Chapter XII: The Opinion of Origen, of the Predestinated, and of Huber on this Article, § 200
CHAPTER XII: CONCERNING THE OPINION OF ORIGEN, OF THE PREDESTINATED, AND OF HUBER ON THIS ARTICLE
Origen’s position on predestination.
§ 200. Up to this point we have been discussing the position of the Pelagians, who search for the cause of election in the foreseen merits of people. The Jesuits are forced to think the same or very nearly the same as they do, if they want to preserve their thesis about the merits of works and not to take the word “election” to mean the bare intent to give glory but the actual arrangement of its execution, as Scripture uses this word.
The writings of the fathers mention two other erroneous opinions beside the Pelagian corruption of this article, namely, first, that of Origen, who claimed that all the souls of all people were created in the beginning at the same time in heaven; there some sinned and some did not sin. Because of the diversity of their past good or evil merits, those souls were given different bodies and different stations in this world. Therefore God foresaw the merits of each soul which preexisted in heaven before He united it with its body. Thus He predestined some to life and some to death according to the merits of each soul before its union with the body. Augustine mentions this error (in vol. 10, Sermon 7 de verbis apostoli):
Many sought to give an account about that profound mystery and went off into tales of vanity. Some said that souls sinned in heaven above and were directed to bodies in proportion to their merits, according to their sins, and are closed up, so to speak, in prisons worthy of themselves. They went after their own thoughts, and wanting to speak about the depths of God, they were submerged in the depths. Indeed, the apostle meets them wanting to commend grace. He takes up [the example of] those twins in the womb of Rebekah and says, “When they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or evil” [Rom. 9:11]. See how he removed from those liars the fantasies of the behavior of souls in heaven before the body? After all, if they already lived there, they had already done some good or evil and were thrust into earthly bodies according to their merits, etc.
The opinions of the Predestinated, as recorded in Sigebertus.
Next, Sigebertus (Chronic., year 415) mentions some heretics whom he calls “the Predestinated” [praedestinati] because of their teaching. He says: “The heresy of the Predestinated began to creep in at this time. They are called ‘the Predestinated’ because they used to argue and declare regarding predestination and divine grace that the effort of good works does not benefit those who lived pious lives if God reprobated them to death, nor was it detrimental to the ungodly that they lived godless lives if God predestined them to life. This assertion called good people away from good and provoked evil people to evil. This heresy is said to have stemmed from misunderstanding the books of Augustine.” Thus wrote Sigebertus.
Those who wish to be complete strangers to this heresy of the Predestinated should not teach that some people have been immutably destined to eternal destruction by an absolute decree of God, nor should they teach that some people have been elected absolutely in such a way that they cannot fall out of the grace of God even temporarily through sins against conscience.
The dogma of Huber on predestination.
§ 201. In our time, the Swiss Samuel Huber in 1592 began to teach and argue in favor of the universal election of all people. You see, though even before him some theologians who subscribed to the Augsburg Confession may have used the phrase “there is a universal election of all people,” nevertheless they correctly explained their meaning. They took the word “election” nonliterally to mean the beneficent will of God toward all people. This controversy was explained clearly and was laid to rest in the Book of Concord [FC XI]. But Huber himself began to contend that everyone should be called elect in the proper sense. And yet (1) Scripture nowhere says that all are elect. (2) Rather, it declares the contrary, Matt. 20:16 and 22:14: “Few are elect.” (3) The very word “elect” indicates a separation, as we explained in its own place [§ 26]. (4) Scripture clearly distinguishes election from the universal mercy of God, the universal merit of Christ, and the universal calling and asserts that it was done according to a foreknowledge of faith in Christ. (5) Only those who have been written in the book of life, who are called, justified, and finally glorified, are called “the elect” in Scripture. More arguments can be formed from what has been said previously. This has been done abundantly by the theologians on our side. They have also responded to Huber’s objections.
The first argument: [that] the causes of election are universal.
