Election Intuitu Fidei in Gerhard’s
Theological Commonplaces

Introduction

The doctrine of predestination, or election to eternal life remains a contentious doctrines in Christian theology. It stands as a line of cleavage between the three major branches of the protestant world: Lutherans, the Reformed, and the Arminian evangelicals, all of whom have distinctly different doctrines of election, such that even the word “elect” is not used in the same sense by all parties. To describe three, rather than two essential positions will no doubt grate at Reformed and Arminian theologians, who believe that there are two, and only two, mutually exclusive positions: That of unconditional election predicated solely on the bare and inscrutable will of a sovereign God, and that of conditional election predicated upon the free-will choice of men. However, the Lutheran doctrine is neither of these things. It is truly a third way, for it places election in Christ, gives to God all glory for the conversion of man and denies man even the smallest part in his election and conversion. At the same time it attributes to the reprobate full responsibility for their hardness of heart, and insists that God had no part in willing or foreordaining their damnation.

The Lutheran Church has not practiced its theology in a vacuum, but has formed and shaped its expression of the doctrine of predestination in the midst of controversy, directly engaging with the Calvinists and Synergists, sometimes even in their own midst. While the Lutherans largely experienced little internal controversy regarding this doctrine prior to the adoption of the Formula of Concord, it is also true that some theologians in the Lutheran camp were unduly influenced either by Calvinism or Arminianism. This was especially true regarding the doctrines of Conversion, the Person of Christ, and the Lord’s Supper. Melanchthon himself capitulated on all three of these doctrines, seeking unity with the Calvinists on the one hand, and the Synergists on the other. The Formula was forged in the flames of these controversies. It therefore cannot be said that the Lutheran Church developed its doctrine of election in isolation, but like iron sharpens iron, it arrived at the position of the Formula by engaging directly with the Christian world at large, and subjecting her doctrinal formulations to the Scriptures, even at the cost of appearing irrational.

However, despite the clarity of Article XI of the Formula, and the broad agreement among the Lutheran theologians, this unity lasted but a generation. By the so-called Age of Orthodoxy, contention with Calvinist theologians resulted in most of the 17th century Lutheran theologians adopting a position that went too far in the opposite direction. This position was known as election intuitu fidei, the idea that God elected those whom He foresaw would persevere in faith until the end. We might call this doctrine “Election in view of final faith.”

Yet even though this terminology gained broad purchase during that time, it would be a mistake to assume that it was understood in the same manner by all, and an even greater mistake to assume that those of later generations who adopted the same terminology, particularly in America, also agreed with those who introduced it. Indeed, a very synergistic doctrine of election arose in the Iowa, Ohio, and Norwegian synods, first coming to the foreground in 1870. Contention over this doctrine lasted for over 50 years, and led to a major realignment of the bounds of fellowship among the Lutherans. Throughout this period of time, and to this day, the opposition party appealed to the theologians of the 17th century, and to John Gerhard in particular, to justify their doctrine which in a very direct way made man’s faith an antecedent cause of election. Were they just in their appeal?

A complete answer would require an extensive examination of the major theologians of the 17th century, particularly Gerhard, Calov, and Quenstedt, a daunting task, particularly given how little of the relevant material has even been translated. However, among these men, Gerhard stands out as the greatest dogmatician of that time. His Theological Commonplaces is a masterful and comprehensive dogmatics text that has had tremendous influence for generations. Little wonder that it is especially to Gerhard that the more modern teachers of election intuitu fidei appeal. This paper will examine the Commonplaces to determine: What was Gerhard’s doctrine of election? Did it disagree with the Formula of Concord in any fundamental way? And especially: How precisely did Gerhard understand election intuitu fidei, that is, the relation between election and saving faith.

As part of this examination, we will attempt to answer: Whether Gerhard attempted to resolve the question cur alii prae aliis? Does his use of intuitu fidei attempt to explain some essential difference between the elect and the reprobate? Does it propose that grace is not universal or that there is any less of a hardened heart in the elect? Does it maintain that the elect are saved entirely by the grace of God, and the reprobate lost entirely by their own stubbornness and hardness of heart, and that there is no essential difference between these two groups? And especially, does Gerhad’s position concord with the theologians of the Ohio, Iowa, Norwegian, and General synods and their modern theological inheritors who posit that God has put some part of conversion, and thus election, into man’s own hands?

