapter of the book of Romans: "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part. By no means!" Or also, "You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?' These are all precisely the "dangerous thoughts" which the eleventh article is so concerned with, and yet St. Paul does not deny God's election but instead affirms it and answers back to man's human questions: "But who are you a man to answer back to God?" The eleventh article misses the point, it is not the fault of the Election doctrine, it is the fault of man's human thinking.

9. We must learn from the holy Gospel alone which clearly testifies that "God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all" (Rom. 11:32), and that he does not want anyone to perish (Ezek. 33:11; 18:23), but that everyone should repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (I Tim. 2:6; I John 2:2).

This paragraph points out the tendency of the Book of Concord to simply quote those passages of Scripture which conform to their opinion and thus avoid all the difficulties. The exact same Holy Bible which they quote, also includes such passages as "God has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble," that God "hardens the hearts of whomever he wills," and "they disobey the Word as they were destined to do," which have been quoted above, and all of which the authors conveniently ignore. Their approach is like "proving" that God is one, and that therefore it is false to teach that God is also three distinct persons, only by quoting the passages which agree and ignoring the others. Or, as the Moslems do, quoting only the passages which conform to their notions while ignoring the rest. The approach seems to me to be a little dishonest, or simply, lazy. They completely ignore all the passages which teach contrary to their assumptions.

Even though it is true that we must learn about God only insofar as he has revealed himself in his Word, as I have stated above, everything the Scripture teaches is profitable and among these things is double predestination or election, however true it is that we are in no way to delve into the nature of that hidden will. But the existence of dual predestination we can and should know about, because it is clearly revealed.

One of the outstanding qualities in Luther was that he did not shy away from the truth no matter where it led. For him, "truth must be honored above all." He had learned that dialectical fearlessness which Kierkegaard talks about which goes wherever the truth leads. As with the above quoted universal passages, the passages which they now quote must be interpreted with the analogy of faith and Scripture. How then, are these passages which the Epitome quotes to be understood?

The first passage is from Romans 11:32: "God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all." This passage cannot refer to God's election since if it did all men would simply be saved inasmuch as God is omnipotent. The passage is clearly a omnipotent will passage since to consign to disobedience is an action of his omnipotent will. At the same time that St. Paul writes this, it also says in Exodus 33:19: "...I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy." Here, clearly, his mercy is limited. How then do we reconcile these passages? There are two ways.

The first, and probably the best way is to interpret it as synecdoche. This figure of speech is used throughout the Eleventh Chapter of Romans. For example, St. Paul writes, that: "and so all Israel will be saved." We know for a fact that not all Israel will be saved. In this chapter St. Paul often refers to the whole to refer to a part or a part to refer to the whole: "But through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!." Salvation does not come to all Gentiles and Israel as descended from Jacob will not all be saved, even though the spiritual Israel will all be saved.

Synecdoche, then, might be the best way to interpret this passage so that St. Paul is not referring to all men individually, but rather to all types of men who are among the elect in just the same way that he refers to "all Israel."

Another possibility is that it refers to earthly gifts and benefits that God gives us such as those which Christ talks about in Matthew 5:45: "for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." These too are benefits which we reap from Christ's life, both the wicked and the just. In the same way the Bible says: "The Lord is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made." It is this sense which St. Paul uses when he says in 1 Timothy 4:10: "God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." If God is the savior of all men, especially those who believe, how is he the savior of those who do not believe since the difference is the difference between Heaven and Hell? To put it simply, God saves also in a wider sense in that all the good that happens in this world happens on account of Christ, otherwise, as Luther says somewhere, this whole existence would immediately plunge into the abyss of perdition.

This final interpretation is probably not the best for this passage of St. Paul's since the context clearly indicates that St. Paul is speaking about eternal life. In any case, one must interpret this passage in light of the omnipotent will passages. The next passages to which the Epitome refers are found in Ezekiel and I Timothy. These passages have all been dealt with above.

The other passage is I John 2:2: "..he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." When some people hear that there is a double predestination they conclude that Christ did not make satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. This may follow from human reason, but it is not God's Word, for Christ did make satisfaction for all sins. But this does not mean that God distributes this mercy upon all equally -- rather, since he is under obligation to no one, he can give it to whomever he chooses, or as it says in Exodus 33:19 where God says, "..I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy." I believe however, as explained above, that all men do receive mercy but not all receive eternal mercy.

10. The doctrine of God's eternal election is profitable and comforting to the person who concerns himself with the revealed will of God and observes the order which St. Paul follows in the Epistle to the Romans. He there directs men first to repent, to acknowledge their sins, to believe in Christ, and to obey God, and only then does he speak of the mystery of God's eternal election.

It is certainly true that one must deal first with the "spiritual milk" of Scripture before trying to delve into the question of God's omnipotence. They seem unable to see the utility of this doctrine, and judge God's Word solely on the basis of the immediate comfort they receive from it, and on the reactions of people, instead of patiently working through the complexities and the difficulties to find the truth regardless of what people may think of it.

When the reaction of people is considered above what the truth might be, we run the danger of ignoring those truths which are beneficial in every way in bringing people to salvation because we are more interested in the reactions of men, rather than their salvation. In the same way, a Gospel orientated age such as ours has practically made the fear of God passe, in light of God's goodness and mercy. In this way the authors, unduly concerned with the reactions of men seem to wish to close their ears to any knowledge of the right which God has over the clay to "make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use."

The knowledge of this doctrine, as with every doctrine of Scripture, is helpful in bringing people to salvation, and one should put the Word of God first and the reactions of men second for the Word of God is the "scepter of righteousness." It is precisely the fear of God and humility which the election doctrine gives us that make the doctrine useful for salvation, although we must always ask the Holy Spirit to give us the wisdom to use it properly, especially in light of its great difficulties.

It says in Isaiah 66:2, for example: "But this is the man to whom I will look, he that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word." If anything can make a man tremble at God's Word, it is the knowledge of this predestination -- and almost certainly the only way certain people might be saved is through the knowledge of this doctrine -- that God predestines some to be saved and some to be eternally damned. Is it right for us to keep this knowledge from people insofar as it might be the only way to instill in some the fear of God?

