Chapter X: Reprobation is not Absolute, § 177
CHAPTER X: REPROBATION IS NOT ABSOLUTE
§ 177. Up to now we have shown that election is not absolute; that is, it does not depend on the absolute will and decree of God concerning the salvation of certain people. From this we conclude that reprobation, too, is not absolute; that is, it does not depend on any absolute hatred or decree of God regarding the damnation of certain people. We claim that many have been reprobated from eternity but, nevertheless, not out of an absolute hatred or decree of God, but because God foresaw that they would persist unto the end in their unbelief and impenitence. We seek the reason for reprobation in man himself and place it there, not in an absolute decree of God. Fulgentius (Ad Monim., bk. 1): “God destined those for punishment who He foreknew would depart from Him by the fault of their wicked will.” Therefore we separate ourselves from Calvin and his partisans. For they contend for an absolute decree which God made from eternity regarding the reprobation of some specific people, as we showed earlier from their own words [§§ 54–56].
§ 178. Such an absolute decree denies that God wants all people to be saved in any way; it denies that Christ died for all; it denies that the Holy Spirit wants to convert all people through the Word. However, earlier we proved that the mercy of God, the loving Father, is universal [§§ 57–100]; that the merit of the suffering Christ is universal [§§ 106–23]; that the grace of the calling Holy Spirit is universal [§§ 124–46].
The cause of reprobation is in man.
§ 179. Scripture places the cause of destruction in man. Therefore it must not be attributed to an absolute decree of reprobation. We shall confirm the antecedent from Hosea 13:9: “Your destruction is from yourself, O Israel!” Although this passage refers to temporal punishments, one can still understand this correctly as a reference to eternal destruction too. You see, if God does not inflict temporal punishments from an absolute and free hatred, much less will He inflict eternal ones, seeing as they are incomparably more severe. Luke 14:24 tells us that those who were invited are excluded because they refuse to come. We read in Acts 13:45–46 that the Jews contradicted what the apostles were preaching and reviled them, and that they made themselves unworthy of eternal life. In Rom. 11:20 the Jews were broken off the olive tree because of their unbelief. In 2 Thess. 2:10–12 we read: “Because they refused to love the truth and so be saved, therefore God sent upon them the working of error to believe lies, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth.” Hosea 4:6: “Because you have rejected knowledge, I shall reject you.”
The objection of our adversaries, which relies upon a distinction between reprobation and damnation.
§ 180. To these and similar passages, which we can produce in great numbers from Scriptures, they usually respond with a distinction between reprobation and damnation. Bucanus says (Locus de praedest., p. 402): “Although sins are not the cause of reprobation, which was from eternity—but rather the just will of God is—nevertheless sins are the cause of the damnation which will follow at the end of time.” The rest make the same distinction.
We respond. (1) For whatever reasons God determined to condemn, that is, to reprobate man from eternity, for the same reasons He condemns man in time. Yet He ascribes damnation to people in time not out of an absolute hatred but because of their ultimate unbelief and impenitence. Therefore He determined from eternity to condemn them for these same reasons; this decree is nothing else but reprobation. The basis for this argument of ours rests on the rule which we provided earlier [§ 2]: a decree and the execution of that decree must correspond perfectly to each other.
(2) Therefore we proceed in this way: If there is a reason for reprobation, namely, the absolute hatred of God, and another reason for damnation, namely, the ultimate impenitence of man, then the will of God is being made changeable. May this never be! The logical connection is clear, because reprobation is the will of God about the destruction of some people. Reprobation is absolute, according to the position of our adversaries. Therefore God from eternity wanted men to be damned out of an absolute hatred. Likewise, damnation in time is the will of God about the destruction of some people. According to the position of our adversaries, the reason for [damnation] is placed in the unbelief of people and, therefore, is not absolute. Therefore in time God wants men to be damned because of their unbelief. Do you see how they introduce a changeable will of God? From eternity He wanted some to be condemned absolutely, but in time He wants people to be condemned because of their unbelief.