§ 202. A certain fellow, Novitius, a defender of Huber, relies especially on these two principles:
(I) A thing whose causes are all universal is also universal (for from where would come the determination of its effect?). Now, all the causes of election are universal, namely, the love of God and the merit of Christ. Therefore election itself must be universal. If anyone should wish to object against the major premise and say that faith is also a cause of election and it is not universal, three reasons oppose him: (1) Faith is not a cause of election because it is later than election not only in time but also in order. In the actual decree of election, with regard to the foreknowledge of God, faith is posterior to the love and merit of Christ since in no respect is faith the cause of either the love or the merit of Christ. But what is posterior cannot determine what is prior. (2) If faith is called a cause of election, it will be so either with regard to existence or with regard to foresight. One cannot say the former, because election occurs from eternity, while faith actually exists in time. If the latter is true, faith will also be universal, because God wanted each and every person to believe. (3) Even if it is conceded that faith is a cause of election, it will still only be an instrumental cause. Yet every instrumental cause follows its own principal cause; that is, every instrumental cause follows the nature of its principal efficient cause. An instrumental cause, being the weaker one, will not be able to determine the principal cause, the stronger one. But now, the love and merit of Christ are principal and, in fact, universal causes, but faith is only an instrumental cause. Therefore faith will be unable to determine its universal principal causes. Therefore election will remain universal, since it is not determined for particularity by any cause.
The second argument: [that] all people were created in Adam for eternal life.
§ 203. His second argument is taken from a comparison of creation and election:
[II] As many as God created after His own image—and thus for eternal life—so many did He also elect to life. And yet God created all people after His image and therefore for eternal life. Therefore He elected all to life. The major premise is proven thus: whatever we had and lost in the first Adam was recovered in the second Adam. Now, if all people were created for life in the first Adam, it follows that all people were also elected to life, seeing that the plan of election is nothing other than the plan to restore that which we had and lost in Adam, and thus in our state of integrity. Therefore the distinction between the state of integrity and the state of corruption falls.
How can the nonliteral meaning of the universality of election be explained?
§ 204. We respond. The word “election” can be understood nonliterally: (1) As the beneficent will of God toward all people, which some call the bare intent to give eternal glory. “God has elected all people”; that is, from eternity He wanted all to be saved. For as today “God wants all to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4), so also did He want that from eternity because of the immutability of His will. (2) As the negation of an absolute decree of reprobation. “God has elected all people”; that is, He has excluded no one from salvation with any absolute decree or hatred. (3) As God’s intent to create all people to eternal life in the first Adam and to restore all to life in the second Adam. “God has elected all people”; that is, He decided from eternity to create all people for life in Adam and to restore them to eternal life in Christ. (4) As the offering of the means of salvation. “God has elected all people”; that is, He decided from eternity to offer all people the benefits of His Son through the Word.
In these and in perhaps more ways we can explain and give a good meaning to the proposition of universal election. However, Scripture does not use this term in any of the aforementioned senses, but says “we have been chosen in Christ” (Eph. 1:4), “according to foreknowledge” (1 Pet. 1:2) “and in faith” (2 Thess. 2:13).
Whether the causes of election are universal and in what way.
§ 205. Now that we have carefully observed these points, we can respond easily to the proofs he proposes. First: “The causes of election are universal; therefore election is also universal.” We respond. I reject the antecedent taken simply and without qualification.
“But,” you say, “the love of God is the cause of election, and the merit of Christ is the cause of election, and both of these are universal.” We respond. They are of themselves universals, but because of people’s unbelief they become particulars. Therefore a precise distinction must be made here. There is a general love which moved God from eternity to initiate a plan to create people for life in Adam and to restore them to life in Christ. John 3:16: “God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son,” etc. There is also a particular love by which God embraces those who believe in Christ. The proper and adequate cause of election (if we wish to use that terminology in accordance with the language of Scripture) is not that general love but the particular one.
