ELECTION AND CONVERSION A frank discussion ol Dr. F. Pieper s Book on '<3onversion and Election,** with some sugges- tions (or Lutheran Unity on Another Basis. LEANDER S. KEYSER, D. D. BX 8065 .KA Keyser, Leander Sylvester, 1856- Election and conversion Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/electionconversiOOkeys 0:H of Fn/iJ^ Election and ConversioniL^ A Frank Discussion of Dr. Pieper's Book on "Conversion and Election," with Suggestions for Lutheran Concord and Union on Another Basis LEANDER S. KEYSER, D. D. Professor of Systematic Theology in Hanima Divinity School, Wittenberg College, Springfield, Ohio Author of "A System of Christian Ethics, ^^ *'A System of Christian Evidence,'' ' ' The Rational Test, ' ' etc. BURLINGTON. IOWA THE GERMAN LITERARY BOARD 1914 Copyright 1914 By R. NEUMANN BURLINGTON, IOWA CONTENTS Chapter Pis. Now we come to the crux of the theologians relative to our main theme — Rom. IX to XI inclusive. Here both the Calvinists and the Missouri Lutherans find their chief Biblical support for their peculiar views. With both alike the doctrine of election as drawn from this passage is regulative in their theology, everything else being made to conform; everything being dealt with from this view-point ; whereas the rest of us Lutherans, as did Paul and Luther, make justification by faith the fundamental and regulating principle. Did we say Paul? Yes, for in this very epistle he first treats of justifying faith, then of election.* In the examination of this crucial passage we must move slowly and carefully, and must not allow preconceived notions to exercise an undue influence upon us. First of all, we must find out what was Paul's main purpose in the doctrinal portion of this epistle, compris- ing, after the introduction, the first eleven chapters. This purpose is to prove to both his Jewish and Gentile readers that justification comes by faith alone, or rather. *In this respect Dr. Jacobs, in the work so often cited, follows the Pauline and Lutheran order. First he treats the whole order of redemption through Jesus Christ, then, at the close of his work, deals with the doctrine of the divine decrees. 116 Election and Conversion by grace through faith in Jesus Christ ; this doctrine and fact he maintains over against the error that justi- fication comes by the deeds of the law and works of human merit. There was need for this presentation, for, on the one hand, there were Jews who insisted on the law ; on the other, Gentiles who believed in the merit of good character and conduct. His polemic is presented in good homiletical order. After stating his main theme (1:16, 17), where he declares that the righteousness of God is bestowed through faith, he deals first with the heathen world, and shows that it is altogether steeped in sin, and therefore cannot save itself (1:18-32); secondly, he shows that both Jews and Gentiles, on account of their sins, are under the same condemnation and disability (2:1-29); thirdly, he turns to the Jews, and, by a most clean-cut argument, shows them that, while they have been highly favored of God as His chosen people and in being entrusted with the "oracles of God," yet they cannot be saved by the deeds of the law, simply because they are too much in the bondage of sin to keep it (chapters 3 and 4) ; then comes his matchless argument (chapters 5 to 8 inclusive) for justification by faith alone as opposed to all work- righteousness, whether of Jew or Gentile, ending with the wonderful apostrophe to saving and preserving love in the concluding verses of the eighth chapter. This brings us to chapters 9 to 11, where God's sovereignty is so strongly emphasized. But it is God's sovereignty exercised in accordance with His prede- termined order of salvation, as set forth in the previous chapters, namely, salvation by grace through faith. If not, Paul would be a very inconsistent writer and Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 117 theologian; yet he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. What does he mean to show in these chapters? The relation between the Jews and the Gentiles; that both are saved by grace through faith, notwithstanding God's varied providential dealings with them; that God's sovereign will and grace to save them in this way can- not be frustrated by anything that man can do, and that for carrying out this sovereign purpose He raises up both men and nations by a special dispensation and exercise of His power and grace. That this is the gist and point of his whole polemic is clearly set forth in 11:19-23, where it is said that the Jews (or those of them who rejected Christ) were broken ofif "by their unbelief," while the saved Gentiles stand "by their faith" (11:20). In the next verses he teaches that, if the Gentiles continue not in God's goodness, they also will "be cut off;" but if the Jews "continue not in their unbelief," they shall again "be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again." Cannot any one see that Paul is logically and consistently carrying out his cardinal principle of justification by faith alone, and showing that all God's predeterminations in eternity and His providential and gracious dealings in time are bent on making this principle effective? Now, what is the exact idea of election so power- fully presented in these chapters? It is that God pre- destines and elects and raises up certain nations and representative individuals to carry out His sovereign plans, His purpose to save by grace through faith, be- cause that is the only right way to save the race. We maintain, therefore, that in these chapters no reference is made to the unconditional election of individuals unto 118 Election and Conversion eternal salvation or unto eternal reprobation. For that Paul always makes conditional on faith. That God does raise up certain representative individuals to be the in- struments of His sovereign purposes, who can doubt? There were Abraham, Moses, David, Paul, Luther. And why He elected these men and not others for their great work, who knows? That He also elected and chose Israel to be the special bearers of salvation to the world, the race from whom Christ should come according to the flesh, admits of no questioning. Just why He chose Israel and not some other nation we are willing to leave to Him. It certainly was not on account of Israel's superior "good conduct." Here the divine Potter had perfect power over the clay. But our faith is simple enough, since God has saved us by grace through faith, to believe that He elected those individuals and the Jewish nation for a wise and gracious purpose, and not in an absolute and arbitrary way. God has His in- scrutable methods and purposes, for His ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts higher than our thoughts. It is just as easy, and a good deal more reasonable, to believe, for example, that He, by His divine foresight, knew that Abraham would be the instrument best fitted for His purpose, and therefore He chose him, as it is to believe that He did just as He pleased without a good and sufficient reason, and just because He had the power ; for the Scripture teaches that "by faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed to go out unto a place," etc. (Heb 11:8). The same principle will hold in respect to God's other agents who were raised up for a special mission. Now, with Paul's great principle in mind — salvation Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 119 by grace through faith — let us seek the meaning of the most difficult sections. In 9:6-9 Paul teaches that not all the seed of Abraham was elected to be the bearers of God's saving plan; not Ishmael, a child of the flesh, but Isaac, the child of promise, whom Abraham and Sarah looked for by faith. Beautiful! Everything is determined and wrought out along God's plan of salva- tion through faith. Then there is the case of Jacob and Esau, 9:10-13, which we will give in the beautiful version of the Twentieth Century New Testament (in this place a true translation, not a gloss) : 'There is also the case of Rebecca, when she was about to bear children to our ancestor Isaac. For in order that the purpose of God, working through selection, might not fail — a selection depending not on obedience, but on His Call — Rebecca was told, before her children were born, and before they had done anything either right or wrong, that 'the elder would be a servant to the younger.' The words of Scripture are, T loved Jacob, but I hated Esau.' " You will observe that this version does not tone down the election part at all, for "selection" must mean the same thing. Does this prove that God unconditionally elected Jacob unto salvation and passed Esau by? Not at all. It has reference solely to what Paul set out to show, namely, that God was electing the one who would be the fitter to be the ancestor of the people of God and of the Christ who was to be given through them. Why do we say this? Because if it refers to individual salva- tion, then Esau must have been lost, and that simply because he was not elected, and we have no evidence that he was lost. Moreover, it would imply that all of Esau's descendants must have been lost, for of course 120 Election and Conversion these two men, as we have shown, were treated as the representatives of their respective posterities. That God's eternal foresight and selection were correct is verified by the sequel, for Jacob proved to be by far the fitter instrument for God's redeeming plan. With all his faults, he was spiritual, he had visions of God, and grew more spiritual toward the end of his life ; while Esau was always crass, worldly and sensuous. Just try to imagine God's having chosen Esau instead of Jacob for the divine purpose, and you will intuitively see how intolerable is the thought. Therefore, even in choosing His special agents to carry out His larger. His world- wide purpose. He does not elect them in an absolute and arbitrary way. With reference to God's loving Jacob and hating Esau, we will defer to Dr. Jacobs (Lutheran Commen- tary, in loco, p. 190) : "The word hatred here does not mean to dislike or abhor. It simply expresses the preference shown to one who is loved when his claims or interests come in conflict with the other . . . 'When a Hebrew compares a less with a greater love, he is wont to call the former hatred' (Tholuck)." References to Gen. 29:30, 31; Deut. 21:15. "That the purpose of God according to election" (Amer. Rev.) — the precise order here cannot be de- termined from the Greek. It is, iva e kaf eklogen prothesis, but the preposition kata may be translated "according to" or "by means of" (see any Greek lexicon). Dr. Jacobs prefers the former, and thus puts "election first, the purpose afterward," while the Twentieth Cen- tury version makes it "through." We think the latter the more simple and consistent, for surely the order Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 121 in every mental process would be, the purpose first, then the election of the means for carrying out the purpose. The next passage is verses 14-16: "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy." Let us remember what Paul was proving — that God had not elected the Jews on account of any work or legal righteousness ; for they could claim no such merits ; therefore in their self-righteousness they had no right to pronounce judgment upon God's methods and ways. So He told them that His mercy was in His own hands to be shown as He pleased. But on whom does He always clearly show in the New Testament that He wills to have mercy? Right here it is, in another writing of Paul (1 Tim. 1 :16) : "Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy that in me as chief might Jesus Christ show forth all His long-suffering, for an ensample of them that should thereafter believe on Him unto eternal life." Hundreds of passages to the same effect might be cited. Thus we interpret Scripture by Scripture, not by some subjective theological dogma. "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." Just as we have shown all along — God is the enabling source of all good, of the willing and the running. But remember He will not do our willing and running for us, after He has conferred the ability upon us through His mercy and grace. Vs. 17, 18: "In Scripture again it is said to Pharaoh : Tt was for this very purpose that I raised 122 Election and Conversion thee to the throne, to show my power by my dealings with thee, and to make my name known throughout the world.' So, then, where God wills He takes pity, and where He wills He hardens the heart." All is clear if our minds are not too much possessed by the idea of a mysterious unconditional election. It does not say that God created Pharaoh for the purpose of hardening and finally condemning him, but He "raised him up" — that is, gave him an exalted position in the world — in order that He might show His power and grace through him. Suppose God foresaw that Pharaoh would harden his own heart against God (the Old Testament says five times that he did this before it says God hardened his heart, Ex. 7-9), then how just it would be to lift him up and make him the conspicuous instrument through whom God would exhibit His power ! n God had not done this, we never would have had the wonderful history of God's deliverance of Israel from their bondage in Egypt. Why God raised up Pharaoh for this special purpose, and not some other great ruler, we leave to God Himself. We may some time see that He raised up every great man for some special purpose. We should remember, too, that, such is God's economy of nature and grace, that what is intended to soften the heart actually hardens it, if God's overtures are rejected. The sun melts the wax, but hardens the clay. This, is God's law, and so there is a sense in which God Himself may be said to harden men's hearts. Let us bear in