(3) Beza saw this and therefore concedes: “God predestined whomever He pleased to the causes of their damnation.” Therefore we ask: “Why are people condemned?” They answer: “Because they persist in their ultimate impenitence.” “But why do they persist in their sins?” They answer: “Because God has destined them for this and has done so out of an absolute hatred.” That is the way our adversaries are forced to proceed. Now, let us follow the logic. That which is the cause of a cause is also the cause of what is caused. The absolute will of God is the cause for reprobation. Reprobation is the cause for ultimate impenitence. Ultimate impenitence is the cause for damnation. Therefore the absolute will of God must also be the cause of damnation. Thus Bucanus (Locus de praedestinat., p. 403) lists six means by which God carries out His decree of reprobation: “(a) The infinite offspring of actual sins. (b) Unbelief, alienation, and separation from1 Christ. (c) Abandonment, that is, no calling or an ineffectual calling through the preaching of the Word, or no internal response or an ineffectual internal response to the call.(d) Stubbornness or hard-heartedness and blindness in sins. (e) A permanent turning away from God: contempt for Him and progression from sin to sin. (f) And from these, in the end, their just condemnation follows.” So much wrote Bucanus.
(4) However, this distinction hardly comes from statements of Scripture, which testify that God does not desire the death of a sinner nor does He delight absolutely in the destruction of people, etc. Yet in this distinction the assertion is made that God has reprobated some people by absolute hatred and of His free good-pleasure.
(5) We consider carefully the emphasis of the words of John 3:18: “He who does not believe is condemned already, because he does not believe in the name of the only Son of God.” The unbelieving have been condemned, that is, they are judged deserving of eternal destruction, clearly in a decree of reprobation. Yet does this happen absolutely out of some free hatred? No, but because they do not believe in the name of the only Son of God. This could not be hidden from God, who is all-knowing. “This is the judgment” (that is, this is the reason for that judgment and condemnation) “that the light has come into the world” (that is, Christ, the true light, has come into the world) “to illumine every man who comes into the world. But men loved the darkness more than the light” (John 3:19; 1:9). You see, the cause for that judgment made by eternal decree is attributed to the unbelief of men.
(6) Finally, we invert this distinction. If God absolutely and simply does not want the damnation of men, surely He did not absolutely and simply want their reprobation; for the end of reprobation according to our adversaries is that God may show His justice in the condemned. But whoever does not absolutely and simply want the end also does not absolutely and simply want the things ordered to that end. God does not simply and absolutely want this end, namely, the damnation of men. Therefore neither did He simply and absolutely want the means ordered to this end, namely, reprobation.
The dogma of absolute rejection robs people of comfort.
§ 181. Let us also use this argument: The legitimate interpretation of Scripture ought to be directed so that it is concerned with the instruction and comfort of people (Rom. 15:4). Yet if an absolute decree of reprobation is introduced, comfort is taken away from people. Therefore the interpretation of Scripture that introduces any such thing is neither sound nor legitimate. We do not believe that the major premise needs confirmation. Our adversaries deny the minor, which we prove as follows.
Consider someone who doubts that he is elect. How is he to be encouraged? Zanchi responds (Misc., p. 323): “Whoever sees the effects of predestination in himself—that is, whoever sees that he has been called effectually, who feels that he has been justified and endowed with faith and zeal for good works—such a person most certainly should convince himself that he is of the number of the predestined.”
We respond. We do not totally disapprove of the idea of looking for the certainty of one’s election from the internal testimony of one’s faith, but we do claim that this is insufficient. Why? What if this vexed person actually does not feel faith? He will proceed as follows: “I do not actually feel faith, therefore I do not have it. I do not have a faith given by God, therefore He did not want to grant it. What He was unwilling to give in time, He was unwilling to give from eternity. God was unwilling absolutely to grant me faith. Therefore He reprobated me even from eternity.” Then how is such a person to be encouraged?
Zanchi responds (De nat. Dei, bk. 5, ch. 2, p. 648): “Everyone is bound to believe that he has been elected to eternal salvation in Christ. Here we make no exceptions, not even of the reprobate.”