The different meanings of Intuitu Fidei Finalis

To begin, it is important to understand the various ways in which this phrase has been used. These can be divided into three primary formulations:

The Synergistic (or crass) Form

The synergistic form proposes that God sends His grace prior to conversion in order to partially enlighten man to the knowledge both of his sin and of God’s salvation in Christ, and by this initial preparation of the Holy Spirit, enable him to choose to repent of His sins and trust in Christ, and by the further working of the Holy Spirit, to persevere in that faith, and thus be saved. Election intuitu fidei finalis therefore means that God elected those whom He foresaw would make this choice and persevere in it. Thus there was indeed something in man that caused God, from eternity, to choose him. The proponents of this form directly state that there is no mystery in election, no unsolvable problem, since the question “Why some, and not others are saved” is straightforwardly answered: The difference is in man’s choice to either believe the Gospel or to resist the Holy Spirit, a choice which he makes even before he is converted. In this view, faith is an antecedent of election, and indeed, is its cause. God does not so much elect, as provide man the means to elect himself, and because man has so chosen, God in turn chooses man.

To make this argument, the proponents of the crass form make a parallel construction: That of God’s preordination of Christ’s atonement intuitu pecatti. That is, that Christ was foreordained to atone for the sins of the world in view of man’s sins. Because man’s sins are certainly in man, and are not caused by God, one must then state that the cause of the preordination of Christ’s atonement must also be found in man. And if Christ’s atonement is intuiti pecatti, then no one can possibly object to the election of man to eternal life also being found in man himself, only in this case, intuitu fidei.

The Contingent Form

The contingent form of intuitu fidei states that man has no part whatsoever in his conversion, but that this is effected entirely by God, through the working of the Holy Spirit. It denies that there is in any sense a prevenient grace by which man is somehow enabled to respond to the Gospel with some choice of his own. Nevertheless, it maintains that God elected those whom He foresaw would believe and persevere until the end in the faith, and thus be saved. In this view, like the previous one, the object of God’s foreknowledge is something in man. However, it is not a difference that man can claim any credit for in even the smallest way. This view retains the mystery of election in part, for even though it attributes God’s election to foreknowledge of something in man, it offers no explanation as to why, if only God’s Holy Spirit can overcome man’s reprobate nature, He does not do so in all, and thus elect all to eternal life. This view expressly denies that faith is an external cause of election, but that nevertheless, election is not carried out without consideration of faith. Thus faith might be viewed as an instrumental cause in the same sense that the means of grace are instrumental in election.

This view generally follows the argument that since election is solely in and through Christ, and that Christ can only be apprehended by faith, therefore consideration of final faith must play a part in election.

The Comprehensive Form

The comprehensive form of intuitu fidei states that faith itself is comprehended within election itself (pars ordinis electionis). It is neither an antecedent of election, nor does it follow election, but it subsumed into election itself as the means by which God Himself carries out His eternal decree. In other words, God’s election to eternal life not only elects men in Christ, but determines that it is by faith that they will be saved. Thus here “in view of” does not mean that faith was somehow involved in discerning whom to elect, but that faith itself is part of election itself, for election is not merely a bare choice, with the means of salvation, i.e., Christ, faith, and the means of grace a mere consequence of election. In election God elected not only the men in Christ, but also determined the means of their salvation. Thus faith is caused by election.

The comprehensive form, unlike the synergistic and contingent forms of intuitu fidei, presupposes that the object of God’s foreknowledge prior to election is not something about men, but the men themselves. God foreknew those who are His, and because He foreknew them, he elected them, in Christ, through faith, unto eternal life.

This form alone avoids any attempt to resolve the mystery of cur alii prae aliis, for it denies that there is any difference between the elect and the reprobate in themselves, and asserts that the elect are saved entirely by the action of the Holy Spirit operating through the means of grace, and this action is contingent on absolutely nothing in even the smallest part in man. It further maintains that all who are lost, i.e., the reprobate, are lost entirely by their own fault. This is the only form of intuitu fidei finalis that agrees with article XI of the Formula of Concord.

Framing the Issue

Thus we have three distinctly different ways in which the same terminology may be used. When examining Gerhard’s use of the term, it is important to keep these various forms in mind, particularly because more recent controversies are often marked by an inappropriate conflation of the different uses of the same terms in such a way that attempts to claim Gerhard and the other 17th century Lutheran theologians in support of the position of the modern synergists.

When reading the fathers, it is always important to remember that they speak in a specific context that is not always evident to modern readers. The temptation always exists to read our present context into their writings, and in the process to attribute positions to them that they did not hold. This is especially true of this issue. When reading Gerhard, one should consider especially the entire context of the work in question. In the case that work is Commonplace X, On Election and Reprobation. One should also consider the historical context in which he wrote, namely the contrary position of the Reformed which he was directly addressing. While consistency has never been one of man’s virtues, when confronted by contradictory statements, we should not immediately jump to the conclusion that Gerhard is being inconsistent, but rather should first make the attempt to reconcile these apparent contradictions by considering that we might not have understood the manner in which Gerhard uses his terms.