The authors of the Epitome seem to think they know more than God about what it takes to save people, and with their flimsy human wisdom they delicately sidestep the truth instead of meeting it head on which would allow them to deal with it and understand it. In the meantime, the fear of God and other such nonsense becomes a fable -- and people are quitely led to perdition. The authors of the Epitome seem to test everything in God's Word as to how much immediate comfort it provides -- while they ignore that even though the Word eventually does bring comfort, because of our human reason God wants us to "tremble at his Word" as it says in the above passage in Isaiah, and that "Whoever enters the Kingdom of Heaven enters it violently."

They wish, in short, to censor the Word of God, as if they themselves knew better that God what it is important for us to know. The responsibility of Christians is to teach the truth, and let God take care of the rest, for "the truth will make you free." If they had been more interested in finding the truth and less concerned about what people would think they would not have denied this doctrine. We may not always be certain of the reason or the efficacy of God's teachings but we do know that the Word of God never fails to produce results:

For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return no thither but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout... so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

This does not mean that we should use God's Word carelessly, but it does mean that God will see to it that it has the desired result.

Many people who hear about God's double predestination fear that those who hear the doctrine will despair over forgiveness. In the same way that it is often said that whoever is concerned he may have committed the sin against the Holy Spirit need not be concerned, since whoever has committed such a sin would not feel concern, so too, whoever despairs over forgiveness can immediately take heart, for nothing is more certain than that God does not quench a smoldering wick or break a bruised reed. To censor this doctrine, however, is a disservice to those who have become perhaps smug and obstinate in their relation to God --and need to learn about the fear of God. For God does not just denounce those who do not use the Gospel correctly, he also denounces those who do not use the Law: "They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, 'Peace, peace,' when there is no peace."

The knowledge of God's double predestination since it is one-half pure Gospel and one-half pure Law, should be used in two ways. First to create concern in those who are not concerned, and also to comfort all who are concerned. The authors of this article wish to leave out the former and teach only the latter. But in so doing, there is the real danger that some who would have otherwise come to the fear of God through this doctrine, may never come to fear God -- because we have chosen to censor God's Word. It says in Ezekiel that the blood-guilt of those who are not thus saved will come upon those who failed to teach the doctrine. This is why St. Paul says in Acts that he is innocent of blood of the Ephesians: "Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God." Therefore, it is extraordinarily presumptuous -- and dangerous -- for us to leave out or ignore anything in God's Word.

For those individuals who are concerned about salvation the election doctrine should be used for comfort since nothing is more certain that: "this is the man to whom I will look, he that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word." As Luther says, "For this also must be observed, that just as the voice of the law is not raised except over those who do not feel or acknowledge their sin, as Paul says in Romans 3:20: 'Through the law comes knowledge of sin,' so the word of grace does not come except to those who feel their sin and are troubled and tempted to despair." They may hear the Word, but it means nothing to them until God works inwardly. As with any doctrine in Scripture, the election doctrine can be misused, but as long as the Gospel is present, (and Law and Gospel should be taught together), we need not be overly concerned that some will despair on account of this teaching.

There is, however, a more serious problem: the tribulation we experience due to our own lack of faith. Some interpret this tribulation to mean that the doctrine is not God's Word, when it is a trial to our faith much as the trial which Abraham went through. This is the trial in which we are not tempted from below through carnal lusts, but rather where we are tempted to despair through unbelief because of a teleological suspension of the universal. Here is where God tests our faith by asking us to believe in something which transcends the universal and all comprehension, requiring the greatest faith. To believe in the universal, in comparison, is easy.

The most difficult temptations for Christ were just such temptations -- and it is clear that God did not hold it against him when he agonized and hesitated in God's doing God's will, whereas to entertain carnal desires is clearly a sin in God's sight. In overcoming these trials Christ learned obedience to God.

When we denounce the teaching of dual predestination, we only add to the difficulties of those who are struggling against tribulation and the wisdom of the flesh. By so doing, we dishearten the righteous falsely, which is by no means a trivial matter according to Ezekiel 13:20-23 when the priests did the same thing. We should, instead, try to understand this doctrine and help those Christians who may be struggling with it -- not arrogantly denying its existence.

Accordingly we believe and maintain that if anybody teaches the doctrine of the gracious election of God to eternal life in such a way that disconsolate Christians can find no comfort in this doctrine but are driven to doubt and despair, or in such a way that the impenitent are strengthened in their self-will, he is not teaching the doctrine according to the Word and will of God, but in accord with his reason and under the direction of the devil, since everything in Scripture, as St. Paul testifies, was written for our instruction that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

Much of what is said here goes without saying, we should always be concerned with the way in which God's Word is applied. Those who are impenitent, should be admonished about Law, those who are penitent should be comforted with the Gospel. The conclusion that those who teach this doctrine teach it under the direction of the devil betrays the total lack of understanding which the authors of this article have of the election doctrine. Is Solomon, for example, teaching under the direction of the devil when he writes: "The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble" Or was St. Paul inspired by the devil when he wrote: "...though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call, she was told, "The elder will serve the younger.' As it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'", or when he says: "So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills." Or was Peter inspired by Satan when he says: "...for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do." All of these passages are the Word of God, but because the authors, because they are seeking immediate comfort of God's Word instead of struggling through to the truth, misinterpret their own lack of faith and the experience of tribulation to mean that the doctrine is inspired by the devil, when it isn't -- unless one tries to go beyond what God has revealed and attempts to delve into issues which God has reserved for himself, for then he can error seriously. But to know and teach what God has revealed is in no way "inspired by Satan."

Therefore we reject the following errors:

1. The doctrine that God does not want all men to come to repentance and to believe the Gospel.

2. Furthermore, the doctrine that God is not serious about wanting all men to come to him when he calls us to him.

3. Furthermore, that God does not want everybody to be saved, but that merely by an arbitrary counsel, purpose, and will, without regard for their sin, God has predestined certain people to damnation so that they cannot be saved...