We respond. This is nothing. No one is bound to believe what is false. Yet it is false that everyone is elect. Therefore no one is bound to believe that. Suppose you say that all are elect in Christ; then everyone, even the person who is vexed thus, is bound to believe that he is elect in Christ. This vexed person will, on the basis of the teaching of our adversaries, respond: “They have not been given to Christ the Redeemer whom God has not first elected for this by an absolute decree. Those who do not believe in time have not been given to Christ the Redeemer. I do not feel faith, and therefore I do not believe and have not been given to Christ.” Then how is such a person to be encouraged? Clearly the absolute decree so blinds his eyes that he cannot find or see any comfort. Therefore, for our part, we shall respond from the Word of God, 1 John 3:20: “If our heart condemns us, still God is greater than our heart.”
Concerning election, therefore, we say that one must consider it both with regard to its causes and with regard to its signs. The causes of election are the grace of God and the merit of Christ. This grace of God of itself is universal. No one has been excluded from it by an absolute decree. The merit of Christ is of itself universal. No one has been excluded from its benefit by an absolute decree.
The signs of election are either internal or external. The internal ones are: (1) The indwelling of the Holy Spirit, “who is the down payment of our inheritance” (Eph. 1:14) and “who bears witness to our spirit that we are the children of God” (Rom. 8:16).
(2) Faith, for “whoever believes has the testimony in himself” (1 John 5:10). (3) True invocation [of the Lord] which the Spirit of grace and of prayers stirs up. Rom. 10:13: “Whoever invokes the name of the Lord will be saved.” (4) A zeal for holiness. Eph. 1:4: “God has chosen us to be holy.” 2 Tim. 2:19: “God’s firm foundation stands, having this seal: ‘The Lord knows those who are His’ and ‘Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.’ ” The external sign of election is the cross. Rom. 8:29: “Those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son of God.”
If anyone still doubts whether the grace of God and the merit of Christ apply also to him, we point him to the universal calling and promises. Matt. 11:28: “Come to Me, all of you.” 2 Pet. 3:9: “God does not want anyone to perish.” We also point him to the Sacraments, namely, to Baptism, which is “the guaranteeing [stipulatio] of a good conscience” (1 Pet. 3:[21]). Gal. 3:27: “As many as have been baptized have put on Christ.” And [we point him] to the use of the Holy Supper, by which we are strengthened as with a seal of the promise of grace and the forgiveness of sins. After all, we receive that very body which was given into death for our sins, and we receive that very blood which was shed on the altar of the cross for our sins.
§ 182. Here now the reason becomes clear why the absolute decree of reprobation is most correctly called “the rope of despair” [funis desperationis]. You see, imagine someone who doubts whether the grace of God and the merit of Christ also belong to him; such a person cannot be directed to the internal testimony of his faith, because his doubt is very strongly opposed to his perception of faith. Likewise, our adversaries cannot send such a person to the Word and to the Sacraments because they say: “The Word is offered to people who have been reprobated by an absolute decree for this purpose: not that they be converted but that their condemnation be increased” (Beza, Resp. ad colloq., part 2, p. 96). “Neither faith nor Christ is ever given to those whom God has not elected, even though they be baptized a thousand times with the external Baptism of water” (Beza again, Colloq., p. 496). “The unworthy and reprobate do not receive the body of Christ since it was not given up into death for them. Nor do they receive the blood of Christ since it was not shed for them,” as Calvin writes (Contra Heshusium). Therefore what else is there with which that wretch who is being vexed can sustain and encourage himself, if he says that he does not feel faith and that thus the grace of God and the merit of Christ do not pertain to him, and that as a result he is in the number of the reprobate? As for us, from the Word of God we respond that God wants him to believe and to this end has offered him His grace and the merit of Christ in the Word, and has confirmed this with the seal of the Sacraments. However, our adversaries will not be able to comfort him, because they claim that unbelief depends on that absolute decree and that some do not believe because they have been reprobated absolutely. On the other hand, we argue that some are reprobate because they refuse to believe; therefore God earnestly desires even this vexed person to believe, lest by his own fault he place himself in the number of the reprobate. Here one should note carefully what Piscator bids one to conclude (near the end of his disputation De praedest.): “The grace of God is offered to some with the intent to impart it. Therefore it is possible that I am in that number.” However, such a syllogism draws no conclusion because it is drawn from mere particulars.2 Piscator again (thesis 85): “No consolation can be instilled in the hearts of the reprobate because they cannot believe the Gospel.”
