i. THE SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST

If we would separately classify those sins for which pardon may be obtained (peccata remissibilia) through repentance and distinguish them from those which are unpardonable (peccata irremissibilia) because there is no longer room for repentance, the latter class would comprise only one sin, the sin against the Holy Ghost.

The Scripture passages treating of this sin (sedes doctrinae) are Matt. 12:22-32 and its parallels, Mark 3:22-30 and Luke 12:10. Also 1 John 5:16 is correctly referred to the sin against the Holy Ghost. In these passages the sin against the Holy Ghost is set apart from all other sins; it is declared to be the one sin which is never remitted. Matt. 12:31: “All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.” And Scripture further stresses the unusual character of this sin by distinguishing it from the sin against the Son of God. Matt. 12:32: “Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” Mark 3:28-29 has the same statement: “All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme [as many, , blasphemies as they may utter]; but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.” Likewise Luke 12:10.

In 1 John 5:16 (“If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and He shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death; I do not say that he shall pray for it.”) the “sin not unto death” and the “sin unto death” are distinguished. The distinction is that we should, of course, intercede for one who sins “not unto death,” but in the case of the sin “unto death” there is to be no intercession: “I do not say that he shall pray for it.” It is clear that the sin unto death cannot be simple unbelief, for it is our duty to pray for the unbelievers (1 Tim. 2:1, 4; the First and Second Petition; the example given us by Christ and Stephen). Nor does the Apostle refer to those who on account of their manifest apostasy are excluded (excommunicated) from the Christian congregation. For such men intercession is to be made, since the purpose of excommunication, the last sharp remedy, is to bring them to faith and save them (1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 2:6-11). But since in the case of the “sin unto death” intercession is excluded, this term can be only another appellation for the sin against the Holy Ghost.63

What is the nature (forma) of the sin against the Holy Ghost as distinguished from all other sins? a) It does not consist in final impenitence (impoenitentia finalis). The vast majority of men die in unbelief, and Scripture does not charge them with the unpardonable sin. b) Nor does every kind of resistance against the Holy Ghost constitute this sin. For then all men who hear and read the Gospel would be guilty of it, since all men by nature regard the Gospel as foolishness and therefore resist until the Holy Ghost through the Word changes their resisting will into a consenting will, c) Nor does the sin against the Holy Ghost consist in the blasphemy against the truth resulting from spiritual blindness. Paul confesses that he had been “a blasphemer and a presecutor and injurious,” ignorantly, in unbelief, but that nevertheless he “obtained mercy” (1 Tim. 1:13). Nor does he who denies the truth from fear or other strong emotions commit the unpardonable sin. Peter did that, and he was again converted (Luke 22:61-62).

But the case of the Pharisees whose conduct induced Jesus to warn against the sin was entirely different. These Pharisees were powerfully impressed by the miracle performed by Jesus. It had the same effect upon them as it had upon the common people, of whom it is said: “All the people were amazed [] and said, Is not this the Son of David?” (Matt. 12:23.) And yet these Pharisees, though they had the inner conviction that this was a divine miracle, blasphemed with the worst possible blasphemy: They declared it to be a satanic work. They blasphemed: “This fellow doth not cast out devils but by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils” (Matt. 12:24). Hereupon Christ warned against the one great sin which, unlike other sins, is not forgiven. Accordingly we must give this definition: The sin against the Holy Ghost is committed when, after the Holy Ghost has convinced a person in his heart of the divine truth, that person nevertheless not only rejects the truth he is convinced of, but also blasphemes it. Hollaz thus describes this sin: “The sin against the Holy Ghost is the malicious denial of the divine truth which a person has clearly understood and approved in his conscience, a hostile assault on it, horrible blaspheming, and an obstinate rejection of all the means of grace, which lasts to the end.” (Examen, “De Pece. Act.,” qu. 38.)64 The sin against the Holy Ghost is committed not against the person, but against the office of the Holy Ghost; it is the willful and determined suppression of the inner conviction wrought by the Holy Ghost. It is therefore specifically distinguished from the sin committed against the Person of the Son of God (“whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him,” Matt. 12:32).65

Several questions related to this matter need to be investigated.

1. Does the sin against the Holy Ghost still occur today? Some Arminians have held that it was confined to the days of the Apostles.66 We must answer the question affirmatively. The passages Matthew 12, etc., are too general in their scope. Nothing in them indicates that the sin occurred only in the days of Christ and the Apostles. They are without doubt words of warning addressed to the Christians of all times.

2. Can it be established in concreto whether a person has committed the sin against the Holy Ghost? The correct answer to this question is of great practical importance to the individual Christian and for pastoral practice. It has been correctly stated concerning this sin that those who have not committed it often torture themselves with the despairing fear of being guilty of it, while those who have actually committed it are not concerned about it, this being the natural result of the state of extreme obduration, which is a concomitant of this sin. Now, one who is worried about his sins and fears that they are an indication of his having committed the unpardonable sin, while at the same time his heart is filled with the longing not to be excluded from the remission which Christ has purchased with His blood — in him the Holy Ghost is carrying on His mighty work, as is clearly attested by this worry and this desire. He is a believer. The Formula of Concord is entirely right in saying that all “who feel and experience in their hearts a small spark of longing for divine grace and eternal salvation” can and should “know that God has kindled in their hearts this beginning of true godliness, and that He will further strengthen and help them in their great weakness to persevere in true faith unto the end” (Trigl. 885, 14). For this claim the Formula of Concord brings irrefutable Scripture proof; it shows that a desire for God’s grace in Christ is not found in the natural heart of man, but is in every case God‘s operation in “godly Christians.” Most Lutheran dogmaticians therefore held that the Italian jurist Francesco Spiera (d. 1548) had not committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, but that he had died in despair because he thought he had committed it. Thus Quenstedt, I, 1064: “Spiera must by no means be regarded as having committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, because 1) he fell away to the Papacy not maliciously, but from weakness, not of his own will and initiative, but through the persuasion of friends; and 2) he did not antagonize and blaspheme the doctrine of the Gospel, but highly deplored that he had fallen away from the truth. It was therefore a kind of despair, but not blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, as the sainted Meisner says; or he merely thought he had committed this sin.” This does not fully describe the historical case of Spiera, but in our opinion Quenstedt’s judgment is correct.67