mind, too, that in this place Paul is not deal- Aig with the question of individual election to salvation, but with such conspicuous personages as He chooses to effect great steps and epochs in His scheme of redemp- Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 123 tive grace. When we look at Pharaoh in this way, we can readily see that He was as clay in the hands of God's sovereign power, and, all unwittingly, aided in carrying out His purpose, just as Satan and Judas did when they brought about the crucifixion of Christ. No one can get ahead of God, or balk His great purposes, no matter how much he may abuse his free moral agency. This is the great comfort of elective grace. How often in times of trial we throw ourselves back on God's sovereignty ! Vs. 19-24: "Perhaps you will say to me: 'How can any one still be blamed? For who withstands His purpose?' I might rather ask, 'Who are you that are arguing with God?' Does a thing which a man has moulded say to him who moulded it, 'Why did you make me like this?' Has not the potter absolute power over his clay, so that out of the same lump he makes one thing for better, and another for common, use? And what if God, intending to reveal His displeasure and make His power known, bore most patiently with the objects of His displeasure, though they were fit only to be destroyed, so as to make known His surpassing glory in dealing with the objects of His mercy, whom He prepared beforehand for glory, and whom He called — even us — not only from among the Jews, but from among the Gentiles also !" It does not say that the potter created the clay, but simply moulded it ; so it does not say that God created the "objects of His displeasure," especially not for eternal retribution ; it does say that He "bore most patiently with" them, "though they were fit only to be destroyed." Here it is all plain. God bore patiently 124 Election and Conversion with men like Pharaoh and others for awhile, even much longer than they deserved, until He saw that they were reprobate ; then He used them to carry out His redemp- tive purpose in saving Israel, and to show His glory and power, and thus make them the bearers of salvation in Christ. Thus God makes the wrath of man to praise Him (Ps. 76:10). Even Dr. Pieper justifies God's dealing with Pharaoh, saying the wicked ruler got what he deserved. We have now dealt with the difficult passages in these chapters ; and yet we wonder whether it was necessary to expend so much labor on them, when Paul himself afterward makes everything plain (9 :30-32) : "What shall we say then?" Note his own answer: "That the Gentiles who followed not after righteousness, attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith; but Israel, following after a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Wherefore? because they sought it not by faith, but as it were, by works. They stumbled at the stone of stumbling, even as it is written : Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of ofifence; and he that believeth on Him shall not be put to shame." There it all is, just as clear as crystal — just why God elects some and does not elect others. If we walk in this rich garden of truth in the light of justifying faith, which God has revealed to us in His Word, we shall not walk in darkness. If there is anything which God has not revealed, we must search for it, if we search at all, in the light revealed, not the reverse. If it were necessary, we should take pleasure in going through chapters ten and eleven, to show how Paul again Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 125 and again maintains that Israel was rejected for a time on account of their lack of faith, while many of the Gentiles were grafted in because they did not depend on their good works, but solely on faith ; but we simply invite the reader to examine these luminous passages for himself. At this point we desire to quote some cogent and fluent sentences from one of the best theologians of our country who is not a Lutheran — one who has most stoutly defended the evangelical faith against the "new" theology and the rationalism of the times — Dr. Henry C. Sheldon, professor of theology in Boston University. Our selections are taken from his work, entitled "A System of Christian Doctrine." He says: "It is not to be denied that the idea of election or predestination is awarded considerable prominence in the Scriptures. It could not have been otherwise, if their pages were to reflect the vast sweep of the divine agency necessarily operative in founding and consum- mating the kingdom of righteousness. As the working out of this supreme enterprise is immeasurably above creaturely abilities, it would be a glaring incongruity not to represent the far-reaching foresight and powerful direction of God as fundamental to it all. In any reasonable view His sovereignty, considered not indeed as arbitrariness, but as wise authority, must be regarded as determining very much according to its own behests. The existence of the economy of grace is altogether by the choice of God, not of men. The stages of that economy from the first overtures to sinners to their in- vestment with the glory of a supernatural destiny, are properly characterized as His choice. In the adjustment of nations and individuals to the economy His agency 126 Election and Conversion is of vast consequence. Free will in man does not annul the necessity of providential ordering in this matter. To get His gracious purpose effectively before the con- templation of man, God must have bearers and inter- preters of the same. The fittest interpreters for a given time and place need to be selected, and fitness for this vocation is not independent of foregoing discipline. Israel could never have fulfilled its mission in bringing the divine testimony to the nations without special discipline. Apart from the light shed by suitable ante- cedents, the world would not have known what to make of the gospel message as it fell from the lips of Christ and the apostles. "Thus the divine procedure has of necessity the appearance of selection or predestination, and is such very largely in fact. The conjunction of the prepared subject with the message of grace, whatever else may contribute thereto, falls pre-eminently under the cate- gory of divine ordering. "But how is the divine superintendence managed? Is it so managed as to secure the fittest instruments for the greatest advance of the kingdom of grace and salva- tion that is practicable in a world of free agents? or is it the sole care to bring into the divine household a certain number, unconditionally chosen, to the everlast- ing neglect or exclusion of all others? The fault of the Augustinian or Calvinistic predestinarian is that he fastens upon this ultra sense of predestination, and reads it into the Scriptures. Not content with the majestic office which is open to divine sovereignty in ordering the progress of the dispensation toward the grandest attainable result, he will have it that the absolute choice of God fixes the eternal destiny of all souls." Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 127 Let us investigate another crucial passage, Eph. 1 :3-7; but do not stop there; read on through to 12-14, 19; 2:7-9; 3:11, 12. As the sentences in the other versions are very long and complicated, we will use the Twentieth Century New Testament (a few glosses we will correct) : "Blessed be the God and Father of Jesus Christ, our Lord, who has blessed us on high with every spiritual blessing in Christ: for He chose us in Him before (pro) the foundation of the world (kosmos), that we might be holy and blameless in His sight, living in the spirit of love. He foreordained us, in His good will toward us, to be adopted as sons through Jesus Christ, and so to enhance that glorious manifestation of His loving-kindness which He gave us in the Beloved ; for in Him and through the shedding of His blood, we have redemption in the pardon of our offences . . . (Vs. 11-13) : In Him, I say, for by our union with Him we became God's heritage, having been foreordained for this in the intention of Him who, in all that happens, is carrying out His own fixed purpose; that we should enhance His glory — we who have been the first to rest our hopes in Christ (Amer. Rev.: 'we who had before hoped in Christ'). And you, too, having heard the Word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and having also believed, were sealed as His by the Holy Spirit which He had promised." The italicised words in verses 12 and 13 will show that God's foreordination and choosing were all made in view of sinners hoping and believing in Jesus Christ. Note also verse 19. Eph. 3:9-12. One dogmatician, in order to prove his election doctrine, quoted only this much of verse 11 : 128 Election and Conversion ''According to the eternal purpose." But you cannot establish a doctrine by such fragmentary citations from the Bible. Using the Bible in that way simply puts a club into the hands of the rationalists and negative critics. In the previous verses Paul declares that the "hidden mystery has now been made known through the gospel ;" then he adds : "according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord, In whom we have boldness and access in confidence through our faith in Him." The "eternal purpose" simply comes back to faith once more. Paul sticks right to his theme. Another text is 2 Tim. 1 :9 : "Who saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which were given us before times eternal" (old ver. : "before the world began"). There is no difficulty here, for the antith- esis is not between God's purpose and faith, but between His purpose and works. Here He says God's "purpose and grace." All we need to do is to remember that Paul says, "It is by faith that it might be by grace," and then we shall know what are God's eternal purpose and grace — simply to save all who will accept salvation by faith. The election advocates ought always to read the whole passage, and not to treat the Bible piece-meal ; for here, if they would have read on to the 12th verse, they would have found this sublime statement : "For I know Him whom I have believed, and am pursuaded that He is able to guard that which I have committed unto Him against that day." Consider 1 Pet. 1 :1, 2: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect, who are sojourners . . . according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 129 of the Spirit, imto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." The apostle even says here the "elect according to the foreknowledge of God," which shows that God's election is determined by His foreknowledge. Then He could have foreknown those who would humble themselves and accept His grace by simple faith and self-surrender. The fact is, Peter does not give much support to the doctrine of unconditional election, for he says (2 Pet. 1 :10) : "Wherefore, brethren, give the more diligence to make your calling and election sure; for if ye do these things, ye shall never stumble." Acts 13:48: "And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the Word of God ; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." This passage is quoted with much confidence by Missourians and Calvinists alike ; and we confess that, when we first read it, we could not help feeling that here, at last, was one passage that clearly teaches the divine election to be the cause and antecedent of faith. And we decided that, if this were true, we would lay down our pen, and let Dr. Pieper's book go unanswered. But it is never safe to jump at conclusions. So we de- cided to look up the Greek for the word "ordained." Not a little was our surprise to find that it is not the word used in Rom. 8:29, 30. There the word employed is pro-oricein, which really means to predetermine or to mark out beforehand ; but here the word is tetagmenoi, the perfect passive participle of tassein, which has various meanings; but our classical dictionary (Liddell and Scott) does not give "ordain" or "foreordain" among them. The fact is, there is no prefix here as there is in pro-orizein. Among the many meanings given 130 Election and Conversion to the word tassein are "to arrange or put in order," "to post, station," "to order, command, give instructions," "to tix, settle;" not once "to ordain" or "foreordain." Our New Testament dictionary gives only the following meanings to the participle used in this verse: "arranged, compact, firm, steady." Now let us give a literal trans- lation of this part of the verse, putting the words in the precise order of the original: "And they believed, as many as were {esan, imperfect) arranged, settled, or made steady unto life eternal." Faith comes first, and then the qualifying clause, and the meaning might easily be that God had made them steady unto eternal life through their faith. There may not be the least reference here to an eternal decree, for there is nothing that so steadies the soul unto eternal life as faith in Jesus Christ. "And this is the victory that hath overcome the world, even our faith." Again, in verse 46 we see why Paul and Barnabas turned to the Gentiles at Antioch of Pisidia ; for they said to the unbelieving Jews : "It was necessary that the Word of God should first be spoken to you. Seeing ye thrust it from you, and judge your- selves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." Now we do not insist on our interpretation of this crucial verse, but we have at least shown that the meaning is at present too uncertain for theologians to found a dogma upon, especially one that rends our Lutheran Church asunder. Next we advert to 2 Tim. 2:18-21. We note that a Missouri dogmatician, in trying to establish his favorite doctrine, quotes only a part of verse 19. ' If we are going to learn just what the Bible teaches, we must cease this "atomistic" use of proof-texts. Only then can we be Missouri s Favorite Scripture Passages 131 workmen who "need not be ashamed, handling aright the Word of God." We believe in using proof-texts to establish doctrines. Only rationalists, negative critics and "new" theology men scoff at their use. But theo- logians must use them correctly, not torture them, nor disjoin them from their contexts. Paul was here speaking of two errorists of his time, Hymenaeus and Philetus : "men who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is passed already, and overthrow the faith of some. Howbeit the tirm foundation of God standeth, having this seal, 'The Lord knoweth them that are His,' and, 'Let every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.' " See how the two parts of the seal complement each other, the latter showing that those whom the Lord knows to be His are those who depart from iniquity ; and who are they? All those who surrender to God and let Him save them by faith, as is taught all through the gospel. The dogmatician above referred to should have read on through the next two verses, 20, 21 : "Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some unto honor and some unto dishonor. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, meet for the Master's use, prepared unto every good work." And how shall he purge himself? By washing in the "fountain opened in the house of David for all sin and uncleanness." "Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean ; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow" (Ps. 51:7). Another sample of fragmentary Biblical quotation occurs when predestinarians cite Mark 13:20 and 22, and 132 Election and Conversion even omit verse 21, to say nothing of failing to refer to the entire context. We will refrain from that method of using God's Word ; we will cite enough of the context to show the exact setting and relation, beginning with verse 14: "But when ye see the abomination of des- olation standing where he ought not (let him that readeth understand), then let them that are in Judea flee unto the mountains ; and let him that is on the house-top not go down nor enter in to take anything out of his house . . . And pray ye that it be not in the winter." Re- markable that even God's eternal purpose takes into ac- count man's free moral agency in both action and prayer ! Oh, the wonderful omniscience of God ! Then verse 19 describes the great tribulations of those days, followed by verses 20-23 : "And except the Lord had shortened the days, no flesh would have been saved ; but for the elect's sake, whom He chose. He shortened the days. And if any man shall say unto you, 'Lo, here is Christ,' or, 'Lo, there,' believe him not; for there shall arise false Christ and false prophets, and shall show signs and wonders, that they may lead astray, if possible, the elect. But take ye heed: behold, I have told you all things be- forehand." Then in verses 33-37 : "Take ye heed ; watch and pray, for ye know not when the time is . . . lest coming suddenly. He find you asleep. And what I say unto you, I say unto all. Watch !" Does not this make perfectly clear who the "elect" are? Those who watch and pray, who will not believe the false Christs and prophets ; then God will keep them amid all their tribulations, and will even shorten the days so that their faith may not be overborne. A most beauti- ful commentary this on 1 Cor. 10:13: "But God is Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 133 faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation make also the way of escape, that ye may be able to endure it." The Bible is a wonderful harmony, not a jumble of con- tradictions. With God there is no decretum absolutum, but He ordains and orders everything to fit into the con- stitution and need of the moral agents whom He has created and whom, when they fall into sin. He graciously determines to save. The great passage, John 6:43-51, has also been treated in the same f ragmental way, only this part being quoted : "No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him ;" but the whole passage following should be read, which runs : "And I will laise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets, 'And they shall all be taught of God.' Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save He that is from God ; He hath seen the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth hath eternal life ... if any man shall eat of this bread, he shall live forever: yea, and the bread which I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world." It is plain here how the Father draws people to Christ, namely, by sending His Spirit with His Call : see "taught," "heard," "hath learned," in the above passage, leading to "believeth" and "shall eat." Remember, too, the Father "draws;" He does not "push," "pull," or "force;" just as Jesus once said: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will drazv all men unto myself." Thanks be to Christ for the magnetic power of His person and His atoning grace ! John 10:25-30, which we will not treat piece-meal. 134 Election and Conversion as is too often done : "And Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not; the works that I do in my Father's name, these bear witness of me. But ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep." Who are His sheep? Verse 9 of this same chapter: "I am the door; by me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and shall find pasture." Continuing, verse 27: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me : and I give unto them eternal life ; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all ; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one." Thanks be to God for His gracious and eternal election ! For thereby He makes absolutely secure those who put their trust in Him : "I know Him whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day" (2 Tim. 1 :14) ; "Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us" (Rom. 8:37). We need not dwell upon Matt. 13:13-15 and Mark 4:10-12, for every one knows that, when people obsti- nately reject the overtures of God's mercy and grace. He will harden their hearts, dull their ears and blind their eyes, through the inevitable law of moral and spiritual degeneration, just as He hardened Pharaoh's heart after the wicked king had first five times hardened his own heart. We think now we have dealt with all the important passages relied on by the predestinarians. We think we have fought shy of none of them; if we have, it was an oversight ; and we have tried to be fair, first to God's Word, then to all parties concerned. Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 135 It will be seen that we have not referred a great deal to either the Formula of Concord or the dogma- ticians. We could not do so except in a thorough-going way, and that would carry us far beyond the proposed limits of this work. Besides, they are quoted on both sides by Lutheran theologians of great ability, who ac- cept the entire Book of Concord confessionally. The matter of what the Confessions teach may well be left to such eminent theologians as Dr. Pieper, on the one side, and such stalwart and capable Lutherans as Drs. Stellhorn and Jacobs, on the other. The General Synod, of which the writer is a member, esteems very highly the Secondary Symbols, and has officially declared them to be "expositions of Lutheran doctrine of great his- torical and interpretative value" (see Minutes of 1909, pages 57, 60, and of 1913, page 126) ; yet she does not receive them in the confessional sense, as she does the Unaltered Augsburg Confession. Therefore we are all the more willing to leave it to those who accept them confessionally to settle their meaning. Our main purpose in this thesis has been to discover and determine the teaching of God's inspired Word relative to the questions at issue. Personally, we appreciate the Formula of Concord more than we can ever tell. We acknowledge our great indebtedness to it in helping us to a better understanding of more than one Biblical doctrine and more than one doctrine of our Lutheran system of faith. Having studied it not a little, we would modestly suggest a thorough reading of its illuminating chapters on "The Righteousness of Faith Before God," for there will be found the co-ordinating doctrine of Lutheran theology. 136 Election and Conversion Some Additional Thoughts We add here a few nuggets of thought that have come to our mind while this work has been passing through the press, and which therefore could not be inserted in their proper places : All God's predeterminations must be governed by His foreknowledge, because if He should determine any- thing without perfect prescience of all possible exigen- cies. He might make a mistake, and so might meet with something for which He had not provided and which would balk His will ; but since His foreknowledge is per- fect. He is able to make provision for every possible con- tingency. This being so, He must have known by His inevitable foresight who would believe in Christ to the end, and could therefore elect them for eternal salvation, and so dispose every condition and circumstance that nothing but their own free will would prevent their sal- vation. This, we believe, is Paul's idea of the assurance and comfort of election. The Missouri teaching confuses God's general and special decrees. By His general decree He provides sal- vation in Christ for all mankind, and freely offers it to all, while by His special decree He decides actually to bestow salvation upon those only who will freely accept the benefits offered. The two decrees blend in an ethical harmony. A wealthy man might set aside a fund for the poor of his community ; but he might very properly stipulate that he would give help only to those who would accept it. Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 137 A proper distinction should be made in the will of God. In some cases in Scripture it means His desire; in others His executed purpose. For example, when the Bible teaches that He wills that all men shall be saved (2 Pet. 3:9), it clearly means that His earnest desire is that all shall be saved. However, when it teaches that He wills to save those who will accept the proffered salvation, then His desire becomes an absolute purpose which He will surely execute. We are wont to use the word "will" in the same twofold way, some- times to express only our desire, at other times to ex- press our determined purpose. Here is where the true Lutheran view of individual election has its comfort and value — we know that God's purpose or will to save those who believe on Christ and persevere in their faith cannot be frustrated, no matter who or what assails them, for God has absolutely willed to keep them safe so long as they abide in Him. God's will of purpose can never be balked ; His will of desire may be frus- trated by the wrong choice of His moral agents, because He Himself has constituted them with such a power. Anent Missouri's error that faith is a matter of merit, note this : She holds, with all other Lutherans, that men are justified solely through faith. Now if faith is a matter of merit, men must be justified on account of some merit of their own ; which is the direct opposite of Paul's teaching and of all Lutheran theology. When our Missouri brethren quote Rom. 9:18: "So then He hath mercy on whom He will, and whom He will He hardeneth," to prove that God elects by an 138 Election and Conversion inscrutable decree, we reply that the Bible teaches clearly on whom He wills to have mercy, namely, those who believe on Christ (John 3:16; Mark 16:16); also just as clearly whom He wills to harden, namely, such wicked men Hke Pharaoh, of whom the Bible says five times he hardened his own heart before it says God hardened it. Let it always be understood that true Lutheran theo- logians never teach that God elected any one on account of faith, that is, because of any merit in faith, but solely on account of the merits of Christ appropriated by faith. Faith is not a cause of election ; it is a condition of election. While, as has been said, we refrain from using the word "conduct" in connection with the decree of elec- tion, we must confess that Luther himself was not so chary. After saying that the offer of the gospel is for all, he adds : "But what is the actual result ? We are told afterward in the gospel, 'Few are chosen ;' few so conduct themselves toward the gospel that God is well pleased with them ; for some hear it and do not esteem it; some hear it, and do not hold fast to it, refusing to do or suffer anything for the sake of it. Some hear it, but pay more attention to money and goods and sensuous pleasures. But that does not please God, and He does not take pleasure in such people. That is what Christ calls not to be 'chosen,' namely, not to conduct oneself so that God could take pleasure in him." Now note whom Luther designates as the elect : "But these are the elect, in whom God takes pleasure, who diligently hear the gospel, believe in Christ, prove their faith by Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 139 their fruits, and suffer on account of it what Providence has ordained." No trouble about an inscrutable decree here. We fear Missouri cannot claim Luther. The Missouri Lutherans may ask : "Why cannot men be satisfied merely with a mysterious divine decree unto individual salvation ? Why will they question further?" The reply is evident: Eternal salvation and eternal retribution are matters of the greatest and most vital personal concern to each individual. Men may readily leave some things to God's unrevealed will, but not those matters that pertain to their everlasting weal or woe. What God determined in eternity should be the constitution of matter, whether it should be made up of atoms or electrons or vortices, or of one or sixty primary elements — that