The apparent contradiction

For the sake of “laying the cards on the table,” so to speak, let us first consider a number of statements from the Theological Commonplaces, Commonplace X,¹ to demonstrate the issue in question. We will begin with statements which deny faith a causal role in election:

God is moved to elect some people to eternal life by no human merits, by no dignity of the human race — in fact, not even by His foreseeing of their good works or faith. Rather, it is to be ascribed completely and only to His unmerited and boundless grace.²

Do not infer that it follows from our position that people appoint themselves to eternal life. We attribute such appointing to God alone. If God Himself had not thus appointed some people to eternal life, no one would believe and no one would be saved. It is God who established this order from eternity: that those who hear and learn the Word may come to faith and be saved through this very hearing of the Word. Were it not for this order of God, no one would hear (because He antecedes our every hearing by opening the way with His Word) or believe (because if God had not decided to be effective in the hearts of men through the Word, no one would come to faith, even if he listened for a hundred years) or be saved (because election to salvation depends solely on the grace of God, who shows mercy).³

It does not follow that if consideration for faith is involved in the act of election, then God does not elect us but we elect ourselves. You see, we are not saying that faith is the meritorious or efficient cause of election, nor that God has elected us because of our faith.⁴

We do not claim that we have been elected because of our foreseen faith but that a consideration of faith is involved in the decree of election.⁵

We are not claiming that predestination is the result of a foreseeing of faith, but that a consideration of faith is involved in the decree of election. There is a great difference between these propositions. The first expresses a meritorious or external impulsive [προκαταρκτικὴν] cause, while the latter denotes only the order.⁶

We profess with a loud voice that we claim that God found nothing good in man in electing him for eternal life, that He has not regarded good works nor the use of free will nor even faith itself so as to be moved by these or because of these to elect some. Rather, we assert that it is only and solely the merit of Christ, whose worth God regarded and made His decree of election out of pure grace.⁷

Here we see that Gerhard is careful to exclude any manner in which man’s conduct, choice, or lack of resistance might be the cause of election. Not even faith itself is a cause of election. In this, Gerhard agrees with the Formula: “It is therefore false and wrong when men teach that the cause of our election is not only the mercy of God and the most holy merit of Christ, but that there is also within us a cause of God’s election on account of which God has elected us unto eternal life.”⁸

Now consider the following statements, the first of which begins immediately following the last one:

Nevertheless, because the merit of Christ has a place in people only through faith, therefore we teach that election happened in view of the merit of Christ which must be apprehended by faith. Therefore we say that all those and only those are elected by God from eternity for salvation whom [God] foresaw would truly believe in Christ the Redeemer by the efficacy of the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Gospel and would remain in the faith until life’s end.⁹

Rom 8:29: “Those whom He foreknew He also predestined.” This foreknowledge necessarily relates to faith in Christ, for God has not also predestined all those whom He foreknew in all ways. Rather, He elected or predestined to eternal life those whom, with His infallible knowledge, He foreknew from eternity would persevere in believing in Christ by the grace of the Holy Spirit through hearing the Gospel.¹⁰

Although faith is accordingly not required as a sort of work and merit because of which we are justfied, nevertheless the order and the manner of attaining salvation is that we believe in Christ. Consequently, what Zanchi admits about the preaching of the Gospel — that in it is taught what sort of people God wants those to be whom He wants to save — let him also think about predestination, namely, that respect for faith is involved in its act, not as a meritorious work but with regard to order. For just as it pleases God to save in time only those who believe in Christ, so it pleased Him from eternity to elect only those whom He foresaw would believe in Christ with perseverance by the efficacy of the Holy Spirit through the Word.¹¹

Just as people become participants of this adoption in time through faith, so also one cannot exclude a consideration of faith from the decree of adoption and salvation. Those whom God adopts in time to be His children He has determined to adopt from eternity, and God has determined to adopt them from eternity in the same way as He adopts them in time. Consequently, respect for faith, both that which is to be granted and that which has been foreseen, is involved in the decree of election. … God could not have elected people in Christ without a consideration of faith; in fact, faith alone connects us to Christ and unites us with Him. … Therefore as God offers the benefit of adoption through faith to people in time, so also from eternity He made His decree about adopting them as sons and establishing them as heirs of eternal life. He foresaw that they would persevere in their faith in Christ through the Word by the efficacy of the Holy Spirit.¹²

Many other quotations could be included in which Gerhard appeals to a “consideration of faith” in election. He repeats the common formula many times: “God elected those whom He foresaw would persevere in faith.” I have included in particular those places where he links faith to foreknowledge, for it is here that the greatest difficulty with Gerhard’s treatment lies.