Now for our question: Can the sin against the Holy Ghost be recognized in a concrete case? Two things should be borne in mind: a) Let us not be hasty (temere) in charging someone with this sin. Luther, too, is very cautious here. “Do not rashly charge anyone with this sin. There are poor, burdened consciences which the devil is driving to despair by causing them to think they have committed the unpardonable sin” (in his “Sermon,” St. L. X:1209). b) On the other hand, those who assert that this sin can in no case be detected go too far. From 1 John 5:16 we learn two things: 1) The sin does occur and is discernible, because it frees from the obligation of interceding: “There is a sin unto death; I do not say that he shall pray for it.” 2) While John employs the plural in the context preceding and following, and there describes a knowledge common to all Christians, he uses the singular in v. 16: “If any man see.” He is speaking of a special case, and by the singular number he indicates that in order to distinguish between “sin not unto death” and “sin unto death” a discernment and knowledge is required which is confined to one or several persons, perhaps to the pastor or to one or the other Christian who has the special gift of discerning the spirits.

3. Most Lutheran theologians assume that only a regenerate person can commit the sin against the Holy Ghost. Quenstedt in his is rather cautious in voicing this opinion. “The opinion of those who ascribe the sin against the Holy Ghost only to the truly reborn, justified, and renewed seems more probable to us” (Systema I, 1060); others, such as Baier, Balthasar Meisner, Feurborn, hold that also unregenerate persons can commit this sin in the moment when the Holy Ghost is about to convert them. At any rate, an internally convincing testimony of the Holy Ghost must precede this sin; that is contained in the term “against [] the Holy Ghost.”

4. The passages Heb. 6:4-8 and Heb. 10:26-27 can be harmonized with Matthew 12, etc., only by assuming that they, too, deal with the peccatum in Spiritum Sanctum. They, too, clearly deny the possibility of a renewed repentance in the case of those “who were once enlightened and have tasted the heavenly gift,” but then sin “willfully” ().— As to Heb. 12:17, where it is said that Esau “was rejected; for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears,” the evidence favors the opinion that the “repentance” is not Esau’s, but the change of mind of his father Isaac with respect to the blessing of the first-born. Among recent exegetes, Luenemann, Ebrard, Moll hold this view. How he sought to bring about the change of mind in the father, “carefully with tears,” is recorded Gen. 27:34 ff.

5. How does the fact that the sin against the Holy Ghost is not forgiven agree with that other fact that Christ gained forgiveness for all sins, therefore also for the sin against the Holy Ghost? Unscriptural solutions of this difficulty are offered by the Calvinists and by the Papists and the synergists. The Calvinists solve the difficulty by declaring, in the end, that the gracious will of God and the merit of Christ extend not over all men, but only over a part of mankind. They say that those who commit the unpardonable sin belong to the class of those whom God never intended to save, whom Christ has not reconciled to God. This solution is wrong, for according to Scripture Christ is the Propitiation () “for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). They furthermore claim that the converting operation of the Holy Ghost does not extend to those who sin against the Holy Ghost. The very description of this sin shows that this claim is a pure human fiction. This sin is precisely, according to Scripture, the malicious revolt against the internally convincing operation of the Holy Ghost.

Roman theologians solve the difficulty in a different way. They hold that those who commit the sin against the Holy Ghost belong in the class that has failed to acquire the needed merit to obtain salvation. And the synergists of all shades hold that, as in the case of the unbelievers and the obdurate, so also in the case of those who sin against the Holy Ghost, there is a lack of the required self-determination; they do not reduce the resistance and the guilt of sin to the degree needed for conversion and salvation. But that this co-operation in conversion and in the obtaining of salvation is fiction, Christ shows in that very connection in which he warns against committing the sin against the Holy Ghost. Christ teaches in this very context that all men remain under the power and dominion of Satan until the Stronger One, Christ, overcomes him and robs him of his spoils. In short, we must say also in regard to this sin: a) If a person does not commit it, it is due solely to God’s grace and in no wise to a good human quality or accomplishment, call it what you will. And b) If a man does commit the sin against the Holy Ghost, it is entirely his fault; it was not caused by a lack of God’s grace or of Christ’s merit or of the saving operation of the Holy Spirit. Here, too, it is either, on the one hand, the sola gratia Dei or, on the other, the sola culpa hominis.

We face this situation also in the case of obduration. The Formula of Concord reminds us: “One is hardened, blinded, given over to a reprobate mind, while another, who is indeed in the same guilt, is converted again, etc. — in these and similar questions Paul (Rom. 11:22ff.) fixes a certain limit to us how far we should go, namely, that in the one part we should recognize God’s judgment. For they are well-deserved penalties of sins … in order that we may live in the fear of God, and acknowledge and praise God’s goodness, to the exclusion of, and contrary to, our merit in and with us, to whom He gives this Word, and with whom He leaves it, and whom He does not harden and reject.” (Trigl. 1081 f., 57 ff.) And where is the Christian who, when he honestly examines himself, would dare to say: The reason why I have not committed the sin against the Holy Ghost lies in me? Therefore Luther says in his “Sermon”: “For this let us pray that we do not fall into this sin that will not endure the plain truth; for in that case there is no counsel, or help, or excuse, but the final wrath of God has set in.” And at the close of the “Sermon,” Luther repeats the prayer: “May God keep us from this sin” (St. L. X: 1206, 1209).