Trial concerning perseverance.
§ 183. Imagine some other person who is contending with a trial about his perseverance, namely, whether or not he will persevere until the end. Our adversaries again will direct him to perceive his faith, [saying,] “He who has once been illumined with true faith cannot fall from the grace of God.” But what if someone doubts whether that faith which he feels within himself is the true faith of the elect? For they claim that those who are absolutely reprobated are not given true faith, and therefore one is always forced to doubt whether he is in the number of those elected absolutely. Here one cannot have recourse to the effects of faith, as if by them someone could claim with certainty that he has that faith of the elect, because they claim that, according to the opinion of the reprobate themselves and of others, all those effects sometimes take place among the reprobate.
Let us clarify the matter with an example. According to the statement of Calvin in his commentary, the lepers healed by Christ (Luke 17:14) did not have the true and living faith proper to the elect. But what can you show me about your faith that I cannot demonstrate in theirs? Let me explain in the words of Calvin: “It is apparent that they all were endowed with some faith” (namely, temporal but not true, as he explains later), “not only because they implore the aid of Christ but also because they identify Him with the title ‘Master.’ One concludes from their prompt obedience that they truly spoke from the heart and not in pretense, for though they still saw the stinking lesion on their flesh, nevertheless they showed no reluctance to obey as soon as they had been ordered to show themselves to the priests. In addition, they never would have gone to the priests except at the impulse of faith,” etc. Those are Calvin’s words. You can see quite conspicuous signs of their faith. They flee to Christ, they implore His help, they are sure that He wishes and is able to help, and they obey His command readily. Yet, according to Calvin, nine of them did not have the true faith which is proper to the elect. But what can you show me about your faith that surpasses the faith of the nine lepers, and how can you be sure of your election and perseverance based solely on the perception of your faith?
§ 184. On the other hand, we direct this person undergoing trial to the promises of God and bid him to rely on these three supports in the midst of his trial over perseverance: (1) The omnipotence of God. 2 Tim. 1:12: “I know whom I have believed, and I am sure that He is able to guard until that day what has been entrusted to me.” (2) The faithfulness of God. 1 Cor. 10:13: “God is faithful, and He will not permit you to be tempted beyond your strength.” (3) The goodwill of God. Phil. 2:13: “God is at work in you both to will and to work according to His goodwill.” The very beautiful passage of Bernard belongs here (Sermon 3 de fragm. 7. mis.): “I consider three things on which my entire hope stands: the charity of adoption, the truth of promise, the power of redemption. Let my thoughts murmur as they will, saying: ‘Who are you? How great is that glory? With what merits do you hope to obtain it?’ And I shall confidently answer: ‘I know whom I have believed, and I am sure that He has adopted me out of His great love, that He is trustworthy in His promise, that He is powerful in accomplishing it.’ ” Those are Bernard’s words.
Therefore this is what we are saying: He who is undergoing trial about his perseverance cannot be encouraged with any firm consolation by those who defend the absolute decree of reprobation. You see, if they say that those who have been imbued with a true faith cannot perish or be plucked from the hands of God, the person in trial will respond: “How do I know that this true faith of the elect has been given to me?” Whatever signs of faith you show him, he will show that those are also found in those who perished in the end, and, consequently, according to our adversaries’ position, they did not have the true faith which is proper to the elect. Therefore this person in trial will proceed: “They had all those signs and effects of faith which I notice in myself, and yet they perished later, obviously rejected by an absolute decree of God. Therefore I cannot be sure from the perception of my faith that I belong to the number of those elected absolutely3 or of those who will persevere.” What must be said now? For our part we say that God is not moved of Himself and by an absolute decree to desert in turn some who have been endowed with true faith and to permit them to perish, for “His gifts are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29). However, those who have been endowed with true faith and later in turn fall out of the grace of God perish by their own fault, but not by the necessity of any absolute decree. It is because they, of their own free will, turn away from God. In short, we place the cause for turning away and final perishing in man’s own will. Our adversaries trace it back to an absolute decree of God, and, as a result, they cannot firmly encourage someone who is undergoing trial over his perseverance.