makes very little difference to any of us ; it is merely a matter of scientific curiosity ; but, ah ! when a decree involves a person's eternal blessedness or suffering, then the heart desires a ''sure word of prophecy," a clearly revealed purpose and plan. Thanks be to God He has not left us to grope our way in darkness here : "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ;" "The wages of sin are death, but the gift of God is eternal life." According to the Formula of Concord (which the Missouri Synod accepts confessionally), election is not to be relegated to the realm of mystery, for it says : "This (election) is not to be investigated in the secret counsel of God, but is to be sought in the Word of God, where it is also revealed" (Jacobs' edition, p. 525). Also: "But the true judgment concerning predestina- 140 Election and Conversion tion must be learned alone from the holy gospel concern- ing Christ, in which it is clearly testified that 'God hath concluded them all in unbelief that He might have mercy upon all,' and that *He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance' " (p. 526). Again : "In Him therefore we should seek the eternal election of the Father, who, in His eternal divine counsel, determined that He would save no one except those who acknowledge His Son, Christ, and truly believe on Him" (p. 527). All of which is so plain we wonder any one could have ever misunderstood it. It has been objected that we have no right to read anything into the passage (Rom. 8:29) : "For whom He foreknew, He also foreordained to be conformed to the image of His Son," etc. We are forbidden, so say electionists, to read it thus : "For whom He foreknew would have perserving faith in Christ." Reply : You must supply something. If you do not read it as above indicated, you must read it thus : "For whom He fore- knew that He would foreordain, them He foreordained to be conformed," etc., which would be tantamount to saying: "Whom He foreordained them He foreor- dained ;" and that would make Paul a vapid writer. It would be like saying, "What I know I know," or, "What I see I see." If Paul meant by "foreknew" "foreor- dained," why did he not use the right word? "Without faith it is impossible to please God." Then when God in eternity reviewed the multitude of sinners still without faith, how could any of them "please" Him so well that He elected them to eternal Missouri's Favorite Scripture Passages 141 residence with Him, without foreseeing that they would exercise faith ? With their strange, mechanical and unpsychological ideas of free will, the Concordia dogmaticians cannot understand how one man can, by his own option, choose to let God save him, while another, also by his own option, rejects God's mercy. Hence they posit a mystery in God's eternal decree to explain the difference. With their mechanical and unethical views of faith, from which they excise every element of freedom, they do not see how one man can (though enabled by prevenient grace) freely and savingly believe on Christ, while an- other man, even though similarly called, refuses to be- lieve. Hence again they go back to God's eternal counsel for the solution. Yet they declare that he is not "a good theologian" who seeks an explanation! And the strange thing is, they try to account for a psychological mystery by creating a theological one. Now the Bible simply takes the practical, common-sense view of man's psychi- cal constitution, treats him as a moral and responsible agent, and offers him the great boon of salvation on the simple terms of repentance and faith. The ability to repent and believe He confers as soon as man, after his awakening, is wilHng to let God save him from his dire estate. Just so we who accept the plain and simple gospel preach to sinners to ''come and take of the water of life freely," without troubling ourselves about the psychological mysteries involved; just as we see without bothering much about the mysteries of optics, and breathe without understanding all the mysteries of respiration, and eat without trying to figure out all the unsolved prob- lems of digestion and assimilation. X DOES THE BIBLE TEACH SEPARATISM^ OUR purely doctrinal discussion is now finished. But we have still more in view in the publication of this book. We want to see whether we cannot help along the cause of Lutheran fellowship, comity and co- operation. The Synodical Conference is separatistic. It will not fellowship with any other body of Lutherans, and that mainly because of its particularistic dogmas of election and conversion, which other Lutheran bodies cannot accept. The Missourians even refused to have public prayer with the brethren of Ohio and Iowa at the Free Conference at Detroit. To engage in public prayer with their brethren they thought would, in some way, compromise their principles. In our closing chapter we shall try to show that Lutherans can, if they will, have spiritual fellowship and engage in united practical work for Christ and His kingdom, without in- sisting on absolute agreement on all doctrines, especially those that belong to the department of difficult and re- fined dogmatic distinctions. However, before we come to our final chapter, we must try to remove a difficulty. In order to uphold their ecclesiastical exclusiveness, our Missouri brethren cite a number of Scripture pass- ages. They are given in Dr. J. L. Neve's account of the Free Conference of Missouri, Ohio and Iowa at Detroit in 1904, where the Missourians declined to en- gage in public prayer with their brethren. Dr. Neve has Does the Bible Teach Separatism? 143 taken them from a writing of Rev. J. Grosse, a repre- sentative of the Missouri Synod. We shall examine them, to see whether they are relevant. First, Matt. 7:15: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." However, the passage is not apropos, because the Ohio and Iowa brethren and the rest of us Lutherans are not "wolves in sheep's clothing," nor are we "in- wardly ravening wolves." That applies only to the "cor- rupt trees," "to be hewn down and cast into the fire," and to those "that work iniquity," referred to in the succeeding verses. The passage is not relevant. The next passage: Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned : and turn away from them." Here is another specimen of the disconnected use of Scripture which has caused so much separatism and strife in the Christian Church. If the Missouri brethren had read the next verse, they would have seen the kind of characters to whom Paul referred : "For they that are such serve not our Lord Christ, but their own belly ; and by their smooth and fair speech they beguile the hearts of the innocent." Such grossness, selfishness and guile cannot be applied to the Lutherans whom our Missouri friends exclude from pulpit and altar fellow- ship. If the Missouri brethren had read the previous verses, they would have found Paul saying: "All the churches of Christ salute you." It does not seem from this loving salutation that Paul wanted to build up a wall of separation among the churches of his day. 144 Election and Conversion But Rom. 16:17 (see above) might just as well be used by other Lutherans against the Missouri brethren : "Mark them that are causing divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned ; and turn away from them."' Well might other Lutherans say, if they wished to do so, that it is Missouri that is "causing divisions and occasions of stumbling;" they are the ones who are separating themselves from others by their peculiar doctrines. They might also say that it is Missouri that is teaching doctrines "contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned;" for, if we under- stand history, the Missouri Synod did not always teach this strange doctrine of predestination, but it was intro- duced later by Dr. Walter and his coadjutors. This is what made the trouble ; this was why some excellent men now in the Ohio Synod could not remain with it; this is why men like Allwardt, Ernst, Doermann, Holtermann, and others were driven from the Missouri Synod and formed the Northwestern District, which united with the Joint Synod. So, you see, everything depends on who the persons are to whom the words of Paul can properly be applied. To our way of thinking, they cannot be applied to either party by the other. When Christian men, who believe the Bible, accept Christ by faith, and try to follow Him in sincerity and truth, get into a dispute, they ought not to fling Scripture passages that would apply only to heretics, rank liberalists and outright unbelievers and sinners. Misapplying Biblical passages of Scripture is the method of sectarians, not of true and loyal Christian Lutherans. Another favorite passage of exclusivism is 1 Cor. 1 :10: "Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name Does the Bible Teach Separatism? 145 of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you ; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment." In this instance we again see the harm that is done to the body of Christ by the piece-meal method of hand- ling the Word of God, as if it were composed of disjecta membra, instead of being a harmonious and organic unity. Read on a few verses and you will see the kind of strife and divisions in the Corinthian Church which Paul was rebuking: In verse 12 he tells them that he had been told that there were contentions among them ; then he goes on: "Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Cephas; and I of Apollos ; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided ? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized into the name of Paul ?" And then he proceeds to show the Corinthians that Christ and the gospel are the all-important matters, and not the mere human instruments through whom they are given and proclaimed. The simple fact is, the Cor- inthians were doing what churches so often do today — they were quarreling about their preachers, thinking more of them than of Christ. This was what Paul was rebuking, not a difference of opinion on some such diffi- cult doctrines as the eternal divine decrees or the relation of grace to human responsibility. Besides, the passage might just as easily be applied by other Lutherans to the Missouri brethren as the opposite, for they ought to try just as much as the rest of us to "be perfected to- gether in the same mind and in the same judgment." One party in the controversy should not claim all these passages in their favor. They may be quoted by both parties with equal relevancy, if they are to be used at all. 146 Election and Conversion Our next citation is 2 Cor. 6:17, 18: "Wherefore, come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you, and will be to you a Father, and ye shall be to me sons and daughters, saith the Almighty." No less inept is this selection. Even the passage itself would preclude its application to Missouri's fellow- Lutherans, for it says, "Touch no unclean thing." Are other Lutherans to be regarded as an "unclean thing?" But the preceding verses define precisely the kind of peo- ple from whom the Corinthian Church was to "be sep- arate" (verses 14-16) : "Be not unequally yoked with un- believers." Are the rest of us Lutherans "unbelievers?" If so, why are we spending our days and often our nights in fighting infidelity, rationalism and negative criticism? "For what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity?" We know that Missouri is too charitable to apply the term "iniquity" to the Lutherans from whom she differs. "Or what communion hath light with dark- ness?" Would Missouri class all Lutherans outside of her own ecclesiastical fold as "darkness?" "And what concord hath Christ with Belial?" Who is "Belial" in the present controversy? "Or what portion hath a be- liever with an unbeliever? And what agreement hath a temple of God with idols?" The rest of us Lutherans surely are not idolaters. Thus you see that the above citation is not pertinent. And this reminds us of an incident. Years ago we happened to go into a tent in which one of the rankest sects of the day was holding a meeting, one of the noisy, shouting kind. They were the so-called "holiness" people, such as thought they were perfectly sanctified. Does the Bible Teach Separatism? 147 How they did boast of their superior spiritual attain- ments ! One of them declared that they had gotten so far "beyond all other so-called Christians that they couldn't see them any more with a spy-glass!" An ex- pression that seemed to please and amuse the sanctifi- cationists greatly. And we remember that one of their favorite Bible citations was this very one, "Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord." It was their sedes doctrinac. In our early ministry we were forced into more or less controversy with another fanatical sect called "Come-outers." This same passage was also their stock in trade. Another much-used passage among Missouri Luth- erans is Eph. 4:3-6: "Giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Our Missouri brethren should try to obey this injunction, just as all of us should. "There is one body and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all." Here is an urgent en joinder upon all believers to be united, and we hope that all Lutherans, Missourian and tiie rest, will heed it. One party needs it just as much as the others. Instead of being an argument for separa- tism, it is the strongest kind of an argument for union and concord. We all have "one hope," namely, hope in the Lord Christ; "one Lord," the same Christ; "one faith," posited in the same Christ; "one baptism," for the remission of sins in the name of Christ ; "one God and Father of us all." In His blessed name, then, why are we not all one body? If all Lutherans who are disposed to be divisive would read what Paul says in the verse 148 Election and Conversion preceding the above quotation, they would see how unity is to be conserved : "With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love ;" then, "giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." A good preachment, and needed by all parties. The next citation is 1 Tim. 5 :22 : "Lay hands hastily on no man, neither be partaker of other man's sins ; keep thyself pure." Like the rest, this passage is not applicable. It refers to association with sinners in a sinful way, not with disciples who trust and love the Lord Jesus and try to follow Him in holiness of life. It is not likely that our good Missouri brethren would become contaminated by having fellowship with other Lutherans, for when it comes to purity of life, one branch of the Lutheran Church has no occasion for saying of the rest, "Lord, we thank thee that we are not as other men are." We give still another sample of the fragmentary use of Scripture: Titus 3:10: "A factious man, after a first and second admonition, refuse." First, it all depends on who is the factious man, whether he is the separatist or the one who is willing to fellowship. One might be permitted to think that the man who does not insist so much on his own views, but is willing to accord to others some liberty of opinion, would be the less factious, not to put it any stronger. But the passage is torn from its connection, and is there- fore not pertinent to the situation ; for the next verse, separated from the tenth by only a semi-colon, reads : "knowing that such a one is perverted, and sinneth, being self -condemned." In the days of discussion at Does the Bible Teach Separatism? 