Concluding Remark. There is only one thing that will deliver us from the fear of having committed the sin against the Holy Ghost. We must turn our heart, mind, and thoughts wholly to the absolutely universal and the absolutely free grace of God in Christ, which is revealed in Scripture sole clarius (clearer than the sun). Sorry comforters in this case are the Papists and the synergists and also the Calvinists. The Reformed theologian Schneckenburger shows conclusively that a Calvinist must first become a Lutheran if he would deliver anyone from the fear of having committed the unpardonable sin.68 Therefore it behooves us to maintain the universalis gratia and the sola gratia. That will be demonstrated further in the first section of Volume II.

1 At one place in his Commentary on Genesis (St. L. 1:410 ff.) Luther distinguishes between the two terms.

2 All erroneous notions on this point, past and present, are refuted by Quenstedt. He says (I, 861 sq.): “The opinion of the Origenists and Osiander, who affirm: ‘Adam was created after the likeness of the human nature of Christ, preconceived in the divine mind,’ is refuted 1) by Gen. 1:26, where the Father, speaking with the Son and the Holy Spirit, does not say: ‘Let Us make men in Thy image,’ namely, of the Son, who was to become man, but: ‘in Our image’; 2) by 1 Cor. 15:45, where Christ is called ‘the second Adam’; but if the idea or form of the human nature of Christ, preconceived in the divine mind, after the likeness of which Adam is supposed to have been created, preceded the creation of Adam in the order of things, Christ should be called the first Adam rather than the second Adam; we need not mention that in this sense we were not made like unto Christ, but Christ was made like unto us, sin excepted, Heb. 2:14. 3) Nowhere in Scripture is it said that man was created , according to the Son, but , according to God in general. Per contra, the Son of God is said to have been , in the likeness of sinful flesh, Rom. 8:3, and to have taken upon Him , the form of a servant. 4) The order of the divine decrees is opposed to it. For the decree to make man in the image of God preceded (logically) the decree to send the Soil of God into the flesh for the restitution of this image after its loss, and accordingly the Son of God, who was to become incarnate in posteriori, could not in priori be the pattern of the divine image to be created in man. 5) The very mission of the Son is opposed to it, which took place not for the sake of the likeness, but for the sake of restoring the bliss of man, 1 Tim. 1:15. 6) The image of God consists in the knowledge of God, righteousness, and holiness, as Col. 3:10 and Eph. 4:24 demonstrate; not, however, in the members of the body, in the figure or stature of the body. 7) Through the Fall the image of God was lost, but the bodily members were not lost.”

3 Cp. Luther’s remarks on this nakedness before and after the Fall, St. L. 1:170.

4 The old teachers are agreed that these passages contain a direct reference to the original state of man. Meyer and others deny it; but when at the same time they admit that the Apostle Paul “had in mind, according to the analogy of Adam’s creation, the divine image which the first man possessed,” and that we have in the words of the Apostle “a parallel with the creation of Adam after the image of God,” they are contradicting themselves. The “parallel” with the creation of Adam after God’s image would disappear if there were no direct statement here regarding the original condition of man. Philippi (Glaubenslehre, 3d ed., III, 372 ff.) and other recent theologians take the right view. Ellicott, for instance, writing on Eph. 4:24 against Jul. Mueller, says: “From this passage, compared with that from Colossians, we may appropriately deduce the great dogmatic truth: ‘that what we had lost in Adam, i. e., our being made in the image and likeness of God, has been restored to us in Christ Jesus.’ “

5 Luther: “If we would speak of a great and excellent philosopher (insignis philosophus), let us speak of our first parents when they were yet free from sin… . Adam and Eve understood the senses, nature, powers, of all the animals.” (St. L. 1:80-81.)

6 Ritschl takes the divine image to have been the predated [i. e., to be attained] ideal of life, not as that which God gave to man at the creation, but as that which man makes of himself through evolution. See his Rechtfertigung und Versoehnung, 3d ed., III, 314 ff.

7 Catechismus Romanus I, 2, 18: “God formed man of clay of the earth, so composed and constituted in his body that he was, not by the strength of his nature, but by divine gift immortal and not subject to suffering. But as to the soul, God formed it after His image and similitude and granted it the free will; besides, He tempered all emotions (motus) of the soul and the appetites (desires) in him so that they always obeyed the rule of reason. Then He added the wonderful gift of original righteousness and furthermore willed that he rule the rest of the living creatures.” See also Guenther, Pop. Symbolik, pp. 137, 142 (Pop. Symbolics, p. 166). Quenstedt, I, 889.

8 Luther on the relation of the divine image to the human nature: “The Scholastics argue that the righteousness in which Adam was created did not form a part of Adam’s nature, but was, as it were, an ornament or gift which was bestowed on him in his first estate; just as a garland is placed on the head of a beautiful maiden, which garland does not belong to the nature, but is something added from without and might be taken away again without harming the nature. They argue therefore that although men and devils have lost the righteousness in which they were created, yet their natural powers remained pure, in their original state. Since this doctrine detracts from the magnitude of original sin, it is to be shunned as deadly poison. We must rather conclude that original righteousness was not a superadded gift, separate from the nature of man, but belonged to the nature of man, so that it was natural for Adam to love God, to believe in God, to know God. These things were as natural for Adam as it is natural for the eye to behold the light. When the eye is injured and hurt, you may well say that the nature is harmed and injured… . For as it is the nature of the eye to see, it was natural for Adam’s reason and will to know God, to trust in God, and to fear God.” (St. L. 1:201 f.)