Summary of arguments against an absolute decree.
§ 185. Therefore we conclude that in opposition to their absolute decree of reprobation we should place: the mercy of God, who does not want any to perish; the satisfaction of Christ, gained for the entire human race; the tears of Christ, by which He displays that He does not delight in men’s deaths; the oath of God, by which He confirms that He does not desire the death of him who dies; the ministry of the Word, wherein God offers His grace and the benefits of Christ even to those4 who are condemned; the creation of man, because in Adam God created all human beings for eternal life; the redemption of man, for what was lost in Adam is restored in Christ; the calling of God, by which He extends His arms all day, even unto an unbelieving people; Baptism, by which He regenerates and renews even those who later fall from the grace of regeneration and rebirth by their own fault and thus perish; the Holy Supper, where even to the unworthy Christ offers His body to eat, given into death for their sins, and His blood, shed for their sins; and last, all temporal punishments, whereby God desires to call sinners back to repentance; and, in a word, all of Christianity.
Arguments for absolute reprobation: First, [that] sins are not the cause of reprobation, because everyone sins.
§ 186. Let us consider a few arguments with which they try to establish absolute reprobation. (I) Bucanus writes (Locus de praedest., p. 401): “If sins were the cause of reprobation, no one would be elect, because God foresaw that all men are sinners.”
We respond. (1) We say that sins are not the cause of reprobation simply and absolutely but with regard to ultimate impenitence and unbelief. Therefore the state of the question is inverted. (2) In the same way one could draw this inference: “If God were to condemn because of sins, He would condemn everyone, because everyone has sins.” Nevertheless our adversaries do concede that sins are the cause of condemnation. (3) Therefore we repeat the words of Luther (De libert. Christ. and De captiv. Babylon.): “Sins are not the immediate cause of condemnation according as they are sins, but according as they abide under unbelief.”5 We also consider the emphasis of the words of John 3:36: “The wrath of God rests upon him who does not believe in the Son.” After the fall, all are born as “the children of wrath by nature” (Eph. 2:3). Only believers find the grace of God in Christ, but the wrath of God remains upon the rest (John 3:36), and it finally carries them down to hell. We draw our conclusion in this way: Whatever is the reason why God has wrath toward men in time, that is the same reason why He determined to have wrath toward them from eternity. But now, the wrath of God remains upon the damned not absolutely but because of their ultimate impenitence and unbelief. Therefore He did not determine to have wrath toward them—that is, to reprobate them—from eternity absolutely, but because of their ultimate impenitence and unbelief. We also consider the words of Christ, John 16:[8–]9: “The Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin because they do not believe in Me.” From this, blessed Augustine and blessed Luther conclude: “Unbelief is the capital sin. So long as it remains, the rest of our sins remain; but when it is removed, all the rest of our sins and damnation itself are removed.”6
Second, Matthew 11[:25]: “I thank You, Father, that You have hidden these things from the wise.”
§ 187. (II) Their second argument is this: “In Matt. 11:25–26, Christ says: ‘I thank You, Father,’ that is, with a public declaration I give You thanks, ‘that You have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes. Yes, Father, for such was Your good-pleasure (εὐδοκίᾳ) before You.’ Therefore the cause of reprobation is the sheer good-pleasure of God.”
We respond. (1) In the preceding verses (Matt. 11:20–23), Christ had complained that for the most part His Gospel had been despised, especially by those who were well-known for their wisdom, worth, and power, and that, on the other hand, few embraced it, and they were especially those of the dregs, so to speak, of the common crowd: the dim-witted, the poor, the simple, the nobodies, despised people, as well as publicans and those formerly infamous because of their notorious disgraces. Because of this, He finally burst forth into that thanksgiving to show that this was not happening because of the weakness and powerlessness of the Gospel but by the goodwill of God.
(2) We conclude from this that this passage is speaking about the consequent or judiciary will of God. The Father through the Son set forth the mysteries of the Gospel even to the Pharisees and to the rest. However, because “they loved the darkness more than light” (John 3:19), because they “rejected the purpose of God for themselves” (Luke 7:30), and because they despised the foolishness of the preaching of the Gospel to keep their reputation as wise (1 Cor. 1:21), therefore God avenged their contempt in His judgment and concealed His mysteries from them.
