The connection between the doctrines of conversion and election is most
intimate. A correct presentation of the former naturally leads to a
correct presentation of the latter, and vice versa. Hence Melanchthon,
the father of synergism in conversion, was also the author of a
synergistic predestination. In his first period he speaks of
predestination as Luther did, but, as Frank puts it, "with less of
mysticism conformably to reason, following the same line of thought as
Zwingli (_mit weniger Mystik, auf verstandesmaessige, Zwinglis
Ausfuehrungen aehnliche Weise_." [transcriber: sic on punctuation] (1,
125; _C. R._ 21, 88. 93.) In reality he probably had never fully grasped
the truly religious and evangelical view of Luther, which, indeed, would
account for his later synergistic deviations as well as for the charges
of Stoicism he preferred against Luther. After abandoning his former
doctrine, he, as a rule, was noncommittal as to his exact views on
election. But whenever he ventured an opinion, it savored of synergism.
September 30, 1531, he wrote to Brenz: "But in the entire _Apology_ I
have avoided that long and inexplicable disputation concerning
predestination. Everywhere I speak as though predestination follows our
faith and works. And this I do intentionally, for I do not wish to
perturb consciences with these inexplicable labyrinths. _Sed ego in tota
Apologia fugi illam longam et inexplicabilem disputationem de
praedestinatione. Ubique sic loquor, quasi praedestinatio sequatur
nostram fidem et opera. Ac facio hoc certo consilio; non enim volo
conscientias perturbare illis inexplicabilibus labyrinthis_." (_C. R._
2, 547.)
In the third, revised edition of his _Explanation of the Epistle to the
Romans_, 1532, he suggests "that divine compassion is truly the cause of
election, but that there is some cause also in him who accepts, namely,
in as far as he does not repudiate the grace offered. _Verecundius est,
quod aliquamdiu placuit Augustino, misericordiam Dei vere causam
electionis esse, sed tamen eatenus aliquam causam in accipiente esse,
quatenus promissionem oblatam non repudiat, quia malum ex nobis est_."
(Gieseler 3, 2, 192; Seeberg 4, 2, 442.) In an addition to his _Loci_ in
1533, Melanchthon again speaks of a cause of justification and election
residing in man, in order to harmonize the statements that the promise
of the Gospel is both gratis and universal. (_C. R._ 21, 332.) In the
_Loci_ edition of 1543 we read: "God elected because He had decreed to
call us to the knowledge of His Son, and desires His will and benefits
to be known to the human race. He therefore approves and elected those
who obey the call. _Elegit Deus, quia vocare nos ad Filii agnitionem
decrevit et vult generi humano suam voluntatem et sua beneficia
innotescere. Approbat igitur ac elegit obtemperantes vocationi_." (21,
917.)
The bold synergistic views concerning conversion later on developed by
Melanchthon plainly involve the doctrine that there must be in man a
cause of discrimination why some are elected while others are rejected.
In his _Loci_ of 1548 he had written: "Since the promise is universal,
and since there are no contradictory wills in God, some cause of
discrimination must be in us why Saul is rejected and David accepted
(_cur Saul abiiciatur David recipiatur_), that is, there must be some
dissimilar action in these two." (21, 659.) Self-evidently Melanchthon
would not have hesitated to replace the phrase "why Saul was rejected
and David accepted," with "why Saul was rejected and David elected."
Melanchthon held that the sole alternative of and hence the only escape
from, the doctrine of absolute necessity (_Stoica anagke_) and from the
absolute decree, which makes God responsible also for sin and eternal
damnation, was the synergistic assumption of man's "ability to apply
himself to grace--_facultas applicandi se ad gratiam_." Accordingly, as
he dubbed those who opposed his Calvinizing views on the Lord's Supper
as "bread-worshipers," so he stigmatized as Stoics all Lutherans who
opposed his synergistic tendencies. (_C. R._ 8, 782. 783. 916; 9, 100.
565. 733; 23, 392.) Seeberg summarizes Melanchthon's doctrine as
follows: "Grace alone saves, but it saves by imparting to man the
freedom to decide for himself. This synergistic element reappears in his
doctrine of election." (4, 2, 446.) "God elects all men who desire to
believe." (_Grundriss_, 144.)
Naturally the Synergists of Wittenberg and other places followed Master
Philip also in the doctrine of election. In 1555, John Pfeffinger
declared in his _Quaestiones Quinque_ (extensively quoted from in the
chapter on the Synergistic Controversy), thesis 17: "If the will were
idle or purely passive [in conversion], there would be no distinction
between the pious and the impious, or the elect and the damned, as
between Saul and David, between Judas and Peter. God would become a
respecter of persons and the author of contumacy in the wicked and
damned. Moreover, contradictory wills would be ascribed to God which
conflicts with the entire Scripture. Hence it follows that there is in
us some cause why some assent while others do not assent." Thesis 23:
"For we are elected and received because we believe in the Son. (_Ideo
enim electi sumus et recepti, quia credimus in Filium_.) But our
apprehension must concur. For since the promise of grace is universal,
and we must obey the promise, it follows that between the elect and the
rejected some difference must be inferred from our will, _viz._, that
those are rejected who resist the promise while contrariwise those are
accepted who embrace the promise."
The Synergists argued: If in every respect grace alone is the cause of
our salvation, conversion, and election, grace cannot be universal. Or,
since man's contempt of God's Word is the cause of his reprobation,
man's acceptance of God's grace must be regarded as a cause of his
election. Joachim Ernest of Anhalt, for instance, in a letter to
Landgrave William of Hesse, dated April 20, 1577, criticized the
_Formula of Concord_ for not allowing and admitting this argument.
(Frank 4, 135. 267.)