149 Watertown, Milwaukee and Detroit, we do not think that the Ohio and Iowa brethren were sinners above others, or that they were "self-condemned." All that we have ever spoken with, or whose writings we have perused, seemed to think that they had maintained their own position with a fair degree of success. But read the preceding verses, beginning with the 8th : "Faithful is the saying, and concerning these things I desire that thou affirm confidently, to the end that they who have believed God may be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto you ; but shun foolish questionings, and genealogies, and strifes, and fightings about the law ; for they are unprofitable and vain." Now how would Missouri like it if we were to apply these trenchant sayings to them and their disposi- tion to divide the Church on questions that create schism ? She would say we were quoting Scripture irrelevantly. So we will not be so ungenerous, for she is in earnest, and does not believe the doctrines for which she is con- tending are "foolish questionings," etc. No more do we believe that the whole passage has any reference to other Lutherans w4io are just as sincere, intelligent and loyal. The last passage cited by Mr. Grosse is Exod. 12 :43-48 : "And Jehovah said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the Passover: there shall not a foreigner eat thereof . . . And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passover to Jehovah, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it ; and he shall be as one that is born in the land : but no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. One law shall be unto him that is home-born, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." 150 Election and Conversion It seems almost like legalism to go back to the old ceremonial law to find a proof-text for exclusiveness among Lutherans, but we suppose the Missouri brethren would say that the same principle Avould apply to the Lord's Supper and other forms of Christian fellowship as applied to the Hebrew feast of the Passover. Let us go on that supposition. Would the Missourians say all the Lutherans who do not agree with them are uncircumcised? Well, then, we ought not to go to the Lord's Supper at all, not even in our own churches. Of course, we are speaking of the spiritual circumcision, for Paul says (Rom. 2:28, 29) : "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh : but he is a Jew who is one in- wardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter ; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Now what is it to be circumcised in heart? Paul teaches it in his letter to the Romans, whose doc- trinal portion, the first eleven chapters, is devoted to an exposition and defense of justification by faith alone. Therefore to have true faith in Christ is to have the circumcision of the heart. We maintain that all true Lutherans accept Christ by faith ; therefore, being of the true spiritual circumcision, they have a right to the Lord's table. Luther's Catechisms, the Augsburg Con- fession and the Formula of Concord teach the same doctrine. More than that, all true Lutherans believe that they receive Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist, and this gives them additional right to come to the blessed sacrament. Thus we have seen that none of the Scripture pass- ages quoted to uphold Lutheran separatism and division Does the Bible Teach Separatism? 151 are relevant. A large number of passages, we believe, might be cited to prove that division and strife are wrong, and that mutual love, forbearance and concord are the desire of Jesus Christ. Those proof-texts our friends of the Missouri camp never quote. Let us note a few: John 10:16: "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold : them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice ; and there shall be one flock and one shepherd." It would appear as if Christ said this expressly to prevent the disciples before Him from thinking that they were the only true sheep — that is, to preclude their becoming exclusive. Does one part of the Lutheran Church comprise all the sheep who hear the Good Shepherd's voice? Luke 9:49, 50 (cf. Mark 9:38-40): "And John answered and said. Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name ; and we forbade him, because he f olloweth not with us. But Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against you is for you." Here John's narrowness, his sectarianism, was upbraided ; for he seemed to think that the chief characteristic of a disciple was to "follow" in the immediate company of Christ and His apostles; but Jesus in rebuking him taught all of us that the chief thing is to be able to cast out devils in His name. We leave it to the judgment of every reader whether all the branches of the Lutheran Church in this country (Missouri included) have not been doing such work in baptizing children, teaching them afterward the way of salvation, and in bringing thousands of adult sinners to Christ. Let us note some passages in Christ's intercessory prayer (John 17:20-23) : "Neither for these only do I 152 Election and Conversion pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word ; that they may all be one ; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou didst send me. And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them ; that they may be one, even as we are one ; 1 in them and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one ; that the world may know that thou didst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me." In view of the fact that Christ has millions of Lutheran disciples in this country, we think the above prayer ought to be fulfilled among them ; and if it were, what a power for Christ and His truth they would be! One of the crying criticisms of the Lutheran Church today is her manifold and mutually exclusive divisions. In Matt. 23 :8-12 our Lord says : "But be not called Rabbi ; for one is your Teacher, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father on the earth ; for one is your Father, even He who is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters, for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled ; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted." Will not all this apply to the Lutheran Church in America? We all acknowledge Christ, and Him alone, as our Master ; then are we not all brethren ? There are a number of passages like 1 Tim. 1 :4, 6 :4, 2 Tim. 2 :23 and Titus 3 :9, which warn against "foolish and ignorant questionings that gender strife ;" but by reading the entire context it will be seen that they cannot be applied either to our Missouri brethren or to those who differ from them, because the great doctrines in Does the Bible Teach Separatismf 153 dispute, while they may be said, in a sense, to "gender strife," are not to be classed among the "foolish and unlearned questionings." Therefore we cannot make use of them on either side of the debate. However, we believe that such passages as the following are imme- diately applicable to the Lutheran situation in America. Rom. 12:4, 5: "For even as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office : so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and severally members one of another." The whole of 1 Cor. 12 is extremely pertinent, especially verses 12 and 13: "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body ; so also is Christ. For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free ; and were all made to drink of one Spirit." Rom. 15:5-7: "Now the God of patience and of com- fort grant you to be of the same mind one with another according to Christ Jesus ; that with one accord ye may with one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore receive ye one another, even as Christ also received you, to the glory of God the Father." An injunction like this cannot be set aside without virtually un-Christianizing those who are ex- cluded ; for we Lutherans all do with one mouth glorify God, giving Him and Him alone the praise for our salvation. 2 Cor. 13:11: "Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfected ; be comforted ; be of the same mind ; live in peace, and the God of love and peace shall be with you." Eph. 4:1-6 has already been quoted, but here we call attention to this: "Giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Note Phil. 154 Election and Conversion 2 :2-4 : "Make full my joy that ye be of the same mind, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind ; doing nothing through faction or vainglory, but in lowliness of mind, each counting other better than him- self ; not looking each of you to his own things, but each of you also to the things of others." This is most im- pressive, and should be well pondered. 1 Pet. 3:8: "Finally be ye all likeminded, compassionate, loving as brethren, tender-hearted, humble-minded." Consider a few passages that enjoin peace among God's people : "So then let us follow after things that make for peace, and things whereby we may edify one another" (Rom. 14:19). While this refers specifically to the wrangles over meats offered to idols, it still may stand as a good general motto for the Church. "But we beseech you, brethren, to know them that labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you, and to esteem them exceeding highly in love for their works' sake. Be at peace among yourselves" (1 Thess. 5:12, 13). "But flee youthful lusts, and follow after righteousness, faith, love, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. But foolish and ignorant questions refuse, knowing that they gender strife ; and the Lord's servant must not strive, but be gentle toward all, apt to teach, forbearing," etc. (2 Tim. 2:22-26). "Follow after peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no man shall see the Lord" (Heb. 12:14). "If it be possible, as much as in you lieth, be at peace with all men" (Rom. 12:18). This is a capital passage, for while it does not ask of us impossibilities, and in- dicates that we must not be indifferent to the truth, it also shows clearly that we should let the idea of peace Does the Bible Teach Separatism? 155 be a potent motive in our lives ; that we should be just as irenic as it is possible for us to be; that we should love peace better than polemics. "The wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated," etc. (Jas. 3:17). While purity is put first, peaceableness is put second. How often the apostles deprecated contentions, divisions and unnecessary disputes! In 1 Cor. 1:10, 11, Z:Z, 11:18, and Rom. 16:17 Paul rebukes the factious spirit. Of course, all parties may apply these passages to their opponents, but that would not be fair ; we should all conscientiously consider whether they will not apply to ourselves; perhaps, after all, some of us may have been more anxious to vindicate our views than to show forth the glory of God. The whole of Rom. 14 might well be read in this connection. Take a few verses (1-5): "But him that is weak in faith receive ye, yet not for decision of scruples (margin, to doubtful disputations). One man hath faith to eat all things ; but he that is weak eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth set at naught him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth ; for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest the servant of another? To his own lord he standeth or falleth . . . One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind." Vs. 10-13 : "But thou, why dost thou judge thy brother? or thou again, why dost thou set at naught thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God ... So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more; but 156 Election and Conversion judge ye this rather, that no man put a stumbHng-block in his brother's way, or an occasion of falHng." Paul was here speaking about meats and drinks and ceremonial observances, but the general principle should be taken to heart by us Lutherans, to see whether we have not been more given to judging, criticising and excluding than looking for the things that make for peace and good will. Those who are interested in our Lutheran polemics will not need many Biblical citations on Christian love. They are scattered all through the New Testament, much more being said about love among brethren than about contending for the faith, even though that is very, very important. Note just a few leading passages to refresh our memories. John 15 :12 : "This is my commandment, that ye love one another, even as I have loved you ;" also 17: "These things I command you, that ye may love one another." Rom. 13:8: "Owe no man anything save to love one another ; for he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the whole law." 1 Pet. 2:17: "Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king." 1 Pet. 3:8: . . . "Loving as brethren, tender-hearted, humble-minded." 