These are all blasphemous and terrible errors, for they rob Christians of all the comfort that they have in the holy Gospel and in the use of the holy sacraments. Hence they should not be tolerated in God's church.

I'm afraid that if we are to follow their suggestion, then we would have to excommunicate St. Paul, St. Peter, Solomon, Luther, Calvin, Wyclife, Augustine, as well as many others.

Granted, not everyone is capable of dealing with this doctrine, as has been said many times before -- and we all experience tribulation of the kind that Luther speaks of when he said that he experienced so much tribulation on account of the election doctrine that he wished that he had never been born a man. But Luther did not stop at this tribulation, but rather went on to investigate in order to understand how this doctrine should be understood.

Is it permissible, then, to say that God does not want to save all men? The Bible says that God does whatever he pleases and yet it also says that he does not willing afflict the sons of men. The first passage has to be understood in the sense that all things happen because it has pleased God to do them, and the second passage has to be understood in the sense that even though it has pleased God to predestine it, some things he does not will willingly.

Once again, we are confronted with the most difficult aspect of the election doctrine. As I have said above, there is no difference for God between wanting and willing in the sense that He cannot will what he wants, but there is in the sense that He consciously wills what he otherwise would not want. He clearly predestines unbelief, but He does it so that it is entirely the fault of the will that will not believe -- and He justly condemns and punishes such unbelief, even though He does not do this willingly. So, when the onus is placed upon man and his obstinate unwillingness to believe, it is perfectly correct to say that God does not want all men to be saved in an absolute sense, even though he does as he is preached, worshipped and offered.

Whoever will be offended must be offended, God will not stop cease from willing this even if the whole world is offended, and for my part I would rather lose the whole world than to deny one syllable of God's Word. As Luther says, we must speak about God in one way as he is offered, preached, and worshipped, and another way as he is not offered, not preached, and not worshiped. What God wants in his incarnate will for all, he does not want in an absolute sense for all since if he did, all would be saved since God is omnipotent. If he wanted it in an absolute sense for all and then all men were not saved this would be proof positive that God is not omnipotent for he then would be unable to will what he wants. As I have stated I above, I understand "want" therefore in a qualified sense i.e.- in the sense of wishing or desiring and the contradiction is in this sense not between the incarnate will and the omnipotent will but in why God consciously chooses not to will what he otherwise wants. In this sense St. Paul is not mis-representing God when he says that "God wants all men to be saved." This is the key to understanding the election doctrine: God does not necessarily will what he wants, consciously and not because of coercion. Why he does so can be referred to the ultimate purpose of creation leading to God's glory and for the benefit of the elect.

Let us consider a few examples. The first is Pharaoh. St. Paul clearly attests that God raised up Pharoah in order "to prove [His] power, that his glory might be proclaimed throughout all the earth." Is this a sign that God wanted to save Pharoah? It is a strange sign -- to predestine Pharaoh not to be saved, in order to save him. It is certainly true that God did not find pleasure in hardening Pharoah as is stated above, and yet he clearly hardened Pharaoh's heart, because of the unbelief -- which God has himself predestined to occur in Pharoah. Clearly, then, when the onus and fault is placed upon Pharaoh's will -- it is correct to say that God did not want to save Pharoah in an absolute sense, for if he had wanted to, Pharaoh would have been saved, since God is omnipotent. In a relative sense, in the sense of wishing or desiring it is true that God wanted Pharaoh to be saved, but not according to his omnipotent will, as was explained above.

The next example is Esau and Jacob. St. Paul clearly attests, that before Jacob had done anything good and Esau had done anything evil, one was predestined to be saved and the other was predestined to be damned: "...though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call, she was told, 'The elder will serve the younger.' As it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'" Since God loved one prior to works, and hated the other prior to works it is clear that he wanted to save one and he did not want to save the other -- without regard to works of any kind. How God is love and yet can with complete justice hate Esau prior to works of any kind I accept by faith and simply cannot provide an answer. Such a contradiction has to do with the inscrutable judgments of God which we will have to wait to understand in eternity.

The other example is Judas. According to Jesus Christ, the reason for Judas's betrayal was so that "...the scripture may be fulfilled, 'He who ate my bread has lifted his heal against me.'" In the book of Acts, Peter says: "...for truly in this city there were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus, who thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever thy hand and thy plan had predestined to take place." Here is Luther's interpretation of Judas: "...but if God foreknew that Judas would be a traitor, Judas necessarily became a traitor, and it was not in the power of Judas or any creature to do differently or to change his will, though he did what he did willingly and not under compulsion, but that act of will was a work of God, which he set in motion by his omnipotence, like everything else."

These examples all prove that God by his certain election, predestination, or appointment, foreordains the fate of all men according to his absolute and certain foreknowledge. Whether one wishes to use the word election, predestination or appointment, it is not the words one uses that matter, but the meaning. The Word of God goes to some length to prove this doctrine so we should not deny it.

IV

The Solid Declaration

If the teaching of this article is set forth out of the divine Word and according to the example it provides, it neither can nor should be considered useless and unnecessary, still less offensive and detrimental, because the Holy Scriptures mention this article not only once, and as it were in passing, but discuss and present it in detail in many places.

Once again, the authors use the reaction of men to influence the doctrine itself. If the truth is to honored above all, then the reactions of men should take a secondary position, and we should seek the truth regardless of where it may lead. This is not to say, that we should use the Word callously or inconsiderately -- but as has been stated many times above, we may not change the Word of God one iota or one dot.

At the very outset we must carefully note the difference between God's eternal foreknowledge and the eternal election of his children to eternal salvation. For the fact that God sees and knows everything before it happens -- what we call God's foreknowledge -- extends to all creatures, good and evil. He sees and knows in advance all that is or shall be, all that happens or will happen, both good or evil, since all things, present or future, are manifest and present to God,...

On the other hand the eternal election or predestination to salvation does not extend over both the godly and the ungodly, but only over the children of God, who have been elected and predestined to eternal life...

