_5_Divine Providence and Free Will

The fact that men live, move, and have their being in God does not make them automata; they remain moral beings, free from coercion (libertas a coactione), i. e., beings personally responsible to God, or, in other words, persons. That is the teaching 1) of Scripture. Acts 17:31: God will judge the world in righteousness, and judgment presupposes the responsibility of man. It is 2) also the teaching of experience, of the conscience of man. Rom. 2:15: The thoughts accuse or excuse one another. Rom. 1:32: The sinners know that they which commit such things deserve death. The responsibility of man, his freedom from coercion, is a fact. How these facts agree with the fact that God works all things, we do not know.

In this connection the special question comes up for consideration: Must all events in the world occur just as they do occur (necessitas immutabilitatis), or could they happen otherwise (contingentia rerum)? Scripture compels us to maintain both the necessity and the contingency. From the viewpoint of the divine providence the necessity obtains, from the human viewpoint the contingency. Examples illustrating the necessity: Scripture says that the betrayal of Christ by Judas and His crucifixion by the Jews and Gentiles had to occur according to the determinate counsel of God. Acts 4:27-28: Against Thy holy Child Jesus, Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together, to do what Thy counsel determined before to be done. And when Christ was apprehended, He said (Matt. 26:54): “Thus it must be.” But these same events are also represented in Scripture as contingent from the human viewpoint. By warning Judas, the Jews, and Pilate, Christ sought to keep them from committing betrayal and murder. Matt. 26:24: “The Son of Man goeth as it is written of Him; but woe unto that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It had been good for that man if he had not been born.” And Jesus did what He could to keep Pilate from pronouncing an unjust sentence. The words of the Lord: “He that delivered Me unto thee hath the greater sin” warn Pilate that he would be committing a wrong if he would comply with the demand of the Jews. These words made an impression on Pilate, for “from thenceforth Pilate sought to release Him.” (John 19:11-12.) So those old theologians who carefully weigh their words say: “According to the law of divine providence, which rules all things, it is correctly said that all things happen of necessity; from the standpoint of man everything in human affairs is done freely and contingently.” 8

It is necessary to teach both of these Scriptural truths, the necessity and the contingency, in order to safeguard the Christian religion against Epicureanism and atheism (things happen without God, by chance) on the one hand, and fatalism and Stoicism (disregard of the divinely ordained means) on the other. The following rule of life must be observed: We should in all our ways, in the Kingdom of Power and of Grace, diligently make use of the means which God supplies. In sickness, for example, we call in the doctor and the nurse; and in seeking salvation we make use of the means of grace, through which God creates and sustains faith. — It is a foolish undertaking to attempt to penetrate the divine providence a priori while setting aside the God-appointed means. We would be entering a domain which is beyond the reach of our present understanding. Shall the creature make bold to explore God in His bare majesty (Luther: “nuda maiestas”)?

Apply this to another special question: Is the terminus vitae subject to change or unchangeable? Scripture teaches, on the one hand, that the end of our days is immovably fixed. Job 14:5: “Seeing his days are determined; the number of his months are with Thee; Thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass.” On the other hand, Scripture teaches just as clearly that human life may be prolonged or shortened. Hezekiah prayed God that his life might be prolonged, and his prayer was heard (Is. 38:1 ff.; 2 Kings 20:1 ff.). Others, again, shorten their lives. Ps. 55:23 says of the bloody and deceitful men that they shall not live out half their days. Both of these truths, the immovably fixed terminus vitae and life’s prolongation or shortening, must be maintained as divine truths. The former is true as viewed from God’s standpoint, the latter is true as viewed from our human standpoint. And when God condescends to speak from our human standpoint, He directs us to use the means which sustain our earthly life.