1 John 1 :11 : "For this is the message which ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another;" 14: "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren;" 4:7: "Beloved, let us love one another ; for love is of God ; and every one that loveth is begotten of God, and knoweth God;" 11: "Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another;" 12: "No man hath beheld God at any time : if we love one another, God abideth in us, and His love is perfected in us." Here belongs the whole of 1 Cor. 13. Does the Bible Teach Separatism? 157 Look at Psalm 133: "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity . . . For there Jehovah commandeth the blessing, even life forevermore." Parallel passages, Gen. 13:8; Heb. 13:1. We hope the foregoing will not be looked upon as sentimentality and preachment. It is meant for ourself as much as for our brethren. Well are we aware that love, which is an emotion, cannot decide the truth in matters of doctrine, for that function belongs to the intellect; yet there can be no doubt that if the principle of love were always potent in the hearts of men, there would be much less disputation, and that which becomes absolutely necessary for the sake of truth, would be conducted in a much kindlier spirit than has marked many of the controversies of the Christian Church. This part of our discussion will be closed with several pregnant selections from 1 Cor. 13, according to the beautiful Old Version : "Charity sufifereth long, and is kind ; ... is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil . . . And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; and the greatest of these is charity." To clinch and finish the whole Biblical argument : since such Christian virtues as faith, hope, love, brotherly kindness, forbearance, unity and peace are enjoined so much more frequently in the Holy Scriptures than con- tending for doctrine, they ought to occupy a much higher place than they do in our Lutheran Church ; they ought to make us more generous and less critical ; they ought to make us more anxious to find common ground than grounds of difference ; and in cases where discussion becomes absolutely necessary, they should pervade it all with their gentle and magnanimous spirit. XI THE QUESTION OF LUTHERAN UNITY THIS book has been written with two primary objects in view : First, to see if any new light might be shed on the doctrines in debate ; second, to lead up to some humble, and we hope helpful, sugges- tions on the burning question of Lutheran unity. It may be thought by some that, to engage first in a doctrinal discussion, is a poor way to promote Lutheran fellowship and co-operation. That objection, however, would not be well taken. We Lutherans are too much concerned for "the pure doctrine" {die reine Lehre), and rightly so, to imagine we can ever get together with- out a full and frank discussion of our doctrinal differ- ences. To ignore what we hold to be the truth, and make compromises before we see a good and substantial basis for union, would be entirely foreign to the genius of the Lutheran Church. From a Lutheran view-point it would be premature and ill-advised. Such a plan may do for that doctrinally indeterminate and indifferent movement known as the "Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America," but it is not feasible for Luth- erans. By the candid discussion of doctrine, as well as other vital matters, we hope the atmosphere will become more and more clarified, so that we may be brought to see eye to eye. At all events, a mechanical and forced union will not satisfy us Lutherans. The Question of Lutheran Unity 159 Still another motive impelled us to take up this dis- cussion : we could not, in all good conscience, let Dr. Pieper's book go unchallenged, as if it were the only view that could be tolerated in the Lutheran Church. Suppose the whole Lutheran Church should, for the sake of union, or for any other reason or reasons, go over to that view, and should put it in a creed or platform; then suppose that by and by, after more thorough investi- gation of the Scriptures, that view should be found to be erroneous — what then ? No ; it is better not to try to force a union on these deep and difficult doctrines. In the present state of the discussion they should be left in the sphere of Lutheran liberty for still further study. We already agree on all the vital doctrines, as we shall point out a little later, and so can afford to leave some recondite matters to individual judgment. Our presentation shows, we think, that the truth is not all on one side; that much Scripture can be cited and many sound arguments adduced for the views of election that are held by most Lutherans outside of the Synodical Conference. This proves that it is useless to talk about Lutheran union solely on that body's con- ception of the doctrines of election and conversion. And why should our Missouri brethren insist upon their views as the only terms of union? Do not the rest of us have access to the Bible and the Confessions as well as they? We are sure that such insistence on Missouri's part will indefinitely postpone the day of Lutheran union. Is there not "a more excellent way?" Take a survey of the situation : The Synodical Conference, the Iowa Synod, the General Council, the Joint Synod of Ohio, the Norwegian Synod, and the 160 Election and Conversion United Synod of the South, all accept confessionally the whole Book of Concord ; and they do so sincerely. "What doth hinder" their being united? What do they separate on? Very largely on the doctrine of election and conversion. The Conference insists that her view is the only true and possible one. Her unmovable stand on these matters leads her to exclusiveness and isolation. Why this constant insistence on these refined theological distinctions? We believe that the Lutheran bodies named would be willing to allow Missouri to believe as she pleased on these doctrines, providing she would not make them the condition of fellowship and co-operation. Therefore we fear that the responsibility for the divided state of the bodies named lies largely at the door of the Synodical Conference. In view of all that can be said and has been said on the other side, is she willing longer to carry the burden of responsibility? If Christ wants all His disciples to be one, does He not want His millions of Lutheran disciples to be one? And why should Lutherans be divided on par- ticularistic views of the doctrines of election and con- version, so long as they all hold to justification by faith alone, sola gratia and universalis gratia? The mooted doctrines are profound and difficult. By their very nature they are so. Election goes back into eternity, and tries to work out the nature of the divine decrees. Is it right for poor, finite mortals to think that they can so define what God did before the foundation of the world as to exclude and un-Lutheranize other Christians who cannot see precisely as they do? The same is true of conversion. All of us believe that men must be converted; that God alone can and must convert them; The Question of Lutheran Unity 161 that they are saved purely by grace. All of us repudiate both Synergism and Pelagianism. Then what causes schism? Why, the attempt to determine that fine line where divine causality and human freedom meet — a line that no man, however incisive, can definitely mark out to the satisfaction of all others. Thus it will be seen that we are causing schism in the body of Christ by wrangling over questions that are too deep for us. From the time of Luther, Brenz, Chemnitz down to the present, the keenest Christian minds have been trying to figure out these profound doctrines ; yet they could not in the past, and they cannot now, see alike. Think of the days that were spent by the Missourians and the anti-Missourians at the conferences at Watertown, Mil- waukee and Detroit, in 1903-4, in contending over these mooted doctrines, with theological giants on both sides, and yet no agreement could be reached. Why continue to insist on a particularistic view ? Must every question be a closed question before we can come together in the unity of the spirit and the bond of peace? Even some of the Missouri theologians have had shades of difference among themselves, yet they tolerated one another. Why not just slightly increase the boundaries of Lutheran toleration ? Let us see why it is neither right nor necessary to divide the Church on these theological subtleties. Both parties are equally sincere and earnest in accepting the Bible as the inspired Word of God. They would make common cause against rationalism and the negative criticism. Both parties are equally devoted to all the Symbolical Books ; both quote them again and again to substantiate their different views. In reading Stellhorn, 162 Election and Conversion Jacobs and Pieper we have been much impressed with the fact that all of them quote from the same articles of the Formula. And again there is about equal scholarship on both sides. All you need to do is to note their lavish quotations from the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, German, and other languages, and their copious references to many matters that belong to the domain of scholarship, to be convinced that in the way of cultural training and skill they are protagonists worthy of one another's steel. Now, under these circumstances, can they not see that the doctrines about which they contend are of too abstruse and academic a character to be made the gravaman of division? Why not agree to differ as brethren of the same household of faith? Note another matter — how labored and extended are the arguments that each side employs to uphold its views; how winding and intricate are the logical pro- cesses, with more than one effort to hang an opponent on the horns of a dilemma ; how much fine and scholarly exegesis must be used ; how many quotations from the learned languages ; pages upon pages of the finest dis- tinctions, amounting in some cases almost to hair-split- ting! Is it right, we repeat, for the dogmaticians to divide the Church, and keep her divided, on such difficult and erudite questions? If the Missourians should say that their theology is very simple; that they just accept the pure, plain Word of God; our reply is: Then why all this labored argument, all these scholastic terms, all these refined distinctions, in order to try to convince the other party? And still they have not convinced their opponents, who accept the Word of God with just as implicit faith as they — the Missourians — do. This very The Question of Lutheran Unity 163 fact proves that these doctrines belong to the subtleties of dogmatics. We do not ask Missouri to give up her views, but simply not to make their acceptance by others the terms of fellowship and union. Cannot Missouri be as generous as the rest of us ? Another matter worth considering: So many people stumble over what is called rabies theologicorum, the anger of the theologians. Many good people think that the theologians are mostly to blame for our divisions. They cannot understand what all the controversy is about. We have heard more than one layman say that the Lutheran Church could be united but for the theological professors, who, they contend, are engaged in hair-splitting, in trying to make distinctions where there are no differences. Of course, they do not under- stand our sincere concern for the truth, nor can they always discern the sharp edge of dangerous heresy; just as, not long ago, a prominent university professor scoffed at the Nicene Council for "wasting weeks over the dis- cussion of a word !" He was unable to see that the very heart of the Christian religion was then and there involved. However, we maintain that our Lutheran theologians should give as little occasion as possible for such criticism, and should be more anxious for unity than for particularistic views of doctrine that do not involve the foundations of the evangelical and Lutheran faith. Anent the present discussion we are sure this criticism will be passed by many sincere and earnest people in the Lutheran Church : that while we Lutherans are spending our time and strength in controversy over the old and always divisive doctrines of election and 164 Election and Conversion conversion, some of the denominations are busy doing practical work, gathering people into their folds, and even stealing some of our sheep. Whether the criticism will be just or not, let us reduce to the minimum the occasion for making it. Every time there is a quarrel in the Lutheran Church the proselyting sects rejoice and take advantage of it. Do not think for a moment that we would want to shut off theological investigation and discussion. That would be inane. Whenever a Church gets to the point that it is indifferent to pure doctrine, gives up depth of thinking, and lightly regards thorough-going scholarship, it will soon become superficial and consequently decadent. Trees that root shallowly are not enduring. Reverent research and exchange of views will lead to still deeper understanding and appreciation of the vast mines of Biblical truth. However, polemics, accompanied by more or less stress of feeling, is not so apt to be judicial and