This I prove in the following way: The proper and adequate cause is the one by which, when posited, the effect is posited. Yet when the universal love of God is posited, election is not yet posited. Therefore the universal love of God is not the proper and adequate cause of election. The minor premise needs confirmation. Let this confirmation be as follows. None of the elect perishes. Matt. 24:24: “So as to lead astray if possible even the elect.” Rom. 8:30: “Whom He predestined, He also glorified.” Rom. 11:7: “Election obtained its end.” Yet many of those perish whom God embraced with His general love, namely, the impenitent and unbelieving, who nevertheless were clearly created for eternal life in Adam and were restored to life in Christ. Therefore some of those whom God embraces with His general love are not elect. As a consequence, that general love of God is not the proper and adequate cause of election.
You press the point: “The love of God is the one and only cause for which people are saved.” We respond. The purpose of God to save people, that is, to offer them the means of salvation (to which are related creation, redemption, and calling), is universal and has no other cause but that general love of God. However, this purpose is not yet election itself. Rather, election was carried out “according to this purpose” (Eph. 1:5; 2 Tim. 1:9), and it concerns not only the means offered but also the persons of those who use these means and in whose hearts God is efficacious through these means. Consequently, only those are elect who by the efficacy of the Holy Spirit working through the Word believe; the rest are rejected. More clearly: election is not the bare intent to give eternal glory but is the decree to give eternal life to these and not to others. But now, the reason God in time actually saves these and not others is the same reason He determined from eternity to save these and not others, that is, elected these and not others. His general love is not the reason God in time actually saves these and not others (for with it God embraces both those who are saved and those who are not saved). Therefore His general love is not the reason that God decided from eternity to save—that is, elected—these and not others.
We must pass the same judgment about the merit of Christ, which in this article must not be considered only with respect to its acquisition but also with respect to its application. The merit of Christ is universal in respect to its acquisition, which is to say that Christ has acquired righteousness and eternal life for all. However, it is not universal with respect to its application, which is to say that not everyone applies the merit of Christ to himself by true faith. Now, we must prove that the merit of Christ is the cause for election not only with respect to its acquisition but also with respect to its application. This I show in the following way: The causes of election and salvation are the same (as the immutability of the divine will proves). The merit of Christ is the cause of salvation not with respect to its acquisition alone but also as it is applied to us through faith. Therefore even the merit of Christ is not the cause of our election with respect to its acquisition alone, but as it is applied to us. Moreover, the merit of Christ concurs in election not with regard to existence, as it appears, but with regard to foresight. In this sense Scripture testifies that we have been chosen “according to foreknowledge” (1 Pet. 1:20) and that those are the elect whom “God foreknew” (Rom. 8:30), namely, “in Christ” (Eph. 1:4). From these points it is clear how one should respond to their first proof so that there is no need to delve into questions about whether and how faith is a cause of election, or how an instrumental cause can determine a universal principle, etc.
Whether election is the very decree of renewal.
§ 206. His second argument rests upon this hypothesis: “Election is nothing other than the decree of renewal.” Yet this must be taken with due distinction. The renewal of the human race is taken in two ways: first, as the redemption offered through Christ, which is universal. Accordingly, whatever we had and lost in the first Adam has been restored in the second Adam. Second, it is taken for the actual salvation and glorification of some of the fallen human race. In this sense, not all who perish in Adam are restored through Christ; that is, they do not actually become partakers of eternal salvation.
The reason for this particularity depends upon neither an absolute decree of reprobation of God nor on any insufficiency of the merit of Christ, but solely on the fault of people, that is, on their voluntary impenitence and unbelief. This in no way is a departure from the apostle’s declaration that “grace abounded over sin” [Rom. 5:20] and that “just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many were made righteous” (Rom. 5:19). Surely all the statements of Scripture which discuss and speak about election testify that the word “election” is not meant as the restoration of the human race only with respect to redemption but also with respect to the actual glorification and salvation of only some of the lost human race.