It is folly to study the terminus vitae from God’s standpoint while disregarding the divinely appointed means; that is beyond the powers of comprehension with which we are equipped for this present life. Therefore it is God’s will and order that we use the means which He has appointed for sustaining and prolonging our lives (the exceptions, i. e., that God can also sustain our lives without means, we leave to Him, Ex. 34:28). As God-appointed means Scripture mentions: work (Ps. 128:2: “Thou shalt eat the labor of thine hands”; 2 Thess. 3:10: “If any would not work, neither should he eat”); food (Acts 27:33-36: Paul directs the sailors and passengers to take food to sustain them); if need be, a little wine (1 Tim. 5:23); especially a pious life (Eph. 6:2-3: “That it may be well with thee and thou may est live long on the earth”); prayer (Hezekiah, Is. 38:1 ff.); also flight from danger (Acts 9:23-25: Paul’s flight from Damascus when the Jews threatened his life); etc. Since these means are appointed by God, they have been made part of the divine providence. That is emphasized Acts 27:31: “Except these [seamen] abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved” — God has made the saving of your lives dependent upon the use of these means. Through the use or the refusal of these means we reach the terminus vitae which God has immovably fixed.9

1 See Quenstedt, I, 768 sqq.

2 Com. in Habac. 1; quoted in Quenstedt, I, 769.

3 He intimates, in Loci, locus “De Provid.,” §58, that Jerome may have merely wanted to say that God does not take cognizance of things step by step, but that everything is present to His mind at once. But it is impossible to put that construction on Jerome’s words. Jerome fears that men might not receive the attention due them if God concerned Himself also about the small irrational creatures individually. — Gerhard points out in this very passage that Scripture explicitly teaches what Jerome’s words seem to deny.

4 Quenstedt furnishes the quotation from the Church Fathers, op. cit., § 59. Walther reproduces (in the Compendium) these words of Rambach’s Schriftmaessige Erlaeuterung der Grundlegung der Th., 1738, p. 157 f.: “Objects of the divine providence are all created things, none excepted, visible and invisible, living and lifeless, heaven, earth, and sea, and all that is in them. As He has created all things, so also His providence extends over all. He preserves 1) the invisible creatures, the angels; the good angels cannot govern themselves without His wisdom nor preserve themselves without His power; the evil angels cannot do harm without His permission, and He set limits to their malevolence; 2) the visible creatures, not alone man, the noblest creature, but also all irrational animals. In Egypt, frogs and lice must execute His commands. And this providence extends over every genus, over every species, even over all individuals of every genus. For instance, God cares not only for the genus of birds, but for every species, storks, swallows, and sparrows, and even for every single individual of every species, for every single stork, swallow, and sparrow. He not only takes care that the trees grow and are preserved, but He provides for every single tree and branch and leaf. Every one of them is under His government, as Christ teaches Matt. 10:29. A sparrow is one of the most insignificant and (apparently) useless birds; nevertheless Christ says that not one of them perishes, is shot, or hurt against the Father’s will. Luke 12:6: ‘Not one of them is forgotten before God.’ The smallest, most insignificant, and most useless thing is under God’s government and providence. Christ assures us of this Matt. 10:30: ‘But the very hairs of your head are all numbered,’ so that not one of them can fall out without the Father’s will. What we prize we count. It indicates an exact knowledge and the care to preserve. As the light of the sun does not disdain the lowliest worm, so also God’s providence does not turn away from it. We should well note this, that God’s providence extends to the lowliest things. God does not rule like an earthly king, who provides by a general edict for all and every one of his subjects in general, though there are thousands whom the king does not know. God knows the smallest and provides for it, as Christ, the Mouthpiece of truth, assures us. Reason indeed holds that it is beneath divine Majesty to condescend also to the lowliest of His creatures. The heathen Pliny holds that it would defile divine Majesty if He took care of the despised things. However, these are foolish thoughts, which were entertained also by the great teacher of the Church Jerome. But this redounds to the glory of God. 1) The glory of His unlimited goodness, that with the arms of His providence He embraces the lowliest worm as well as the most exalted angel. If it is not improper for God to create them, why should it be improper for Him to preserve them? 2) It redounds to the glory of His power and wisdom. The power of God is no less evident in the creation of a gnat than in that of an elephant; and the same applies to His providence. The excellence of His wisdom is seen when He directs and guides the creatures to fulfill the purpose of their existence, which they themselves do not know. There is furthermore no difference among the creatures in themselves; the difference arises from their relation to us; e. g., it is commonly held that a worm deserves less consideration than a lion. The latter is, of course, better than a worm in our evaluation; but aside from this, the least worm is in its nature as remarkable as the lion. - Finally, it does not overburden God, as one might think. His infinite intellect knows no weariness,”