9 Luther: “Nature does indeed remain, but it is corrupted in various ways” (Opp.ex., Erl. I, 211).

10 Luther: “Adam and Eve are made rulers of the earth, the sea, and the air. This dominion is committed to them not only by the counsel of God, but also by an express mandate… . So, then, the naked man, without arms and walls, yea, without any garments, ruled in his bare body over all birds, beasts, and fishes… . Who can understand this part of the divine nature (if we may use this expression) that Adam and Eve understood and knew all about the senses, nature, and powers of all the animals? For they could have exercised no rule if they had not known these things… . If we would therefore speak of a great and excellent philosopher, let us speak of our first parents when they were yet free from sin… . They also had a sure knowledge of the stars and of all astronomy. What we accomplish in our life is accomplished through industry and art, not by that dominion which Adam had. For we see that birds and fishes are caught by cunning tricks; the beasts are tamed by our skill. For those animals which are most domesticated, like geese and hens, are by their nature wild animals. Hence, even our leprous body, by the grace of God, has some show of a dominion over the other creatures. But it is very paltry and far inferior to that dominion in which there was no need of art and cunning, where the animals simply obeyed the divine voice and Adam and Eve were commanded to rule over them. So we now retain the mere name and word of dominion or the bare title; the matter itself has been completely lost. And yet it is good to know and think of these things, so that we may long for that day in which all the things which we have lost in Paradise shall be restored to us. For we look for that life which Adam also had been expecting. And well indeed may we wonder and render thanks unto God that we, so deformed by sin, so dull, so stupefied, so dead, as it were, should be enabled through the merits of Christ to look for that same glory of a spiritual life which Adam would have looked forward to if he had remained in the earthly life which possessed the image of God.” (Opp. ex., Erl. I, 82 sqq.; St. L. I:80-82.)

11 Baier-Walther, II, 158: “In regard to her knowledge of nature, Eve seems to have ranked below Adam.”

12 On the Ophites see R. E., 2d ed., V, 240 ff.

13 Quoted in Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 322 f., from Schiller’s Etwas ueber die erste Menschengesellschaft, Uebergang des Menschen zur Freiheit und Humanitaet.

14 Quoted in Luthardt, Komp., 10th ed., p. 165, from Hegel’s Philosophie der Geschichte, p. 233. Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 322: “Hegel regards sin as the necessary period of transition through which the finite spirit rises from the bondage of nature to liberty.”

15 Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 563: “Emerson’s view of Jesus is found in his Essays, 2, 263: ‘Jesus would absorb the race; but Tom Paine, or the coarsest blasphemer, helps humanity by resisting this exuberance of power.’ ” “In his Divinity School Address, Emerson banished the Person of Jesus from genuine religion. He thought ‘one could not be a man if he must subordinate his nature to Christ’s nature.’ ” Page 565: “Hawthorne hints, though rather hesitatingly, that without sin the higher humanity of man could not be taken up at all, and that sin may be essential to the first conscious awakening of moral freedom and the possibility of progress.”

16 Schriftbeweis, 2d ed., I, 562. Lehre und Wehre, 24, 248. Also the later Lutheran theologians take the position of the Lutheran Confession that “; voluntarium” [conscious volition] is not a part of the essence of sin. Baier II, 275: “The philosophers indeed hold that nothing may be called sin unless there appears in it some kind of voluntariness, so that the things which are against the Law are called sins only in so far as they participate in them voluntarily. In Scripture, however, sin has a much wider meaning. St. John covers the case when (1 John 3:4) he defines sin as and does not mention voluntariness.” Quenstedt, I, 967: “Antithesis: 1) of certain Papists, like Andradius, lib. 3, Defens. Cone. Trid., who denies that all is sin… . 2) of the Pelagians … who contend that original sin is not sin, because in infants it is involuntary; 3) of the Papists, who assert that voluntariness belongs to the nature of sin, so that nothing is sin unless in some degree the will consents to it. Thus Bellarmine… . 4) of the Socinians, such as Socinus, Ostorodus, Smalzius, who openly deny original sin for the same reason (scilicet, because it is not voluntary)… . 5) of the Arminians, who in Actis Synodal. Def., art. 4, and in Apol. Conf., ch. 7, assert that conscious volition belongs to the nature of sin… . 6) of Zwingli and Calvin, who, writing on Genesis 3, deny original sin for the same reason, namely, that it is involuntary.”

17 Lehre und Wehre, 22, 231 ff. See the quotations in Baier-Walther II, 269.

18 See Luther’s presentation of this matter, St. L. XX: 146 ff.

19 The relation of the serpent to Satan (Gen. 3: 1 ff.) has been defined by the old theologians in the words: “Serpens verus, sed instrumentum diaboli.” That definition should never have been called into question. Gen. 3:1, 14 clearly describes a real serpent, and v. 15 names the devil as active in the serpent; he it is whose head the Seed of the woman would crush. Thus also in 1 John 3:8, 2 Cor. 11:3, and also in Rev. 12:9 (“That old serpent, called the devil”), the devil is the active agent.

20 Neither God’s all-sustaining and governing providence nor the fact that He punishes sin with sin makes God the efficient cause of sin (see above). The Formula of Concord says: “Moreover, it is to be diligently considered that when God punishes sin with sins, that is, when He afterwards punishes with obstinacy and blindness those who had been converted, because of their subsequent security, impenitence, and willful sins, this should not be interpreted to mean that it had never been God’s good pleasure that such persons should come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved” (Trigl. 1091, 83). Contrary to Scripture and the Confessions, Fecht says (Syllog. Controv., p. 109; in Baier-Walther II, p. 274): “The statement of some: ‘God punishes sins with sins,’ is improper, not to be imitated, and even charges God with injustice.”

21 Luther on this point: “All the creatures are against us, prepared and armed to bring about, if possible, our destruction. How many are there whom fire and water destroy? How much peril threatens us from wild and venomous beasts, which harm not only our bodies but also our food, intended for our nourishment? Not to mention that we ourselves fall upon each other and murder each other, just as if there were not enough pestilence and other calamities to threaten us… . What are thorns, thistles, water, fire, caterpillars, flies, fleas, lice, bugs, etc., what are all these, jointly and severally, but messengers which preach to us of sin and of the wrath of God? … Therefore, though we know better and our eyes see it, we are living in a more than Egyptian darkness. Though all creatures ever remind us of the wrath of God, so that we cannot avoid seeing it, yet we do not pay any attention to it, but love this earthly life and cling to it as our only delight.” (St. L. 1:249 ff.; 254; 255.)