(3) The natural force of the words confirms this explanation. “Babe” here is opposed to the “wise and understanding.” Therefore it denotes not so much age as a childlike and simple spirit. Varinus says, “Babes are not born with deep understanding.” The Septuagint translators used this word [νήπιοι] when they wanted to translate the Hebrew pethi, which means a simple and credulous person who can be persuaded easily. So here Christ is calling “babes” those who “take captive every thought under the obedience of faith” (2 Cor. 10:5) or those who “become fools in order to be wise” (1 Cor. 3:18). This is the same as when He elsewhere commands us to turn and “become like little children” (Matt. 18:3), not with foolish credulity and crass ignorance (1 Cor. 14:20) or childish fickleness (Eph. 4:14), but with godly simplicity, a ready disposition to believe the words of God (even if they appear foolish to our reason), with integrity of life, and with holy humility, etc. On the other hand, the “wise and understanding” signify the wise people of this world who seek wisdom (1 Cor. 1:21) and who “are wise according to the flesh” (v. 26). That is, inflated as they are in their opinion of human wisdom, they securely despise the wisdom of God revealed in the Word. They are unwilling to become fools in order to be wise (1 Cor. 3:18). Lyra writes: “It is the just and good will of God that those who trust in human wisdom are deprived of the revelation of the mysteries of God.” This is why God has elected not many people who are wise according to the flesh nor many powerful nor many of noble birth, for by this He confounds and makes foolish the wisdom of this world “so that no flesh may boast in His sight” (1 Cor. 1:29). Indeed, His judgment is utterly plain: no one is worthy of or suitable for the treasures of heaven, which God offers through the Gospel, but out of His free goodness God illumines people by preaching and by the Holy Spirit7 without respect for their merits and worthiness.
(4) Accordingly, even though God does not want the wise and understanding to be illumined by the knowledge of the Gospel according to His consequent good-pleasure [ex consequente beneplacito], which considers their contempt for the Gospel, one should still not infer that He has excluded them absolutely with an absolute will. Chrysostom (commentary [on Matthew]) notes, first: “When Christ looks at Jerusalem, which was unwilling to acknowledge the time of His visitation, He does not rejoice and exult, but with earnest tears shows that He does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked.” Then he compares the expression of this passage with Paul’s words in Rom. 6:17: “Thanks be to God that you who were once slaves to sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed.” [Then Chrysostom says]: “Therefore just as Paul in this passage is not thanking God because the Romans once were slaves to terrible sins but because God brought them to obedience through conversion, so also Christ’s thanksgiving is not directed at the blindness of the wise but to the illumination of the little ones. This was so that the heavenly Father’s goodness would be preached: that when the wise and understanding of this generation arrogantly rejected the Gospel, He revealed it to little children, the downcast, and the despised.” However, we claim that the first explanation is more in harmony with the text.
Third, [that] the cause of election is not in man; therefore neither is the cause of reprobation.
§ 188. (III) Their third argument is: “If the cause of reprobation is in man, surely the cause of election is in him too. The latter is false; therefore the former is also false.”
We respond. (1) The nature of the things being compared here is different. Unbelief and final impenitence, because of which God reprobates and condemns people, are the meritorious, proper, and adequate causes8 for His reprobation and condemnation. They arise from the defect of our nature and the impulse of the devil. Here the Father works nothing, the Son works nothing, and the Holy Spirit works nothing. However, the salutary conversion to God and faith—through which we are made partakers of the merit of Christ to eternal life and with consideration of which election is carried out—this faith is not the meritorious cause either of election or of eternal salvation, nor does it arise from the powers of the free will. Instead, it is the work of God.
(2) Hence Scripture ascribes men’s election to life completely to God. This supreme work of divine grace depends on no other beginning [principium] than God and His eternal decree which is founded in Christ and ordered according to a definite order of means. However, the same Scripture places the cause of reprobation in men themselves.