This is admirably stated and appeals to human reason which is wont to think in human terms about God's justice, however, it is not scriptural. God's foreknowledge and will have been explained in depth above, so just a few observations should suffice. If this position were true then one of two conditions must exist. If God does not will all things according to his foreknowledge then he is either not omnipotent, or there is a cause within us which causes God to be gracious to us. In the first case, God would be in a battle against Satan, only winning some of the battles, unable to save all -- instead of what Scripture teaches, that "God works all things according to the purpose of his will." And when he wills all things, he wills them according to his foreknowledge, otherwise he would be willing without foreknowing. In the other case, where there is a cause within us which causes God to be gracious, one would have to prove some sort of synergism -- a view which the Solid Declaration rejects.

The source and cause of evil is not God's foreknowledge (since God neither creates nor works evil, nor does he help it along and promote it), but rather the wicked and perverse will of the devil and of men,...

There is absolutely no question whatsoever that the source of evil is in Satan and in man's perverse will and it is emphatically true that God hates evil and punishes it, and no one would want to interpret the election doctrine differently. It does not follow, however, that God does not predestine it. This conclusion may follow from reason, but it is not God's Word. As has been explained above, when God predestines evil he does so by withdrawing or with-holding his spirit and stirring everything up by his omnipotent Word, directing the evil will which he finds in Satan and the reprobate. As Luther says, "Since, God move and actuates all in all, he necessarily moves and acts also in Satan and ungodly man."

Furthermore, we are not to view this eternal election or divine ordering to eternal life only in the secret and inscrutable counsel of God, as though it comprised no more and that nothing more is involved in it, or that nothing more is to be considered in connection with it, than that God has foreseen who and how many are to be saved, who and how many are to be damned, or that he merely held a sort of military muster: This one shall be saved, that one shall be damned, this one shall persevere, that one shall not persevere.

One simply cannot view eternal election in the secret and inscrutable will of God. It is impossible to know the why or the wherefore of it -- because it is entirely hidden to us. We must proceed just as if there were no omnipotent, hidden and inscrutable will, for no man will ever have anything to do with it. And who would want to? The knowledge of its existence carries with it as much difficulty as any man would ever want, for it truly tests our faith to the utmost. It is true that so far as the election doctrine itself is concerned there is nothing more to consider with respect to it than its existence, for that is all we know about. The authors constantly refer other issues to the election doctrine and thus tend to confuse the issue.

In addition, the authors go too far in wishing to censor it so that it applies only to the elect and not to the reprobate. Once more, they are too concerned with the opinions of men -- when God wants us to preach the "whole counsel of God."

With regard to our eternal salvation, there is much more to be considered than just the election doctrine, but it is entirely incorrect to suggest that it should be repressed just because some people misuse it. The term "military muster" belittles God's inscrutable wisdom in electing who will and who will not be saved.

It is important for us to know that God elects predestines or appoints all things according to that will. For otherwise he would be a ridiculous god who created the world, lost control, and now is attempting to rest control of his creation back from Satan. I much prefer an omnipotent, albeit, inscrutable God than the one they picture.

Such a view, however, leads many to draw and formulate strange, dangerous, and pernicious opinions and causes and fortifies in people's minds either false security and impenitence or anxiety and despair. As a result they trouble themselves with burdensome doubts and say: "Since God has foreordained his elect to salvation before the foundations of the world were laid' (Eph. 1:4) and since God's foreknowledge can never fail and no one can ever change or hinder it (Isa. 14:27; Rom 9:19,11), therefore if I have been foreknown to salvation, it will do me no harm if I live in all kinds of sin and vice without repentance, despise Word and sacraments, and do not concern myself with repentance, faith, prayer and godliness. On the contrary, I shall and must be saved since God's foreknowledge must be carried out. But if I am not foreknown, then everything is in vain, even though I were to hold to the Word, repent, believe, etc. since I cannot hinder or alter God's foreknowledge.'

If the authors had been less concerned about the conclusions they suppose that people will draw from the election doctrine and more concerned with the doctrine itself they would not have understood it better. Our main concern should be to simple teach the truth, as has been stated many times above. As long as we do this in love and with the fear of God, the election doctrine should not be mis-used. Once again the authors are replacing God's wisdom concerning what should be taught with their own -- because they are overly concerned about the conclusions people may draw.

The election doctrine should never be used in such a way as to leave anyone out of grace. It is just the opposite. By failing to teach the entire doctrine, some who would otherwise fear God will not learn to fear God and be saved since as stated above, the Word of God is the "scepter of righteousness" so that it all works to bring righteousness. All of their concerns arise from human reasons and not from the Word of God.

For those who are not concerned about salvation they should know that God has predestined some not to be saved. Once they become concerned through this Law, then they can be comforted with the knowledge that God does not quench a smoldering wick or break a bruised reed, and that their concern is a sure sign that they are not predestined from eternity to be lost. Even in those who show no signs of faith, we must never give up hope since: "God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will."

For those who believe, they can be comforted by the knowledge that their salvation is based on God's absolute and eternal predestination so that they cannot fall in such a way as to be unable to come back to grace ultimately as David and other great saints did. As for those who draw the human conclusions which the authors here outline, I have dealt with those objections above.

For those who experience the inevitable tribulation which this doctrine at times causes, and which Luther called the "tribulation of predestinarianism" they should be advised to carefully avoid any speculation concerning the hidden will of God and trust in God -- that he cannot possibly do any injustice to anyone for he is a merciful and gracious God. In eternity we shall see the complete justice of his will, while now we can only believe.

As far as Christians are concerned, I do not believe that there is one truly converted Christian who would think in the way they describe. When one is converted to Christianity, he becomes aware of the suffering and death of Jesus Christ, as St. Paul describes: "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?" Knowing the love and the suffering of Christ, through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, no Christian can fall in such a way as to commit the sort of callous sin that they here describe, for truly this would be a mortal sin.

Christ assures us: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." The type of sin which the authors of this article describe is a mortal sin, which is obstinate unbelief, as described in 1 John 5:10, for the sin they describe is the sin of a hardened and obstinate heart such as there is not in Christians, for once enlightened, they will never again fall into this sort of unbelief, since it is clear from Scripture that we are not to pray for those who commit this kind of sin and Christ himself prays for all whom God has given him.