22 See the Apology (Trigl. 299, 53 ff.) on these punishments that come upon the believers; they do not expiate for sin, as the Romanists teach. — The dogmaticians distinguish between and . By they mean the just punishment of sin which is meted out to those who despise the reconciling blood of Christ (Heb. 10:29) and which consists in nothing less than eternal damnation. By they mean the castigationes paternae, which are not punishments in the strict sense (non ad vindicandam culpam iniuriamque Deo illatam compensandam inferuntur), but have the purpose to preserve from eternal damnation those whose guilt and punishment has been remitted by faith in the substitutionary satisfaction of Christ (1 Cor. 11:32).

23 Quotations from the writings of the Pelagians, Socinians, and Arminians are given by Quenstedt, I, 995. On American sects (Socinians, Unitarians, Arminians, Quakers, Shakers, Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, etc.) see Guenther, Pop. Symbolik, p. 152 ff. [and Popular Symbolics, p. 89, and Index].— On modern Lutherans, e. g., Vilmar, see Baier-Walther, II, p. 291 sq. — For a brief and correct presentation of the teaching of the dogmaticians on original guilt, see Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 315 f.; on the denial of original guilt on the part of modern theologians, including most of the conservatives, see p. 327 ff.

24 The Pelagian Julianus: “The sin of another cannot be imputed by God to the little ones” (see Quenstedt, I, 995). Socinus: “It is wrong to say that Adam’s transgression and disobedience has been imputed to mankind.” The Socinian Volkelius: “We firmly deny that the sin of Adam is imputed to his descendants.” (Quenstedt, loc. cit.) The Arminians in their Apology Contra Censuram Leydensium, p. 84: “Neither Scripture nor divine truthfulness, wisdom, and goodness, nor the nature of sin, nor the character of justice and equity, will permit them to say that Adam’s sin has been imputed to Adam’s descendants.” (Quenstedt, loc. cit.) The Quakers in the Declaration of Faith, 1887: “We rejoice in believing that sin is not imputed to anyone until he transgresses the divine Law after having received sufficient ability to understand it” (Guenther, p. 153). The Quaker Barclay declares in his Apology (th. 4–5) that the doctrine of original guilt is an “unscriptural barbarism.” (Guenther, loc. cit.)

25 Following old dogmaticians, Hoenecke writes in his Ev.-luth. Dogmatik II, 413: “The sole reason why all men born since Adam are already at their birth in the state of corruption, into which Adam plunged by the Fall, is this, that God regards the deed of Adam as their deed, charges them with its guilt, and sentences them to be born in the miserable state of hereditary corruption as one deserved by themselves.” And on p. 408 f. he has this: “The fall of Adam brings guilt and punishment to all men, not only because the corruption which is acquired through the Fall and is thereby inherited (peccatum originis originatum) renders them damnable before God (imputatio mediata), but also because Adam’s fall itself (peccatum originis originans) is imputed to them as their fault (imputatio immediata).

26 Thus Meisner in his Anthropologie, as quoted in Quenstedt, I, 995: “In any body, whether it be a physical or political or mystical body, that which the head does, as far as it is the head, is rightly imputed to the whole body… . The acts of the magistrate are imputed to the whole commonwealth, the acts of the pater familias to the whole family, to such an extent that the children are justly despoiled of all goods by the ruler because of the crime of rebellion, or lese majesty, though this was committed solely by the father.”

27 Baier points out this truth, though rather timidly: “It is not necessary, neither, perhaps, is it wise, that we should pryingly inquire how God could so impute the sin of our first parents to their posterity, not yet in existence, that for this reason they should necessarily be born destitute of original righteousness and as sinners. It is enough that [the fact] is revealed, although [the explanation of it] be unknown.” (II, 290.)

28 Thus the Pelagians: “Sin passes from the first man to other men not by propagation, but by imitation.” (See Seeberg, Dogmengeschichte, I, 263, from Augustine’s De Peccator. Meritis et Remiss. I, 9, 9; Quenstedt, I, 999, has a similar quotation from Augustine’s De Nat. et Gratia, c. 9: “That all have sinned in Adam is [according to the Pelagians] said not because it is contracted through the natural birth, but because of imitation.”) Exactly as expressed among the heathen by Seneca: “You err if you think that the faults are inborn in man; they befall us, are carried in” (Epist. 69. See Quenstedt, I, 999). The Socinians teach the same; see Guenther, Pop. Symbolik, p. 148 [Pop. Symbolics, pp. 396, 403]; Quenstedt, I, 1000; Plitt, Grundriss der Symbolik, 3d ed., p. 154.

29 Thus Zwingli in Fidei Ratio, Niemeyer, p. 20: “Whether we like it or not, we are forced to admit that original sin, as we find it in the children of Adam, is not properly sin, as has already been shown; it is not an act done against the Law. It is therefore properly a disease and a condition.” Rome teaches, Trid., Sess. V, 5, that the inclination to sin (concupiscentia, fomes) which remains after Baptism is no longer sin, although Scripture sometimes calls it sin. “With regard to this concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin (Rom. 6:7-8; Colossians 3), the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin and inclines to sin.” The Catechismus Romanus, “De Baptismo,” qu. 32, says: “These desires (the appetites of the heart, which in their nature are contrary to reason) are far from the real nature of sin, unless the consent of the will or negligence is connected with them.” It has previously been pointed out that among modern theologians also Hofmann makes “conscious” self-determination an integral factor of sin and as a result denies that this hereditary corruption is sin. Concerning the American sects which deny that original sin is sin, see Guenther, p. 152 ff. Concerning the Methodists, Guenther says, p. 151: “The Methodists, whose Confession of Faith is an excerpt from the 39 Articles of the Episcopal Church, omit in the article of original sin the important words: ‘And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated… . And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.’ The doctrine that concupiscence is truly sin also in the regenerate does not fit in with their doctrine of perfection.” Wesley said: “Such [involuntary] transgressions you call sins, if you please; I do not.” (More on this in the chapter “The Imperfection of Sanctification,” in Vol. III.)