(3) Although, according to the ordinary means of acting, God does not convert those who do not hear His Word, who despise and persecute the ministers of His Word, who blaspheme the Word and resist the Holy Spirit, nevertheless it does not follow that the power to be converted rests in man. In fact, a man’s conversion through the hearing of the Word is the work of the Holy Spirit and not of human powers. That which removes the prohibiting factor is not immediately the efficient9 cause.
Fourth, the Jews were broken off the olive branch that the Gentiles might be grafted in, Romans 11[:19–20].
§ 189. (IV) Their fourth argument is this: “In Rom. 11:19–20, it seems that the apostle approves by concession the objection: ‘Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in,’ for he adds: ‘That is true.’ Therefore it was necessary that branches be broken off—that is, that the Jews be reprobated by an absolute decree of God—so that the Gentiles might be grafted in, that is, called to the kingdom of Christ and the fellowship of salvation.”
We respond. There is more in the consequent than can be gathered from the antecedent, since: (1) The entire context of this chapter conflicts with absolute reprobation, for the apostle writes, [Rom. 11:]20: “They were broken off by their unbelief,” that is, through and as a result of their unbelief. Verses 22–23: “Note, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity to those who have fallen, but kindness to you, provided you continue in His kindness. Otherwise you, too, will be cut off. But even they, if they do not persist in their unbelief, will be grafted in.”
(2) The apostle does not maintain that the rejection of the Jews is the cause for the engrafting and admittance of the Gentiles, for he writes clearly, [Rom. 11:]11: “Did they” (the Jews) “stumble in order that they might fall? By no means. Rather through their failure, salvation” (has come) “to the Gentiles, so as to make the former jealous.” That is, the fall of the Jews occasioned the calling of the Gentiles. But lest anyone think that the Gentiles would not have been admitted to the fellowship of the Gospel if the Jews had persevered in faith, the apostle constructs an argument from lesser to greater,10 v. 12: “But if their” (the Jews’) “trespass” (falling away) “is the riches of the world, and if their lessening is the riches of the Gentiles, how much more will their fullness be!” That is, if the fall of the Jews was salutary for the Gentiles, all the more would the restitution of the Jews be salutary for the Gentiles, namely, when the offense has been removed which arose from the apostasy of the Jews and their hatred of the Gospel.
(3) Therefore the fall and rejection of the Jews was not the cause but only the occasion for the calling of the Gentiles, which had been foretold in the prophets. This can be made clear by using the parables of Christ and the statements of the apostles. Matt. 21:41 and 43: “The lord of the vineyard will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out his vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons. The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and will be given to a people producing its fruits.” In Matt. 22:9, when the invited guests refuse to come to the marriage feast, the king sends his servants into the streets to invite whomever they find. In Luke 14:21 the master of the house, angry because of the contempt for his invitation to the banquet, orders his servant to go out into the streets and lanes of the city and to bring in the poor and the maimed, the blind and the lame. Acts 13:46–47: “Paul and Barnabas spoke to the Jews very boldly: ‘It was necessary that the Word of God should be spoken first to you, but because you thrust it from yourselves and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles, for so the Lord has commanded us.’ ” From all these, it is clear that the word ἵνα [“in order that,” Rom. 11:19] denotes not the cause but the occasion.
1 Read a with Cotta instead of in.
2 An argument from particulars tries to prove a universal principle on the basis of a particular example, which is impossible for a deductive argument. In this case, the argument would prove the possibility of being included in the number of the elect but not the certainty of it.
3 Read absolute with Cotta instead of absoluto.
4 Read illis with Cotta instead of illi.
5 Cf. Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), AE 36:60–61 (WA 6:529).
6 Cf. Luther, Sermons on John 14–16 (1533–34/1538–39), AE 24:343 (WA 46:41); Disputation concerning Justification (1536), AE 34:154 (WA 39/1:84).
7 Read Spiritu sancto with Cotta instead of Spiritus s.
8 An adequate cause is the total cause of something which perfectly constitutes the essence of an effect (Micraelius, Lexicon philosophicum, s.v. “Causa”). An effect proceeds from the whole adequate cause and from it alone (Scherzer, “Definitiones,” s.v. “Causa”).
9 Read efficiens with Cotta instead of afficiens.
10 argumentum a comparatis minoribus. Literally, “argument from comparison with things lesser.”