There are some who hear the Word and follow it for a while but later fall away as described by Peter in 2 Peter 2:20, however, such persons cannot have been enlightened with the Holy Spirit since Christ assures us that no one will snatch the elect out of the Father's hand. Knowing then, that no true Christian could draw the conclusions they suggest, (although perhaps in a moment of weakness he might, but in no case would he remain in them obstinately), the concern of the authors toward such a Christian who persists in sin should be that of St. Paul: "As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear." Instead, they seek to censor God's Word due to the possible conclusions people draw.

As for those who do not believe, once again, here is Luther's response:

As to your saying that a window is opened for impiety by these dogmas, let it be so; such people belong to the above-mentioned leprosy of evil that must be endured Nevertheless, by these same dogmas there is opened at the same time a door to righteousness, an entrance to heaven and a way to God for the godly and the elect. But if, as you advise, we left these dogmas alone and concealed this Word of God from men, so that they were deluded by a false assurance of salvation and no one learned to fear God and be humbled, so as to come through fear at length to grace and love, then we might very well have closed your window, but in its place we should be opening for ourselves and all men floodgates, or rather great chasms and gulfs, not only to impiety, but to the depths of hell. In this way we should neither enter heaven ourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. (Matt. 23:13)

They are so concerned with the reactions of people and the difficulty of the doctrine that they place all knowledge concerning God's predestination of those who are damned into the hidden will of God, whereas the Bible does not: "God has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble." In order to avoid investigating this doctrine too deeply, however, we should keep a very healthy distance from this doctrine since it contains things which are infinitely beyond our understanding -- but to deny it, is to deny the Word of God.

The other tendency of this article is to equate cause with fault, as if when God, by the movement of his omnipotent will which moves all things, then he is at fault for the evil that occurs. This is in no way true -- and God hates and punishes the evil which occurs. God predestines, elects or appoints all things that happen, and yet he does not find pleasure in the evil which he predestines, but he nevertheless does it "in order to show his wrath and prove his power."

The reason why 'many are called and few are chosen' is not that in his call, which takes place through the Word, God intended to say: 'Externally I do indeed through the Word call all of you, to whom I give my Word, into my kingdom, but down in my heart I am not thinking of all, but only of a certain few. for it is my will that the majority of those whom I call through the Word are not to be illuminated or converted, but are to be and remain under condemnation, although I speak differently in my call to them.'

Once again, we are into by far the most difficult aspect of the election doctrine and we may not in every respect be able to understand everything completely concerning it. As Luther says, and as was stated above, we must speak about God one way as he is preached, offered, and worshiped, and another way as he is not preached, not offered and not worshiped. In the latter respect he has left himself free over all things: "he does according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth and none can stay his hand or say to him, 'What doest thou?'

It causes the greatest offense to our understanding that what God wants, wills and desires in his incarnate will, in an absolute sense he wants, wills and desires in his omnipotent will only for the elect; but note carefully, he does not find pleasure in the predestination of the reprobate and their perdition is entirely the fault of the will that will not believe.

At the same time that the Bible says, for example, "God wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth," it also says, "I shall have mercy on whom I have mercy," that "he fashions the hearts of them all," that "God has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble," and "they disobey the Word as they were destined to do," all of which passages have been quoted above. If the authors of this article wish to interpret this to mean: "down in my heart I am not thinking of all, but only of a certain few," that is their business, but I would avoid such a superficial and perverse interpretation.

It is important to note, that in the incarnate will God earnestly desires in every way that all to whom the Word of God is preached should hear it and be converted, and this will He in fact inspires within the church as St. Paul says: "Him we proclaim, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man mature in Christ. For this I toil, striving with all the energy which he mightily inspires within me." At the same time, God predestines some to believe and some not to believe according to his omnipotent will which "works all things according to the purpose of his will." Instead of blasphemously murmuring against God and doubting the justice of his will as this article does, we should reverently adore and be humbled by his inscrutable judgments which are described in Scripture as "the great deep." In addition, it is not as if St. Paul is mis-representing God when he says that God "wants all men to be saved" and come to a knowledge of the truth, it is simply that wanting in this case has to be understood in a qualified way. If we did not do this it would be proof positive that God is not omnipotent which I do not think Christian would want -- for then he would be unable to will what he wants. If wanting, however, is understood in the sense of wishing or desiring and not in the sense of willing then there is no problem for even in the omnipotent will of God, God wants all men to be saved but he does not will it -- not because he cannot but because he consciously chooses not to do so.

Does God then "contradict himself?" By definition, God cannot contradict himself and still be God, because this would not be an attribute of God. Nevertheless, to our reason, God seems in many respects to be contradictory. This does not mean that God is contradictory -- for the seeming contradiction which presents itself to our reason is resolved by a higher truth having to do with the ultimate purpose of creation leading to God's glory. So what seems contradictory to us is not contradictory in light of a higher truth, which however, we cannot see or understand in this life-time, but which we shall see and understand with the greatest of ease in eternity.

Many things which we see as contradictory to us about God have been mentioned above, and that is why we must have faith in God, for if God were not contradictory to our reason we would not need faith. This does not however, make God himself contradictory.

If we go thus far in this article we will remain on the right path, as it is written, "O Israel, it is you own fault that you are destroyed, but that there is help for you is pure grace on my part" (Hos 13:9) But whenever something in the discussion of this subject soars too high and goes beyond these limits, we must with Paul place our finger on our lips and say, 'Who are you, a man to answer back to God?' (Rom. 9:20)

This statement once again characterizes their whole approach to the election doctrine: those things in the election doctrine concerning the predestination of those who are damned is relegated to those subjects which are beyond what God has revealed to us. Even though it is true that the why and the wherefore of this predestination God has not revealed to us, the existence of this predestination is emphatically revealed to us. The authors seem to think they know better than God what should be taught, when God instructs us to teach everything.