30 The popish sect teaches that in fallen man the ability to do good, that is, to obtain justification and salvation, is not entirely lost, but only weakened. Trid., Sess. VI, can. 4: “If anyone saith that man’s free will, moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates toward disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of justification, … let him be anathema.” Can. 5: “If anyone saith that, since Adam’s sin the free will of man is lost and extinguished … let him be anathema.” Sess. VI, can. 1, declares that the liberum arbitrium of Gentiles and Jews, “attenuated as it was in its powers, was by no means extinguished in them.” The Arminian position is essentially the Catholic one. The Catholic J. A. Moehler gives them credit for this: “Their [the Arminians’] articles of belief on these points are nearly identical with the Catholic; and therefore, like the Council of Trent, they speak of a resuscitating grace, which only awakens the dormant powers still existing in fallen man, in opposition to the Lutheran theory, according to which the higher faculties must first be created anew in them” (Symbolik, 5th ed., p. 634). Quenstedt quotes (I, 1103) from the Arminian Collatio Hagiensis (1610): “There are two causes of faith and conversion: One is the so-called prevenient and exciting grace of God, the second is the will of man, sequent and co-operative. For the gift of faith is not given without the co-operation of the human will. We affirm that man co-operates in his regeneration.’ In the Apologia pro Confessione Remonstrantium (Leyden, 1630, p. 162) it is stated that the divine grace “without the co-operation of the free human will” would accomplish nothing. On the Arminian sects, Methodists, Mennonites, etc., see Guenther, Symbolik, p. 159 (Popular Symbolics, pp. 284, 260, 270, 280). — The synergistic Lutherans, too, from the later Melanchthon on down to the most recent days, minimize the Scripture teaching of the hereditary corruption. That will be shown in the locus on conversion, Vol. II. When they speak of a facultas se applicandi ad gratiam, of a liberum arbitrium given to man before his conversion, enabling him “to determine himself,” “decide himself” pro or contra, and declare that actual conversion depends on man’s proper conduct or on his lesser guilt in comparison with others, they presuppose that man after the Fall is not dead, but only half dead, seemingly dead. The synergists with their doctrine of hereditary depravity do not belong in the Lutheran, but in the Roman and the Arminian camp.

31 See further the chapter on “The Good Works of the Heathen,” in Vol. III. We have an example for this in the hospitality extended to Paul and his shipwrecked companions by the heathen inhabitants of the Island of Malta. “The barbarous people showed us no little kindness [, love of men], for they kindled a fire and received us everyone, because of the present rain and because of the cold” (Acts 28:2). The temporal reward is also mentioned. After Paul had healed the sick father of the governor of the island, “others also which had diseases in the island came and were healed” (v.9).

32 In defending this statement, the Apology says: “We, therefore, have been right in expressing, in our description of original sin” [in Art. II of the Augsburg Conf.], “both, namely, these defects: the not being able to believe God, the not being able to fear and love God; and, likewise: the having concupiscence, which seeks carnal things contrary to God’s Word, i. e., seeks not only the pleasure of the body, but also carnal wisdom and righteousness, and, contemning God, trusts in these as good things. Not only the ancients [like Augustine and others], but also the more recent [teachers and scholastics], at least the wiser ones among them” (cordatiores) “teach that original sin is at the same time truly these, namely, the defects which I have recounted, and concupiscence.” (Trigl. Ill, 27 f.) As for the Scripture proof, “Paul sometimes expressly calls it a defect [a lack of divine light], as 1 Cor. 2:14: ‘The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God.’ In another place, Rom. 7:5, he calls it concupiscence, working in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.” (Loc. cit., § 30.) Over against the calumnies of the Papists, Luther’s doctrine of the original corruption is thus presented: “He [Luther] always wrote thus, namely, that Baptism removes the guilt of original sin [the hereditary guilt], although the material, as they call it, of the sin, i. e., concupiscence, remains… . In the same manner, Augustine also speaks, who says: ‘Sin is remitted in Baptism, not in such a manner that it no longer exists, but so that it is not imputed,’ ” (Loc. cit., § 36.) The positive character of the original corruption is proved from the fact that this corruption is a part of the punishment (poena) laid upon Adam’s fall. “The defects and the concupiscence are punishments and sins. Death and other bodily evils, and the dominion of the devil, are properly punishments. For human nature has been delivered into slavery and is held captive by the devil, who infatuates with wicked opinions and errors, and impels it to sins of every kind.” (Loc. cit., § 47.)

33 See Carpzov’s remark on Flacius (Isagoge in Libros Symbolicos, p. 1160): “If he only had corrected his language, this great quarrel would never have arisen, and the orthodox party could easily have come to an understanding with him.” Flacius called original sin the forma substantiates, but distinguished that from the forma “materialis”; original sin is not the forma materialis. It seems that by forma materialis Flacius understood what other people cail substance, and by forma substantialis what we call accident. Carpzov: “… Flacius did not by essentia and forma essentialis understand the substance itself in so far as it signifies a thing subsisting by itself, but rather that essence which is man’s not in so far as he is a man (homo), but in so far as he is … a corrupt man, namely, the accidental form, which, together with the subject itself, is … essential to the corrupt man, so that, so long as and so far as he is corrupt, corruption and wickedness cannot, even in thinking, be separated from him.” See the thorough discussion of “The Flacian Controversy” by F. Bente in the “Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books.” (Trigl. 144 f.) Plitt is right in remarking that Flacius has been “habitually and from ignorance” condemned beyond all measure (R. E., 2d ed., IV, 563 ff.).