5 It was so held by Durandus (d. 1334), Taurellus (d. 1606), and by some Arminians. See Quenstedt, I, 782.

6 Baier, II, 169: “God makes it manifest that He is not bound to the workings of nature and the order freely established by Him.” He refers to the following examples: “Secondary causes, the operation of which is not yet fixed by nature, are made to operate by divine command; see 1 Kings 18:44, on the accelerated rain. At times God confers on the secondary causes either plainly supernatural power or He restores or augments the natural power which was either lost or debilitated; see Judges 16:28-29 on the restored and augmented strength of Samson; Gen. 17:16-17, 19 on the reproductive power conferred on the centenarian Abraham and the nonagenarian and sterile Sarah. Finally, God impedes the secondary causes which are set by nature to perform their operations so that the effect does not follow, as when He threatens (Deut. 28:23) that He will withdraw the rain from the disobedient people.”

7 Dr. L. T. Townsend relates the following in Bible Theology and Modern Thought, 1883, p. 162: “A friend of Voltaire once wrote him these words: ‘I have succeeded in getting rid of the idea of hell.’ Voltaire replied: ‘Allow me to congratulate you; I am far from that.’ “

8 Cp. Heerbrand, Compendium, pp. 214–216; quoted in Baier-Walther, II, 176.

9 Compare here what was said above under the “Omniscience” of God regarding the infallible divine prescience of all things and the right attitude towards this fact. See also, in Volume III the chapter “Election in Its Proper Setting.” We also call attention here to the diametrical opposition between Luther’s and Calvin’s teachings, while both speak of a “hidden” and a “revealed” God. This will be fully treated in Volume II, in the chapter “The Theological Terminology Regarding the Divine Will of Grace.”

Angelology

(DE ANGELIS)

IF further proof is needed that modern theology has made the I of the theologizing subject the principium cognoscendi of theology, its more or less skeptical attitude toward the teaching of Scripture on the existence of good and evil angels offers that proof. The degree of the skepticism depends on the consistency with which it applies the Ego viewpoint. The attitude of the liberal wing may be thus summarized: The existence of good angels may be possible, but there is no convincing proof of it; at all events, the existence of a personal devil cannot be proved.1 The more conservative wing does not want “the idea of the angels banished from the language of religious contemplation,” but it does insist that what Scripture says about the angels does not entitle us to speak of a “doctrine” of the angels; to get a “dogmatic” rating, its “inner necessary connection with the experience of salvation found in the theologian must be shown.” Kirn declares. (Ev. Dogmatik, 3d ed., p. 72): “Since the angels have no inner necessary connection with the saving truth and the experience of salvation, it is not the business of dogmatics to set up a particular doctrine of the angels.” — There are modern theologians who have become convinced of the existence of good and evil angels through their own investigations.2 But we need to remind ourselves that the Christian doctrine of the angels can be ascertained only from Scripture as God’s infallible Word. We are laboring under a delusion if we imagine that we can disregard Scripture and evolve with “inner necessity” the Christian doctrine of the angels either in whole or in part from our Ego.

A word on the argument that since the doctrine of the angels does not occupy a central position in the order of salvation, it should not be called a “doctrine” at all. Kirn says (loc. cit.): “We cannot regard the idea of angels as being essential to the revelation of salvation and so must leave the use of the conception of angels to religious tact.” Now, we have already seen (under “Non-Fundamental Doctrines”) that and why the doctrine of the angels must not be classified as a fundamental article. We are brought into communion with the grace of God not by believing in the existence of angels and their services, but by believing in Christ the Crucified, in His satisfactio vicaria (1 Cor. 2:2; 15:3); in all ages men have become Christians who did not know that there were angels. But when a man has become a Christian and reads the Bible, he will find in it, from Genesis to Revelation, the doctrine of the angels, side by side with the central article of Christ, the Savior of sinners. And it certainly requires a great deal of inconsistency for him to accept the doctrine of Christ and reject the doctrine of the angels. — The idea of modern theologians that the denial of the Christian doctrine of the angels can easily be harmonized with the “Christian experience of salvation” is due largely to their wrong conception of the Christian experience of salvation. This Christian experience is, in the nature of the case, terra incognita to all who deny the satisfactio Christi vicaria.