God has predestined who will and who will not be saved, but in such a way that the predestination of those who are lost is entirely the fault of the will that will not accept and is no way is God to blame. Their inability to reconcile this contradiction has caused them to reject it and ignore it. The passage of Romans 9:20 refers not to a suggestion by St. Paul that going beyond the knowledge of an election of some to salvation is beyond our grasp, but rather quite the opposite: it is his answer to the human questions which arise concerning why God predestines some to be damned -- the exact same position which the authors reject. They could hardly quote a less applicable passage to support their position.

Next, since the Holy Spirit dwells in the elect who have come to faith as he dwells in his temple, and is not idle in them but urges them to obey the commandments of God, believers likewise should not be idle, still less oppose the urgings of the Spirit of God, but should exercise themselves in all Christian virtues, in all godliness, modesty, temperance, patience, and brotherly love, and should diligently seek to "confirm their call and election' so that the more they experience the power and might of the Spirit within themselves, the less they will doubt their election. For the Spirit testifies to the elect that they are "children of God" (Rom. 8:16). And if perchance they should fall into such grave temptation that they feel that they are no longer experiencing any power whatever of the indwelling Spirit of God and say with David, "I said in my alarm, I am driven far from thy sight" (Ps 31:22), then, regardless of what they experience within themselves, they should nevertheless join David in the next words, "But thou didst hear my supplications when I cried to thee for help" (Ps 31:23).

This, in my opinion could not be better stated. For those who have knowledge of God's eternal election, it is always important to realize as I have state above, that no one should try to plan his life or anything else based on the knowledge of God's predestination, since it is completely hidden from us except for its existence. The tendency of this article, however, is to be so concerned with the reactions of people as to censor the Holy Word of God who teaches that God has by his certain, inscrutable and eternal purpose of election predestined who will and who will not be saved. Even though they are well intentioned it is impious and the height of presumption to tamper with the Word of God in this way.

The reason why all who hear the Word do not come to faith and therefore receive the greater damnation is not that God did not want them to be saved. It is their own fault because they heard the Word of God not to learn but only to despise, blaspheme, and ridicule it, and they resisted the Holy Spirit who wanted to work with them as was the case with the Pharisees and their party at the time of Christ....

If God, in an absolute sense, wants to save someone he will be saved -- because God is omnipotent. Otherwise, God would not be omnipotent, but rather in a battle with Satan in which God in fact would lose most of the battles. This would certainly suggest an intolerable point of view about God. When the Bible says about the same Pharisees which the authors here talk about, that: "...they disobey the word, as they were destined to do," it is perfectly clear that God did not want to save them in an absolute sense (i.e. without qualification) -- because if he had, he would not have destined them to disobedience, but rather to obedience. For God can will whatever he wants, if he chooses to because he is omnipotent.

Likewise, when the Bible says: "God has made everything, even the wicked for the day of trouble." It is perfectly clear once again, that God in an absolute sense does not want to save the reprobate, for if he had he would not have made them wicked. Therefore such passages as "...God our savior who desires all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth," must be understood in a qualified way. God chooses to will what he otherwise does not want -- but note carefully, because of the unwillingness to believe which he himself has predestined.

This way of understanding the universal passages preserves the integrity of the incarnate will passages, for God even in his omnipotent will does not "willing inflict or grieve the sons of men," in the sense of desiring, but because of the disobedience which he finds in men and which is the fault of the will in man, he justly wills to punish it -- even though he himself has predestined it, as we have seen many times above. In this way there is no suggestion that God is misrepresenting himself to man in that incarnate will, for he earnestly does seek and offer salvation to all to whom the word is taught, and God is long-suffering toward them even in His omnipotent will.

To put it simply, if we wish to be honest with the Bible, we must interpret the universal passages in a qualified way in light of the hidden will passages. Further, since God does not lie, what he says in his incarnate will must also be true in his omnipotent will. Consequently, wanting must be understood in the sense of desiring and not willing, for if it were understood in the sense of willing, all men would be saved because God is omnipotent. As I have remarked above, there is a difference in God, not between his incarnate will and his omnipotent will but in that God consciously chooses not to will what he otherwise wants. He does not necessarily will what he wants. He wants (in the sense of desiring), all men to be saved but wills it for the elect. The terms willing and wanting must always be understood in a qualified sense, according to what some call the "analogy of faith."

This is the key to the mystery about the election doctrine. When we realize that God consciously chooses not to will what he wants according to his inscrutable judgment the election doctrine becomes quite easy to harmonize. We must simply distinguish between wanting and willing in God.

Why then does the Bible say that God does whatever he pleases? This shows that if it pleases him, he does it and if he does it, it pleases him. True enough, for this refers to wanting in an absolute sense according to his will. But even though it pleases him for his own glory and for the benefit of the saints to will in an absolute sense, he still wills things against his will for he finds no pleasure in the death of anyone.

Hence Paul very carefully distinguishes between the work of God, who alone prepares vessels of honor, and the work of the devil and of man, who, through the instigation of the devil and not of God, has made himself a vessel of dishonor. It is written, 'God endured with much patience the vessels of wrath fitted for damnation in order to make known the riches of his glory in the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for salvation.' (Rom 9:22, 23) The apostle says in unmistakable terms that God endured the vessels of wrath with much patience.' He does not say that God made them vessels of wrath.

The authors here are acting as apologists for God and end up twisting God's clear Word, as if God should be embarrassed that he has "fitted some for destruction." St. Paul emphatically states that it is God's will to do this: "You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?' But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me thus?'" The molder is God and what is molded is the reprobate. St. Paul here feels no human need to apologize or to excuse God but rather he affirms God's will to harden, which means to make evil.

This does not mean however, that God creates evil even though he predestines it. Also, it is in no way the fault of God that evil is done, it is exclusively the fault of the evil will of man and Satan. Furthermore, God hates and punishes evil.

If that had been his will, he would not have needed any long-suffering. The devil and man himself, and not God are the cause of their being fitted for damnation. Everything which prepares and fits man for damnation emanates from the devil and man through sin, and in no way from God. Since God does not want any man to be damned, how could be prepare man for damnation?