unbiassed. Therefore we believe that, if these divisive questions could be left to individual liberty, and were not placed in the list of essentials, they could be discussed with greater calmness, less heat of controversy, less con- cern for sectarian victory, and thus the truth itself would have freer course. In the interest of Lutheran comity, we desire here to insert a remark, which we hope will prove helpful. On page 146 Dr. Pieper says: "To state the matter concretely, that part of the Lutheran Church which has hitherto taught that the converting and saving grace of God is governed by the correct or good conduct of man, and has in such conduct discovered the ground of ex- planation for the discretio personarum, must surrender The Question of Lutheran Unity 165 that teaching without any reservation whatever. If this is not done, all unity between the parties to the contro- versy is specious." This sounds very like an ultimatum. But we hope Dr. Pieper will not be too rigid and insistent. How- ever, on this particular point he has much truth on his side. Therefore we would venture to suggest and advise some yielding on the part of some of the anti-Missouri- ans. It certainly does seem to be a dangerous mode of expression to say that God has elected any man in view of "correct or good conduct," or that "good conduct" in any way prepares him for conversion. Whatever the parties who have used this mode of expression may have meant by it, every one can see, after a moment's atten- tion, that it squints toward work-righteousness and human merit — a heresy that should be rigidly excluded from the Lutheran Church. So let us all agree to avoid and reject this "good conduct" method of expression, and also the thought that it connotes. It is different, however, when you say electio intuitu fidei, for, as we have shown, in faith there is no merit, and it excludes all ideas of merit ; and therefore the doctrine of sola gratia is sacredly pre- served. Now, if the one party will give up the term "good conduct," could not Dr. Pieper and his synodical brethren join them in fellowship on the basis of justifi- cation by faith alone, salvation by grace alone, and the genuine offer of grace and salvation to all, with liberty on any peculiar view of election and conversion ? Why not hoist the white flag and declare peace ? But there are some branches of the Lutheran Church that do not stand on quite the same confessional basis as the bodies previously named. We refer to the General 166 Election and Conversion Synod and some of the Scandinavian bodies. What is to be our share and position in the proposed plan for Lutheran unity? We should like to be included in the project. We ought not to be left out in the cold. We might help the good cause along. (Remember, just now we are thinking more of unity, fellowship and co-opera- tion than of organic union). All of us accept, ex animo, the Unaltered Augsburg Confession as our creed — quia, not quatenus — and Luther's Small Catechism as a book of instruction. Now, since a// genuine Lutherans in this country accept the Augustana, would not that be the most satisfactory basis for Lutheran comity and co-operation ? There all could stand. And, after all, the Augsburg Confession contains the seed and essence of the Lutheran faith, all concisely and lucidly set forth ; the other Sym- bols are only the development of these seminal principles. Why would it not be feasible for all Lutherans to ack- nowledge all other Lutherans on that platform, and hold fellowship with them? We do not mean that the Con- cordia Lutherans should give up their confessional basis, nor, indeed, that any branch of the Lutheran Church should surrender her creed or her autonomy ; but how excellent it would be if we could all work together amicably in fellowship and effort on the above basis ! Should the time ever come when, by means of friendly discussion and negotiation, we could adjust our con- fessional differences, an organic union might then be effected, and all Lutherans could march abreast against the common foe under one flag. You see, brethren, that the General Synod and the Scandinavian Synods, in accepting from the heart the Augsburg Confession, necessarily accept the true doctrine The Question of Lutheran Unity 167 of justification by faith alone, which carries with it, pure and undefiled, the precious doctrine of salvation by grace alone. If our Missouri brethren could hear the teachers in our General Synod seminaries insisting on the doc- trines of grace, and condemning all human merit and work-righteousness, they could not help feeling that we stand solidly on those great basal doctrines. The doc- trine most insistently taught by every member of the Wittenberg theological faculty is that the merits of Christ are the sole ground of our salvation, and that those merits are apprehended and appropriated by faith alone. We are sure that all the General Synod seminaries teach the same kind of theology. Just to venture a little further, hoping we will not be thought guilty of temerity, we think that something like the following might be seriously considered as a feasible platform for Lutheran unification in America: To hold and accept the Unaltered Augsburg Confession as our creed, and Luther's Small Catechism as our book of instruction ; then to acknowledge the abiding historical, doctrinal, and spiritual value of the Secondary Symbols of the Book of Concord, and to maintain that a thorough mastery of their contents is necessary in order properly to understand and appreciate the Lutheran system of faith. This would give us a fixed and fundamental Lutheran creed on which all Lutherans could stand, and yet would place the development and theological refinements of the supplemental Confessions in the domain of liberty and free discussion. We believe, too, that this platform would not keep before the Church so many questions that gender division. A supreme argument for Lutheran unity and co- 168 Election and Conversion operation in America is the wonderful doctrinal agree- ment that already exists among. See how we hold in common everything that is fundamental to purity of doc- trine and development in life. There is not an ecclesi- astical body in America that is such a compact doctrinal solidarity as is the Lutheran Church. Let us see how true this is. First, all of us accept the whole Bible as the inspired Word of God. We know of only two men among us who are in the least tainted with the so-called "new" theology and the mutilating Biblical criticism, and they occupy no commanding theological positions in the Church. There is only one other branch of the Christian Church here in America that stands thus united on the Bible; for it is an outstanding fact that most of the de- nominations are infected, and some of them fairly honey- combed, with the negative higher criticism and the naturalistic views of religion. The Lutheran Church has evidently "come to the kingdom for such a time as this" — to save the Bible and the evangelical faith from the hands of critical vandalism. Oh, that we might cease to oppose one another! Oh, that we might mobilize our forces against the common foe ! A further bond of unity among us is our undivided allegiance to the Unaltered Augsburg Confession. What a solid front that gives us ! No need of further debate about our fundamental and generic creed. Nowhere else will you find such confessional unanimity. Nor is that all : every Lutheran body in this country joins all other Lutherans in holding the other Symbols in the highest regard, even where they are not adopted officially in the credal sense. In view of so much unity The Question of Lutheran Unity 169 among us, why should we not cease to fight among our- selves? Why not join hands and hearts in advancing the kingdom of God? Why set up altar against altar? We pray that we may all whet our swords, gird on the whole armor of God, unite our forces, and march in solid phalanx against the common foes of our religion. We believe such a sight would be pleasing to Him who said : "One is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren." The sectary might raise a fine, technical point just here, namely : You have tried to show that the Missouri Synod has misconceived some parts of God's Word, and has put the Lutheran regulative doctrine in a subordinate place. Would not these facts logically make you ex- clusive toward Missouri? How can you still be willing to hold fellowship with her ? Our reply is : First, by love. Love is "the greatest thing in the world" (1 Cor. 13:13). "Love sufifereth long, and is kind . . . love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up . . . thinketh no evil . . . believeth all things ; hopeth all things ; endureth all things ; love never faileth." Secondly, by logical consistency. We agree on all the fundamental matters, Missouri and the rest of us. We are equally sincere and earnest ; with equal fervor we accept the whole Bible as the inspired Word of God ; with no reservations we accept the Unaltered Augsburg Confession and Luther's Small Catechism; we hold the whole system of evangelical truth, including the doctrines of the Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, the divine-human person of Christ, the vicarious atonement, etc. ; no less heartily do all of us accept our distinctive Lutheran doctrines : justification by faith alone ; salvation 170 Election and Conversion by grace alone ; the universal offer of salvation ; the communicatio idiotnatum respecting the natures of Christ ; the real presence of His body and blood in the Holy Supper ; the Word and the sacraments as the means of grace; the regenerating efficacy of child baptism; private confession and absolution (of course not in the sacerdotal sense) ; the universal priesthood of believers. And these are the essential doctrines. A particularistic view of election and conversion is not fundamental in the Lutheran Church, for from the start some of our best and most loyal theologians have held diverse opinions re- specting them. The doctrines on which we agree are so much more numerous and vital than those about which we differ that we could easily fellowship with our Missouri brethren, without asking them to accept all our views respecting the matters at issue. This, we maintain, is a consistent position. An objection may be sprung: All that has been said in favor of Lutheran union might also be said in favor of union with other branches of the Christian Church. The caveat, however, would not be well taken. First, we Lutherans are much nearer together doctrinally than we are with the denominations. Some of the doc- trines that we hold most dear they repudiate. If you think they do not, just spring those doctrines in the presence of their theologians. It would be a long, long time before we could come to an agreement doctrinally with other communions ; and perhaps it could never be accomplished, for we Lutherans could never consent to surrender or compromise our precious doctrines of the ubiquity of Christ's glorified human nature, of His real presence in the Holy Communion, of baptismal grace, The Question of Lutheran Unity 171 nor could we subscribe to a platform of indifferentism toward these doctrines. Doctrinally, therefore, a general union is not feasible. Let us confine our attention to what is much more practicable, the possibility of Luth- eran unity. Then, the denominations differ so much from us in practice that union with them is out of the question. Perhaps most serious of all is the fact that, with one or two exceptions, the denominations are honey-combed with liberalizing tendencies in theology and with ex- tremely loose ideas of the inspiration, authority and historicity of the Bible. These latitudinarian views are taught in many of their theological schools, and preached in many of their pulpits. Therefore anything like a real sympathetic union and fellowship with them under these circumstances is impossible. With us Lutherans in America it is different. We can say that we are a unit on the doctrine of the Bible. Here we ought to stand together and present a solid front to rationalism, negative criticism and liberalistic theology. Again we say, the Lutheran Church has "come to the kingdom for such a time as this." Once more, and this time more of a plea than an argument. Lutherans ought to be willing to overlook some fault in one another. They ought not to be hyper- critical. This is not a world of perfection. They should cultivate the charity that "thinketh no evil." As far as possible, they should put the best construction on one another's actions. There are some methods and practices in all branches of our Zion that are not quite to the liking of the other bodies. Most of us can even see things in our own ecclesiastical communions that we should 172 Election and Conversion like to see changed. But all of us must refrain from being too severe in our judgments. Nor should we insist on too rigid a discipline in other bodies. For example, to be perfectly frank, it has often puzzled us how saloon- keepers and liquor-dealers could be tolerated in any Lutheran Church of America ; but even here we are not ready to be too condemnatory in our judgment, for we cannot perhaps quite "put ourself in the place" of those who must put up with such men. If a General Synod min- ister were to go before a State legislature, or a committee of it, and advocate Sunday base-ball, we believe he would be called to account by the District Synod to which he belonged. We know of such a case in one branch of the Lutheran Church ; yet the offender never received a word of synodical rebuke! Just so other branches of the Lutheran Church should remember the peculiar situation in the General Synod with regard to certain matters — for instance, the lodge question and a little liberalism — that others think ought to call for strenuous discipline. In our