34 See the section entitled “Peculiarities of Christ’s Human Nature,” in Vol. II.

35 The decretal reads: “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a special grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God and therefore is to be firmly and steadfastly believed by all the faithful. Wherefore, if any shall presume, which may God avert, to think in their heart otherwise than has been defined by us, let them know and, moreover, understand that they are condemned by their own judgment, that they have made shipwreck as regards the faith, and have fallen away from the unity of the Church. ‘

36 Gerhard, Loci, locus “De Morte,” § 17: “Because we, their [the first parents’] descendants, always carry with us in this life that venom of sin in our bodies, we also always carry with us our death; we do not meet death suddenly, but approach it step by step.”

37 See Delitzsch, in his commentary on Genesis, first edition, quoted in Baier-Walther, II, 305; the third edition maintains the same interpretation. Also Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, I, 465 ff. Hofmann agrees with Delitzsch also in asserting that the fruit of the tree was evil in itself: “The fruit directly caused a corruption of the body, in so far as it serves propagation, and it did that through a power inherent in the fruit itself” (p. 477). He will not have death regarded as a result of the wrath of God over sin, but as “an evil which befell man through the eating of the fruit.” He accordingly translates not with “good and evil,” but with “good and harmful” (“gut und schlimm”). Kiiefoth is right in saying: “If sin does not begin with enmity against God, neither does redemption begin with reconciliation’ (Der Schriftbeweis des D. von Hofmann, p. 287). And, as is well known, Hofmann did deny the satisfactio vicaria Christi.

38 Quoted in Lehre und Wehre, 24, p. 193 f.

39 Thus the dogmaticians. See Baier-Walther, II, 305 sq.

40 The toto impetu (“with all his energy”) is exemplified by the exceeding readiness of the Unitarians, the lodges, Communists, a part of the Socialists, etc., to reject the Christian religion, of Rome to anathematize in the Tridentinum the Christian doctrine of justification, and of modern Lutherans to assail both Scripture as the Word of God and the satisfactio vicaria.

41 Gerhard, Loci, locus “De Libero Arbitrio,” § 32: “The whole question turns on the liberty in regard to the object with which the will is occupied.” On Bellarmine’s willful beclouding of the issue, Gerhard says in Par. 8: “Away therefore with those frightful accusations which Bellarmine in the preface of the books on free will hurls against our churches, as though we abolished the freedom of the will, do violence to nature itself, and declare ourselves to be similar not only to brutes, but to brutes bereft altogether of reason.”

42 Note on the history of the doctrine. First of all one should read Erasmus’ De Libero Arbitrio , 1524 (translated in St. L. XVIII: 1600 ff.) and Luther’s answer De Servo Arbitrio (translated in St. L. XVIII: 1668 ff.). The arguments of Erasmus for a free will in spiritual matters are identical with the arguments with which the Lutheran doctrines of conversion and election have been attacked as Calvinistic in the past and the present century. Luther’s De Servo Arbitrio has been quite universally misunderstood; see in Vol. II the chapter “The Theological Terminology Regarding the Divine Will of Grace” and in the chapter “The Pernicious Character of Synergism” the section dealing with the assertion that the “later” Luther receded from the position he took in De Servo Arbitrio. See also in Baier-Walther, II, 300 ff., the antithesis from Quenstedt (Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, Scholastics, Papists, Arminians, Lutheran synergists of the 16th and 17th centuries), together with the false teaching of modern Lutherans; also the long treatises on De Libero Arbitrio in Chemnitz, Loci, I, 174 ff., and in his Examen Cone. Trid.; in Gerhard, Loci, II, 238, Quenstedt, Systema, I, 1076 ff., Hollaz, Exam., I, 615 ff. — Historical matter on Luther’s controversy with Erasmus is given in the St. Louis Edition of Luther’s works, XVIII, Preface, p. 47 ff. See also F. Bente, “The Synergistic Controversy” in the “Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books” (Trigl. 124 sqq.).

43 With Luther the terms “original sin,” “nature sin,” “person sin,” “principal sin,” are synonyms, “original sin” signifying that it is transmitted to us from the first [original] sin of Adam through carnal birth; nature sin, because it inheres in our corrupt human nature; person sin, because it is found wherever there is a person, also in the child in the mother’s womb (St. L. V:752), and principal sin (Hauptsuende), because it is the evil source of all other sins.

44 See further the chapters on “The Quality and the Quantity of Good Works,” in the doctrine of sanctification and good works, Vol. III.

45 Chemnitz: “In Matthew 5, in a long sermon, Christ shows that the Law condemns not only actual sins, but also original sin, and that actual sins are not only the external actions, but also the internal affections which conflict with the Law of God. And Paul gives one common appellation to the internal and external vicious actions. Gal. 5:19-21 he mentions among the works of the flesh not only fornication, drunkenness, but also heresies, idolatry, wrath, etc.” (Loci I, 255.)

46 1 Cor. 15:33: “Evil communications corrupt good manners.” It is most deplorable that the works of the most popular writers are filled with immoral, wicked matter. Cicero already deplores the evil influence of the poets on the morals of the people, Tuscul. III, 2, 3.

47 2 Sam. 11:2. After the Fall, clothing is the divine ordinance (Gen. 3:21).

48 Keeping this in mind, we understand why Paul had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3) and refused definitely to have Titus circumcised (Gal. 2:4-5). In the case of Timothy he respected the weakness of those who had not yet been sufficiently instructed; in the case of Titus he defended the truth of the Gospel against the . Likewise Peter (Galatians 2) was in statu confessionis. Paul reproves Peter for denying the truth of the Gospel by his conduct in refusing to eat with the Gentile Christians when they that were of the circumcision put in their appearance. Compare the quotations in Baier-Walther, II, 313 sqq.