If God had wished to avoid long-suffering he would have never have created the universe. God would not have had to sacrifice his own Son, or save the world, or preserve the world, or anything else if his desire had been to avoid long-suffering. The same question can be asked about everything that causes God long-suffering. This doesn't mean and cannot prove that God does not will for it to happen. For example, the crucifixion of Christ. The Bible states in more than one place that it was God's will to predestine it: "for truly in this city there were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst, anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever thy hand and thy plan had predestined to take place."

If we were to assume that God does not will whatever causes him long-suffering, then God would certainly have not predestined him to be crucified. And then, where would we be? Without the Savior of the world. This is how dangerous these thoughts can become. Luther too, marvels at this long-suffering in God: "It is like-wise the part of this incarnate God to weep, wail, and groan over the perdition of the ungodly, when the will of the Divine Majesty purposely abandons and reprobates some to perish. And it is not for us to ask why he does so, but to stand in awe of God who both can do and wills to do such things." Such mysteries we must leave up to God who does no injustice to anyone, and not callously deny what God has chosen to will, just because we think it is improper for him to will something which causes him long-suffering.

God is the cause of all things that happen since he is omnipotent, but as has been stated a number of times, he is no way at fault for the evil that happens, for this is entirely the fault of the will which wills the evil. Furthermore, God does not find pleasure in the death of anyone, as has been explained more than once.

The question: "Since God does not want any man to be damned, how could he prepare man for damnation?" is the million dollar question. The problem is that the authors come to human conclusions and consequently deny his predestination of all things in heaven and earth. Man, himself, cannot comprehend the justice of the answer in this life, but here is St. Paul's answer: "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles."

V

The Holy Scripture reveals that "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Astronomers estimate that the farthest heavenly body seen to date is fifteen billion miles from earth. No one has yet been able to measure the heavens, nor will anyone ever be able to. If God's ways are so high above our own, it is no wonder that what Scripture reveals about His will is simply incomprehensible. How God can elect, predestine, and appoint that some will be saved and some will be eternally damned is a mystery about God which stirred up Luther to write:

Admittedly, it gives the greatest possible offense to common sense or natural reason that God by his own sheer will should abandon, harden, and damn men as if he enjoyed the sins and the vast, eternal torments of his wretched creatures, when he is preached as a God of such great mercy and goodness, etc. It has been regarded as unjust, as cruel, as intolerable, to entertain such an idea about God, and this is what has offended so many great men during so many centuries.

If faith is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen," the doctrine of election could not exercise our faith more. Even though we cannot see or understand God's justice, we must nevertheless believe that God is just. Faith should not look for things which serve our own selfish purposes, but we should accept, love, and worship God no matter what he wills for we know that God's justice is perfect, and even though we cannot see or know it now, we will see it in eternity.

God is a God who hides himself as the Scripture says: "Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself," Nothing could be more hidden and more incomprehensible about God than his eternal election. Even if God should send all men to perdition, as Luther says, faith would judge, even though we could not understand it, that God is perfectly just in doing so. Whoever can say this can not possibly be destined to perdition, for such a person judges rightly that God owes no one anything.

When St. Paul says: "O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!" he is speaking of a truly incomprehensible, inscrutable eternal and absolute God -- not a God we should expect to conform to what human reason may judge to be proper for God. Unfortunately, the authors of the Eleventh Articles of the Epitome and the Solid Declaration did not have the fortitude and patience to persevere in understanding the election doctrine. As a result, many of their conclusions are the result of human ideas and not the Word of God.

This exposition of the Book of Concord and the election doctrine should suffice to prove God's absolute, certain, eternal predestination or election of all things that happen to any one who wishes to be honest with Scripture. And since Scripture is the "scepter of righteousness," we should above all be concerned to preserve God's Word precisely as it is -- for we should not suppose that God has included anything in this Word for which he need be embarrassed, or which we must feel embarrassed for Him and seek to censor. Instead, if we have patience God will give us understanding.

This explanation should be sufficient for anyone who wishes to be honest with Scripture. I ask anyone who reads this to acknowledge the truth of God's eternal election. I write this because of my own search for knowledge on the election doctrine and because of my respect for everything else that the Book of Concord represents -- and in order that the Book of Concord might include the whole truth.

Amen

1Bondage of the Will, Luther's Works, vol. 39, p. 165

James 2:10

2 Tim. 3:16

Acts 20:26-27

Revelation 22:18

Bondage, p. 56

Ibid., p.36

Formula of Concord, Epitome Article XI Paragraph 2

Bondage of the Will p.171

Epitome, Paragraph 4

Epitome, Paragraph 22

1 Peter 2:8

Jude 1:4

John 13:18

Literally: "having been fitted" RSV Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, 1958 Regency Reference Library, Romans 9:22

Romans 14:23

Job 42:7

Kierkegaard, Soren, The Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the Philosophical Fragments, Princeton University Press p. 410

Bondage of the Will p.61

Matt. 10:34-36

Luther, vol. pp. 47-48

Deuteronomy 29:29

RSV Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, p. 631

Ibid. p. 811, p. 912

Romans 9:22

Bondage of the Will p. 171

Romans 9:11

1 Tim 6:4

Romans 11:22

Ephesians 1:11

Luther, vol. 2 p. 49

Lamentations 3:33

Psalm 145:8-9

Epitome, Formula of Concord, Article 11, Paragraph 1

Ibid. p. 190

Acts 14:22

Matt. 26:41

Romans 12:2

Luke 16:16

1 Peter 1:6-7

1 Peter 1:22

Gal. 1:9

1 Cor. 3:1-3

Genesis 1:31

Ibid. p. 37

Ibid. p.38

It is certainly true that, as Calvin says: "mere foreknowledge lays no necessity on the creatures." (John Calvin, Christian Institutes, translated by John Allen, Philadelphia Presbyterian Board of Publication, Vol. 2, p. 29) The question of the immutability of God's foreknowledge is nevertheless important since it is the ultimate source of God's will and therefore directs God's will. Some have mistakenly concluded that this foreknowledge in and of itself lays necessity on events, but this foreknowledge is obviously only effective through the will of God. These people have left out a dialectical intermediary step. It is nevertheless still of importance to show there is an immutability in God's foreknowledge and that it does indeed direct his will, so that it is not entirely true that, as Calvin says: "it is useless to contend about foreknowledge." Ibid.