branch of the Lutheran Church this gentle principle largely pre- vails : "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in any trespass, ye who are spiritual restore such a one in the spirit of gentleness ; looking to thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." True, this mild method may be abused ; but it may also be transgressed. For years the General Synod seems to have been the object of special criticism. Perhaps it has, in a way, turned out for our good. It has lead our theologians and ministers to examine Lutheran doctrine and practice more thoroughly, and thus make sure that they stood for The Question of Lutheran Unity 173 the pure truth as our Church holds it. However, our critics have usually forgotten the peculiar make-up of the General Synod. Ours is the oldest General body of Lutherans in this country, unless the Joint Synod of Ohio should hold that place of honor. The General Synod was organized in 1820. From the start it used the English language almost exclusively. From the start it was necessarily thrown into contact with the numerous Reformed Churches around it. The General Synod therefore, has not been able to build up her constituency as most of the other branches of the Lutheran Church in America have done — very largely out of immigrants from Lutheran countries beyond the sea and from the children of the Church. On the other hand, we have largely gone to the unconverted people of all classes around us, and have tried to win them from the power of Satan unto God, just as we should have done and just as all branches of the Lutheran Church should do. In this way we have gathered much spiritually unformed material into our churches ; many of these recruits had no religious training whatever ; others were brought up in the various denominations around us, but had lapsed into sin. Thus, while we have simply done our duty in bringing sinners from the world to Christ and into the Church, it has given us a heterogeneous constituency ; and it takes time and unwearying patience to mould all this material into a homogeneous Lutheran unity. This is our peculiar situation in the General Synod, and has been all along. It will readily account for the fact that some of our congregations and ministers are not and have not been quite as perpendicular in their Lutheranism as they should have been. If the other Lutheran bodies 174 Election and Conversion had been started in the same way, and had set for themselves the same spiritual task, they would have had precisely the same problems to wrestle with, and would have suffered from the same embarassment. While the General Synod has been struggling with her problems, and doing so in all sincerity and devotion, some of the other bodies, not troubled with the same questions, have looked on and have criticized us. For this we do not blame them, for members of the General Synod often did some fault-finding with others, too. But now that wc are coming to know one another better, and to understand better the peculiar situation in each Lutheran body, wc believe that the time has come for charitable judgment and sympathetic treatment. The time has come when the whole Lutheran Church must do more home missionary work; when she must not be satisfied only with "gathering Lutherans'' and nurturing the children of the Church (noble and paramount a work as this is) ; but when she must go out into "the highways and hedges, the lanes and the alleys," and bring in the unsaved of all classes and conditions. These people before conversion will not be Lutherans, and many of them will not have Lutheran antecedents ; but they need Christ and the Church ; and after they have been converted, they must be indoctrinated and moulded into good and true Lutherans. When some of our sister Lutheran bodies do this kind of work on a large scale, as the General Synod has done all along, they will have some of the difficult problems to deal with that have tested the General Synod's skill, patience and strength. The Question of Lutheran Unity 175 Let it be understood that the mission work which we urge must not be done by the so-called ''revival" method. God forbid ! It must be done according to our sober and solid Lutheran methods — quiet personal work on the part of pastors and people, careful catechization after conversion, and the true preaching of the law and the gospel. When the whole Lutheran Church of America enters this work with sacred earnestness and prayer, much of our controversy will be laid aside. The General Synod has learned some valuable lessons through her long years of mission work among the unsaved and unchurched. She has learned, and that by not a little bitter experience, that the so-called "revival" system is not the best way to make good and substantial Christians and church members. She has also learned that the only proper way to bring up the children of the church, and as many other children as possible, is by careful instruction in the home, the Sun- day-school and the catechetical class. Of course, many of our pastors were sound in their practices along this line from the beginning, but a good many others had to learn by experience and observation. The General Synod has learned, in addition to the foregoing, that even adults should not be received into the church in a pro- miscuous way, after they have confessed Christ in con- version, but that they, as well as children, should first pursue a course of careful indoctrination in the cate- chism under the pastor, before they are admitted into full membership. It has not been our fault that we did not know these things by mere intuition, nor has it been to their credit that some other branches of the Lutheran Church have not had to wrestle with these 176 Election and Conversion problems ; the whole matter has been due to the peculiar conditions and environments here in this new land of America, where work along so many lines had to be experimental and tentative for a time. Our task is done. No other feeling than that of love and admiration for our Concordia brethren has actuated us in this undertaking. We have been frank, perhaps a little polemical at times, but always friendly. Our hope and prayer have been that this presentation might accomplish this one object, if nothing more: to make it clear to all parties that no one should be too dogmatic regarding the doctrines in dispute, and especially should not make them the cause of separa- tion and exclusion. May even this humble effort help to make for Lutheran unity and good-will ! And may Christ reign in all our hearts and His Holy Spirit guide our Lutheran Zion into the ways of truth and peace! FINIS INDEX Abraham's election, 118, 119. Acts preparatory, 51, 52, 78, 86-110. Allwardt, Rev H. A., 20, 51, 144. Analogy of faith, 55, 58. Apology of A. C, 35, 70. Assurance of salvation, 108-110. Augustine, 126. Author, why he wrote this book, 16-21, 158, 159; no separatist, 169. Baptism, 63, 83, 84, 85, 170. Book of Concord, 15, 135, 161, 166, 167, 168. Brenz, 161. Call, the divine, 21, 47-55, 66, 71, 82, 87, 88, 92, 95, 98, 99, 101, 114. Calvinism, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 19, 20, 23, 42, 54, 57, 67, 106. 115, 126, 129. Catechism, Luther's, 150, 166. 167. 169. Chemnitz, 88. 89. Civil righteousness, 70. "Come-outers," 147. Communicatio idiomatum, 60, 170. Concordia dogmaticians. 5, 24, 53, 56, 84, 92, 108, 166, 176. Conduct and good conduct, 9, 25, 41, 89, 116, 118, 138, 164, 165. Confessions, Lutheran, 7, 9, 135, 159. Consubstantiation, 8. Conversion (chief references), 5, 18, 50, 52, 60; in the strict sense, 61-73 ; 78, 80, 85, 92, 97, 98, 100; in the wider sense, lOL 180 INDEX Death, spiritual, defined, 68-71. Decrees, divine. 7, 9, 10, 22, 23, 31, 35, 36, 75, 85, 114, 133, 136, 139. Disciples, proposals for union, 14. Discretio personarum, 164. Discussion necessary, 18, 21, 158, 159, 164, 166. Doctrinal agreement in the Lutheran Church, 15, 160, 161, 168, 169. Election (chief references), 5, 8-10, 18, 30, 38, 46, 60, 85, 114, 115, 117-136, 138; to be sought in revealed Word, 139, 140, 160; comfort of, 109, 110, 123, 132, 133, 134. Episcopalians, proposals for union, 14. Ernst, Prof. H., 20, 51, 114. "Error of Missouri," 20, 51. Exclusiveness, 142-157. Fairbairn, a. M., (reference to consubstantiation), 8. Faith, justifying, the regulative principle in theology, 20-30, 115; no merit, 25-30, 137, 138, 165; determines destiny, 32-40; wrought in regeneration, 61-72; not mechanical, 78, 79; "in view of faith" sharply defined, 113, 114; a condition, not a cause of election, 138; most pleasing to God, 141. Foreknowledge and foresight, 36, 2,7, 113, 118, 122, 128, 129, 136, 140. Foreordination, 30, Z2>, 34, 100, 112, 127, 128, 129, 130, 140. Formula of Concord, 8, 15, 22, 35, 60, 71, 87, 135, 139, 150, 162. Free conferences (Missouri, Ohio and Iowa), 58, 141, 148, 149, 161. Freedom and free will, Z7, 38, 50, 52, 55, 63, 64, 67, 71, 74-79, 90, 91, 99, 100, 101, 102, 107, 114, 121, 141. General Council, 159. General Synod, 6, 14, 135, 165, 166, 167, 172, 173, 174. Gentiles, election of, 116-126. Graebner, Dr. A. L., 29, 52, 54. Gratia sufficiens, 40, 98, 114. "Holiness" sect, their separatism, 146, 147. / N D E X 181 Illumination, 21, 49-55, 61, 66, 67, 71, 76, 82, 88, 92, 95, 101. Intuitu fidei, 9, 16, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29-51, 109; term sharply defined, 113, 114, 165. Iowa Synod, 5, 58, 142, 159. Irresistible grace, 37, 67. Isaac and Ishmael, 119. Israel's election, 116-126. Jacob and Esau, 119-121. Jacobs, Dr. Henry E., 15, 16, 20, 24, 27, 35, 50, 52, 55, 71, 98, 113, 114. 115, 120, 135, 139, 162. Jews, election of, 116-126. Joint Synod of Ohio, 5, 21, 58, 142, 144, 159, 173. Justification by faith, all Lutherans accept, 15, 169; Lutheran regulative principle, 22-30, 50, 6i, 113, 115; central with Paul, 24, 25, 112-126; also with Luther, 22-24; as a basis, 165, 167. Latitudinarianism, 171. Lenski, Professor R. C. H., 41. Lord's Supper, 8, 150, 170. Luther, 22, 23, 24, 30, 39, 41, 85, 88, 115, 118, 138, 139, 161. Lutheran Church, 5, 16, ?>7, 46, 67, 84, 87, 97, 104, 157, 158, 159. 163-165. 170-176. Lutheran comity and co-operation, basis nf, 166. Lutheran Liberty. 16, 159, 164, 165. Lutheran unity and union, 5, 6, 14-21, 87, 104, 151-157, 1S&-176; proposed basis, 167. Madison Agreement, 6, 7, 102, 103. Melanchthon, 98. Missouri Synod, her precise position, 5-13; concise statement, 8-10; Dr. Pieper's statement, 10-13; sincerity, 8; her rigid position, 19; election central, 20-25, 30; her view of faith 22-30, 79, 137; of divine sovereignty, 23; of mystery, 31-40 55, 139; her creed, 35, 139; contradictory position, 53-55 disconnected use of Scripture, 55-60, 128, 130-134, 143, 145 148; misapplied Scripture, 142-151; omits baptism, 84, 85 her view of the will, 9d, 91, 141 ; figures of speech, 98 182 INDEX favorite passages, 111-135; emphasizes God's power, 115; confuses God's general and special decrees, 136 ; public prayer, 142; separatism, 142-157. Motus inevitabiles, 99. Mystery, Missouri's, 7, 9, 11, 13; locating it, 31-40; other references, 45, 50, 53, 60, 72, 106, 107, 139, 141. Natural powers, 65, 66, 70-72, 86, 87, 98. Negative criticism, 131, 161, 168, 171. Neve, Dr. J. L., 58, 142. Nicene Council, 163. Norwegian Lutherans, 5, 6, 7, 102, 105. Norwegian Lutheran Synod, 6, 159. Nuggets of thought, 136-141. Order of salvation, 21, 49, 61, 65, 85, 114, 116. Osiander, 97. Pelagianism, 8, 19, 42, 43, 46, 50, 161. Pharaoh, 121-128, 134, 138. Pieper, Dr. F. (chief references), his book, 5, 8; repudiates Calvinism, 7, 8, 10, 12, 23 ; doctrinal statement, 10-13 ; Pieper and Jacobs, 15, 16, 50; wrong allegations, 19, 20, 50, 51; his central doctrine, 20-25, 30; makes faith a merit, 25, 26, 30, 137; his gracious concession, 39; mechanical treatment of preparatory acts, 51, S6-110; omits prayer, 62; conception of faith and freedom, 79, 80, 141; omits baptism, 84, 85; view of responsibility in the unconverted, 103, 106; his view fails to give assurance, 108-110; treatment of Rom. 8:28-30, 112; his apparent ultimauim, 165. Potter and clay, 118, 123. Prayer, place of in conversion, 61-63. Predestination, 6, 7, 15, Z7, 112-115, 144. Predetermination, divine. 36, 113, 116, 125, 126. 136. 139. Preparatory Acts, 86-110. Presbyterians, 104, 107. Prevenient grace, 47-55, 61. o3, 65, 71, 78, 82, 83, 92, 114. Proselyting sects, when they flourish, 164. I N D E X 183 Rabies theologicorum, 163. Rationalism. 131. 161. 171. Regeneration, 52, 61-72, 76, 101. Replies to Missouri, 5, 20, 21, 37, 41, 51. Responsibility of sinners, 50. 59, 103-107, 114, 141. Revivalism, 175. Salvation and conversion ethical, 21, 52, 71, 75, 76, 90, 94. Scandinavians bodies, 166. Schmidt, Dr. F. A., 20, 51. Schodde, Dr. G. H., 20. Schuette, Dr. C. H. L., 21. Sedes doctrinae, 33, 147. Seminaries, teaching in General Synod, 167. Separatism, 142-157. Sheldon, Henry C., 125, 126. Sola gratia, 9, 12, 15, 26, .?8, 36, 49, 51, 65, 76, 94, 102, 115, 160, 165. Sola vis, 115. Sovereignty, divine, 22, 23, 116-126. Spaeth, Dr. A., 73, 74. Staupitz, 24. Stellhorn, Dr. F. W., 20, 51, 135, 161. Strassburg faculty, 89, 100. Synergism, rejected by all Lutherans, 8, 9, 15, 19, 20, 25. 46. 49. 50, 65, 81, 89, 98. 103, 111, 161. Synodical Conference, 7, 13, 45, 142, 159. 160. Tbessel, Rev. E. L. S.. 20, 37, 38, 42, 51. Ubiquity of Christ, 170. Unio Mystica, 63. Union, Lutheran (see "Lutheran Union"). United Norwegian Lutheran Church, 6. United Synod of the South, 160. Universalis gratia, 10, 12, IS, 160. Vocation, 47-55, 61, 65, 67, 71. 76. 184 INDEX Walther, D. C. F. W. (spelled Walter in text), 38, 92-96, 99. 144. Will, God's a distinction, 137. Will, man's, (see "freedom and free will"). Wittenberg seminary, 167. Word of God accepted by all Lutherans, 7, 161, 168, 169; its teaching decisive. 111. Date Due '^f^^^ ' ..a^^^^ 1^ "^ 'iV jfliiHp ^ ^s:-; 1012 01032 1745