49 Modern theologians are offended at Christ because He expects them to give up their Ego theology, to continue in His Word, to receive the Scriptures as the infallible Word of God. (John 8:31-32; 17:20; 10:35; Eph. 2:20; 1 Tim 6:3 ff.) Another stumbling block for them is the satisfactio vicaria. Therefore they ascribe to unconverted man the facultas se applicandi ad gratiam in its various forms: self-determination, Selbstsetzung, self-decision, liberty of choice in utramque partem, etc.

50 Paul warns the Gentile Christians who overcome temptation (“thou standest by faith”) not to look down upon the Jews who fell (Rom. 11:20-22). Therefore 2 Cor. 12:9 tells us that the power of God “is made perfect in weakness,” that is to say: “In temptation the strong are weak, and the weak strong.”

51 Cp. what was said on the danger of clinging to the error in doctrinal controversies (Vol. I, p. 90).

52 See the quotation, in Baier-Walther, II, p. 269, from Ad. Osiander’s Colleg. Theol.-system, p. 288 sq.: “An erring conscience … does not obligate [obligat], but it binds [ligat]. But to bind is to constrain one that he cannot justly act according to such a conscience, if it lasts, so that he sins if he acts contrary to it and also sins if he acts in accordance with it.”

53 Cf. Lutheraner, 34, p. 129 ff.: “Habt ein gutes Gewissen.” We find in our pastoral practice that, e. g., the parties to a marriage in the prohibited degrees may, before the marriage, delude themselves into believing that they have a conscientia recta, only to have it become evident soon after marriage that they had a conscientia dubia.

54 Cf. Hengstenberg in his Psalmenkommentar on the passage.

55 This truth does not contradict those Scripture passages in which a distinction is made between greater and lesser sins. Scripture teaches that all men are equally and totally depraved (Eph. 2:1-5; John 3:6). Scripture, moreover, teaches, and all Christians know it by experience, that in their flesh there dwells no good thing and that it is due solely and alone to the grace of God if in their case the original depravity did not produce all its natural results, even including eternal damnation. If, then, we take credit for the things which we owe entirely to God’s preservation and grace and seek to deal with God on the basis of our lesser sin and guilt (in comparison with others), such action is an unreasonable and direct refusing and despising of the Gospel of grace. Therefore Luther warns us against exalting ourselves before God above any whore, etc., in which case the first shall be the last.

56 See Luther’s Explanation of the Fifth Petition.

57 See the statement from the Catechismus Romanus (II, 5, qu. 46) and from the catechism of Bishop Henni (pp.75–76) in Guenther, Symbolik, p. 155 [Pop. Symbolics, p. 168]. Luther shows in the Smalcald Articles (Trigl. 485, 21 ff.) that Rome’s teaching that certain sins deserve only temporal punishment lies at the basis of its business of satisfactions, indulgences, and purgatory.

58 See their Confession VII, 6, in Guenther, op. cit., p. 156; Quenstedt, I, 1048; Baier-Walther, II, 325 sqq.

59 See the statements from the Canons of the Synod of Dort and from the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterians in the section “Re-Conversion,” in Vol. II, p. 468, note 24 [Pop. Symbolics, p. 225].

60 That acedia (), satiety in regard to God’s Word, is correctly classed with the mortal sins, Luther shows in his Large Catechism, Trigl. 608, 99.

61 We are not forbidden to hold friendly, civil intercourse with him. What is forbidden is to greet such a one, and deal with him, as a brother in the faith.

62 In Chemnitz, Loci, I, 258; Baier-Walther, II, 322. Also numerous examples from the Bible are given. The “non retego culpam” (“I do not reveal the guilt”) refers, of course, to cases where the revelation of the guilt is demanded by our calling and duty; otherwise Prov. 11:13 applies: “A talebearer revealeth secrets.” The question in which case publishers and bookdealers become guilty of another’s sin is treated in Lutheraner, 27, p. 172 ff.

63 Luther, in his “Sermon von der Suende wider den Heiligen Geist” (St. L. X:1205), and most of the dogmaticians take this view.

64 In his “Sermon von der Suende wider den Heiligen Geist” (St. L. X:1203), Luther distinguishes between the “veiled Holy Ghost,” as was the case with Paul before his conversion, and the “revealed Holy Ghost,” as was the case with the Pharisees whom He inwardly convinced of the truth. “Here the Holy Ghost is manifest and uncovered, breaks forth and shines like lightning, so that His brightness penetrates the heart… . This they formerly called impugnationem veritatis agnitae [assault on the realized truth].”

65 See further on this point Walther, Law and Gospel, p. 393.

66 Thus Episcopius in Resp. ad 64 qu., 14; quoted in Quenstedt, I, 1072.

67 The case of Spiera is described in R. E., 2d ed., XIV, p. 799 ff. and in Meusel, VI, p. 354, but not always with a sound theological judgment. The R. E., for instance, says (p. 801): “Spiera had wantonly trifled with the Word of God and his knowledge of it; else he could not so easily and quickly have apostatized.” One should bear in mind how quickly Peter fell as a result of fear of men and of death. Also Calvin’s judgment of this case should carry no weight, since he, denying God’s universal will of grace, could not have formed a correct judgment concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost.

68 Vergleichende Darstellung des luth. und des ref. Lehrbegriffs, I, p. 260 ff.: “The only thing that will avail here is to point with Luther to the objective merit of Christ, the promise of God’s Word, and the faithfulness of Him who calls, who will not give up the work begun, but will preserve us. The Reformed Christian will simply have to forget that the merit of Christ, etc., does not concern all, perhaps does not concern him.”