Luther, Bondage of the Will, p. 37

Ibid. p. 65

Romans 7:18-29

Philippians 3:8-9

Romans 7:14

Proverbs 19:21

Proverbs 16:9

Psalms 139:4

Exodus 36:1

Luther, Bondage of the Will, p.67

Psalms 139:6

Daniel 4:34-35

Lam. 3:37-38

Proverbs 16:9

Eph. 1:11

Genesis 41:32

2 Chronicles 18:18-22

2 Samuel 16:7-10

2 Kings 19:25

2 Chronicles 22:7

2 Chronicles 36: 22-23

Job 12:24

Jeremiah 10:23

Acts 4:27-28

Numbers 24:13

Psalms 139:16

Isaiah 46:10-11

Isaiah 48:3

Daniel 5:23

Isaiah 14:24-27

Job 12:5-10

Job 9:17

Job 12:16

Job 12:20

Jeremiah 12:2

Judges 9:22

Joshua 11:20

Deuteronomy 2:30

Judges 14:4

1 Samuel 16:14

2 Samuel 12:11

2 Kings 5:1

2 Kings 19:7

2 Chronicles 10:15

572 Chronicles 15:6

2 Chronicles 21:16

Revelation 17:17

1 Peter 2:8

Matthew 5:19

Deuteronomy 29:29

Bondage of the Will p. 171

Ephesians 1:11

6Ibid. 174

Ibid. Pp. 207-208

Proverbs 16:4

Psalms 33:15

Romans 10:11

Isaiah 63:17

Romans 9:10-13

Ibid. p. 199

Romans 9:22-23

Romans 9:14

Romans 9:14-24

Romans 5:10

Romans 10:20

Romans 3:10

Genesis 6:6

John 6:63

2 Tim. 2:25

Eph 1:11

Matt. 26:28

John 12:39

John 17:9

Bondage pp. 62-63

Bondage, p. 178

Ibid. p. 292

Ibid. p. 139

Ibid. p.25

2 Tim. 2:14

2 Tim. 3:16-17

Bondage, p. 44

Ibid. p. 59

Ibid. p. 22

Ibid. p. 45

Ibid. p. 56

1 John 5:10

Jeremiah 23:28

Jeremiah 48:10

Eph. 1:11

Genesis 32:24-29

Ibid. p. 22

Ibid. p.146

Or, in a certain sense wants, since: "Whatever the Lord pleases he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps." (Psalms 135:6) If it pleases him, he does it and if he does it, it pleases him since in an absolute sense, (i.e.- without any qualification), there is no difference between willing and wanting in God. It is undoubtedly from passages such as this that Scholastic Theology came to apply the "will of God's good pleasure," to his secret will.

The analogy of faith and Scripture

Col. 1:19

John 10:30

John 8:32

Calvin, Christian Institutes, Vol. 2, p. 196

Bondage, p. 139

1 Tim. 2:5

Mark 16:15

Col 1:28

Bondage, Pp. 138-139

Calvin, Christian Institutes, Vol. 2, p. 196

Ibid. p. 187

Bondage, p. 59

Mark 13:32

John 16:15

Luke 22:21

1 Cor. 11:27

Matt 26:39

Matt. 23:37

Romans 11:7

1 John 2:2

Bondage, p. 158

Lam. 3:33

Luther, Luther's Works, Vol. 1, p. 22

Eph. 1:11

Bondage, p. 140

1 Cor 1:18-21

Romans 3:19

Bondage, p. 61

Rom. 3:5-8

Rom. 9:14

Rom. 9:19

Romans 9:20

Romans 11:26

That St. Paul is referring to the descendents of Jacob and not the spiritual Israel is clear in the passage that follows: "as it is written, 'The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob' Romans 11:26

Romans 11:11-12

Psalms 145:9

1 Timothy 4:10

Romans 9:21

Psalms 45:6-7

Luke 16:16

John 8:32

Isaiah 55:10-11

Jeremiah 8:11

Acts 20:26-27

Isaiah 66:2

Bondage, p. 137

Matthew 5:28

Epitome, Paragraph 16

Proverbs 16:4

Romans 9:10-13

Romans 9:18

Peter 1 2:8

Ibid. Paragraphs 17-21

Psalms 135:6

Lamentations 3:33

Romans 9:17

Romans 9:11

John 13:17

Acts 4:27-28

Bondage, p. 185

Solid Declaration Paragraph 2

Ibid. Paragraphs 4-5

Ephesians 1:11

Solid Declaration Paragraph 7

Bondage, p. 176

Solid Declaration Paragraph 9

Acts 20:27

Solid Declaration Paragraph 10

2 Timothy 2:25-26

Galatians 3:1

John 10:27-29

John 17:9

1 Tim 5:20

Ibid. p. 61

Prov. 16:4

Rom. 9:22

Solid Declaration Paragraph 34

Dan. 4:35

Col. 1:28

Eph. 1:11

Solid Declaration Paragraph 60

Solid Declaration, Paragraphs 73-74

Solid Declaration, Paragraph 78

1 Peter 2:8

Prov. 16:4

1 Tim. 2:4

Lamentations 3:32-33

Although when speaking about wanting in God in an absolute sense, i.e. in terms of his omnipotent will there is no difference as shown previously.

Psalms 135:6

Solid Declaration Paragraphs 80-81

Romans 9:22

Rom. 9:19-20

Solid Declaration, Paragraphs 78-81

Acts 4:27-28

Bondage, p. 146

Romans 9:2-23

Isaiah 54:9

Ibid. p. 190

Hebrews 11:1

Isaiah 45:15

Romans 11:33

James 1:5

nability to reconcile this contradiction has caused them to reject it and ignore it.