# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_August 1914_S371
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Kirchlich⸗Zeitgeschichtliches. 371

early book on the Bondage of the Will, where it formed for him, as it
does for Missouri, the premise for the preédestinarian eonelusion. The
conclusion is s0 ineéxorable that Missouri insists on tinding it in the
Eleventh Article, though other Lutherans do not disener it, there, but
recognize an antagonism between the two artielées. Tuese articles con-
tain. as Dr. Schaff says. not simply opposite trutbs to be reconeiled by
rheologieal science, but contradictory assertions, KFhiel ouglit never to be
put into a creed. The Formula adopts one part of Luther's boobk, De Servo
Avhitrio (1525 and reiects the other. which follows with logieal neces-
sity. It is Augustinian — vea. hyper-Augustinian and hyper-Calvinistie
in the docrrine of human depravitx. and anti-Augustinian in the doctrine
of divine predestinationu. It endorses the anthropological premise and
denies the theological ehnelusion. Ifea man is be nature like a stone and
block, and unable even to accept the grace of God (as Art. II teaches),
he can only be cçonverted be an net of almighty power and vrresist˙ihle
grace (Fhich Art. XI denies. IHf some men are saved without any co-
operation on their part, While otllers, with the same inability and the
same opportunities, are Iost. tle ditlerence points to 4 partieular pre-
destination and theé inscrutable eerce of (Sod. On the other hand, if God
sincerely wills the salvation f all men (as Art. XI teaches), and vet
only a part are actually saved, there must be some difference in the
attitude of the sathed and lost toward converting grace (vhich is denied
in Art. II).... In the controversv on Eleet ion and Conversion, Missouri
develops from Art. II. and cçconsistently reaches and maintains the fore-
gone predestinarian çonelusion. Ihe weéakneéss 0f Ohio's position is that
it adopts the sameée premise, but balks at the cçonelusion. and consequently
is hopelessly involved in logical tangle, and snarls.“ Allerdings findet
der Obserrér auch in den „Zeugnissen“ Andeutungen, daß Ohio bereit sei,
tο deévelop in the direction of frankly recognizing an activity of the
human will in conversion“. Zu den angeführten Stellen macht der 65-
serrer die Anmerkung: If these statements have any intelligible menn⸗
ing, it is that the human will, under the operat ion of prevenient grace,
is active in either aecepting or reject ing salontion, and if allowed to baveé
their full doctrinal significance, Would deliver Obhio from the dilemma
in which it finds itself in the controversy with Missouri. They would
require it to modify its view on the absolute passivity of the will in
conversion, but they would enable it logically to combat Missouri's pre-
destination, and at the same time ansser the question Whe some are
saved and others lost.“ In dem Bekenninis D. Stellhorns zu der Keyser⸗
schen Schrift, die ja genau den Standpunkt vertritt, den der Ooserver hier
fordert, wäre demnach ein weiterer Fortschritt der Ohiosynode in der Rich⸗
tung auf die Beseitigung des Dilemmas hin zu erkennen. Doch ist uns
diese Aussprache des Oßsenrer noch in anderer Hinsicht als Einlage in die
Diskussion über die Gnadenwahl und Bekehrung wertvoll. Erstens tritt
hier klar zutage, wie die Richtung in der Generalsynode, die durch den
Observer vertreten wird, zur Konkordienformel steht. Es wird hier so⸗
wohl die Lehre von der Wahl wie auch die Lehre von der Bekehrung. wie
wir sie in der Konkordienformel finden, verworfen. Sodann wird der
Missourisynode das Zeugnis erteilt, daß sie in beiden Punkten die Lehr⸗
stellung der Konkordienformel vertritt, sich auch, genau wie die Konkordien⸗