That the occasional dissimilar and inadequate references to eternal
election and related subjects made by some opponents of the Synergists
were a matter of grave concern to the authors of the _Formula of
Concord_ appears from the passage quoted from Article XI, enumerating,
among the reasons why the article on predestination was embodied in the
_Formula_, also the fact that "the same expressions were not always
employed concerning it [eternal election] by the theologians." These
theologians had staunchly defended the _sola gratia_ doctrine, but not
always without some stumbling in their language. In their expositions
they had occasionally employed phrases which, especially when torn from
their context, admitted a synergistic or Calvinistic interpretation.
The framers of the _Formula_ probably had in mind such inadequate and
unguarded statements of Bucer, Amsdorf, and others as the following.
Bucer had written: "The Scriptures do not hesitate to say that God
delivers some men into a reprobate mind and drives them to perdition.
Why, then, is it improper to say that God has afore-determined to
deliver these into a reprobate mind and to drive them to perdition?
_Scriptura non veretur dicere, Deum tradere quosdam homines in sensum
reprobum et agere in perniciem. Quid igitur indignum Deo, dicere, etiam
statuisse antea, ut illos in sensum reprobum traderet et ageret in
perniciem?_" (Frank 4, 264.) The _Formula of Concord_, however, is
careful to explain: "Moreover, it is to be diligently considered that
when God punishes sin with sins, that is, when He afterwards punishes
with obduracy and blindness those who had been converted, because of
their subsequent security, impenitence, and wilful sins this should not
be interpreted to mean _that it never had been God's good pleasure_ that
such persons should come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved."
(1001, 83.)
Brenz had said: "To the one of the entire mass of the human race God
gives faith in Christ, whereby he is justified and saved, while He
leaves the other in his incredulity that he may perish. _Deus ex
universa generis humani massa alteri quidem donat fidem in Christum, qua
iustificetur et salvetur, alterum autem relinquit in sua incredulitate,
ut pereat_." (Frank 4, 256.) Again: It was God's will to elect Jacob and
to leave Esau in his sin. What is said of these two must be understood
of the election and rejection of all men in general. "_Potuisset Deus
optimo iure ambos abiicere;... sed sic proposuerat Deus, sic visum est
Deo, sic erat voluntas Dei, sic erat bene placitum Dei, ut Iacobum
eligeret, Esau autem in peccato suo relinqueret; quod de his duobus
dictum est, hoc intelligendum erit generaliter de omnium hominum
electione et abiectione_." (256.) Hesshusius: "In this respect God does
not will that all be saved, for He has not elected all. _Hoc respectu
Deus non vult, ut omnes salventur; non enim omnes elegit_."
(Schluesselburg 5, 320. 548.) Such statements, when torn from their
context, gave color to the inference that God's grace was not universal.
The _Formula of Concord_, therefore, carefully urges that God earnestly
endeavors to save all men, also those who are finally lost, and that man
alone is the cause of his damnation.
In his _Sententia de Declaratione Victorini_ of 1562 Nicholas Amsdorf
said: "God has but one mode of working in all creatures.... Therefore
God works in the same way in man who has a will and intellect as in all
other creatures, rocks and blocks included, _viz._, through His willing
and saying alone.... As rocks and blocks are in the power of God, so and
in the same manner man's will and intellect are in the will of God, so
that man can will and choose absolutely nothing else than what God wills
and says, be it from grace or from wrath. _Non est nisi unus modus
agendi Dei cum omnibus creaturis.... Quare eodem modo cum homine volente
et intelligente agit Deus, quemadmodum cum omnibus creaturis reliquis,
lapide et trunco, per solum suum velle et dicere.... Sicut lapides et
trunci sunt in potestate Dei, ita et eodem modo voluntas et intellectus
hominis sunt in voluntate Dei, ut homo nihil prorsus velle et eligere
possit nisi id, quod vult et dicit Deus, sive ex gratia, sive ex ira,
derelinquens eum in manu consilii eius_." (Schlb. 5, 547; Gieseler 3, 2,
230; Frank 4, 259.) This, too, was not embodied in the _Formula of
Concord_, which teaches that, although man before his conversion has no
mode of working anything good in spiritual things, God nevertheless has
a different way of working in rational creatures than in irrational and
that man is not coerced, neither in his sinning nor in his conversion.
(905, 60ff.)