Foreknowledge

The question of foreknowledge, and its relation to election, is at the heart of the issue. When Gerhard says repeatedly that God elected those whom He foresaw would truly believe in Christ and would remain in the faith until life’s end, does this mean that this foreseeing is itself the basis of God’s election? Or is it rather only to be understood as a syllogism: God foresees all. Salvation is only by faith in Christ. Therefore those whom God elects he also foresees would have final faith in Christ. Strictly speaking the statement follows logically, and is therefore true. It itself, it does not imply that the foreseeing of final faith is itself the cause of election.

God’s foreknowledge includes all things. As the Formula states:

Thus there is no doubt that before the world began God foresaw right well and with utter certainty, and that he still knows, who of those who are called will believe and who will not; likewise, who of the converted will persevere and who will not persevere; and who after falling away will return and who will become obdurate.

God is also aware and knows exactly how many there will be on either side. But because God has reserved this mystery to his own wisdom and not revealed anything concerning it in the Word, still less has commanded us to explore it through our own speculations but has earnestly warned against it (Rom. 11:33), therefore we are not, on the basis of our speculations, to make our own deductions, draw conclusions, or brood over it, but cling solely to his revealed Word, to which he directs us.

Without doubt God also knows and has determined for each person the time and hour of his call and conversion. But since he has not revealed this to us, we must obey his command and operate constantly with the Word, while we leave the time and hour to God (Acts 1:7).¹³

However, it is one thing to acknowledge that God foreknows all, and another to attribute election to God’s foreknowledge en toto. Gerhard does not do this for all of God’s foreknowledge, but without question he does make faith part of the foreknowledge from which God elects. In the quote above regarding Romans 8:29, he says, “This foreknowledge necessarily relates to faith in Christ, for God has not also predestined all those whom He foreknew in all ways. Rather, He elected or predestined to eternal life those whom, with His infallible knowledge, He foreknew from eternity would persevere in believing in Christ by the grace of the Holy Spirit through hearing the Gospel.”¹⁴

We cannot fault Gerhard for stating that God foreknows all who will persevere unto the end and be saved. Nor can we deny that this is true of every one of the elect, and of no others. But it is another to state that the foreknowledge from which God elects is, in fact, this perseverance in faith, even if faith is only involved in a passive sense.

This goes beyond what Romans 8:29 states: “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” Here Paul does not speak of God foreknowing faith. He foreknows the people who are his. Romans 8:29 is a direct parallel to John 10:27–28: “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.” It does no good to state that the foreknowledge of God includes faith, for, as Gerhard admits, “God has not also predestined all those whom He foreknew in all ways,” but here Gerhard specifically makes faith a part of electing foreknowledge.

Consideration of Faith

Another formula that Gerhard repeatedly uses is that a “consideration of faith” is involved in election. But in what sense is it involved? As its basis, or rather as a necessary consequence? In other words, does Gerhard only mean to say that consideration of faith is involved because it cannot be otherwise than that the elect shall be saved by anything but by faith in Christ? It comes down to this: Who is doing the considering? Perhaps it is not God that Gerhard means, but the theologian himself who must consider faith when speaking of God’s election to eternal life. However this is not the case:

God could not have elected people in Christ without a consideration of faith; in fact, faith alone connects us to Christ and unites us with Him. … Therefore as God offers the benefit of adoption through faith to people in time, so also from eternity He made His decree about adopting them as sons and establishing them as heirs of eternal life. He foresaw that they would persevere in their faith in Christ through the Word by the efficacy of the Holy Spirit.¹⁵

It is clear that it is God’s own consideration of faith that he means, and that not in an instrumental way, for he speaks of it in such a way that their perseverance in the faith is involved in His election itself. It is difficult to see how Gerhard on the one had can use such phrases as “foreseen faith” and “consideration of faith” without making faith a cause of election. We struggle to come to some understanding of his words that harmonizes them with what he says before:

God is moved to elect some people to eternal life by no human merits, by no dignity of the human race — in fact, not even by His foreseeing of their good works or faith. Rather, it is to be ascribed completely and only to His unmerited and boundless grace.¹⁶

So how should we view this “consideration of faith” if foreseen faith is in no way a cause of election? Gerhard’s most clarifying statement on this point is as follows:

We are not claiming that predestination is the result of a foreseeing of faith, but that a consideration of faith is involved in the decree of election. There is a great difference between these propositions. The first expresses a meritorious or external impulsive [προκαταρκτικὴν] cause, while the latter denotes only the order.¹⁷

The “order” of which he speaks can only mean the divinely ordained order in which a man is to be saved: by faith in Christ. For the cause of election is Christ alone, but because Christ can only be apprehended by faith, faith must be considered in election.

If Gerhard had limited himself to this particular wording “consideration of faith” rather than also speaking of “forseen faith,” then much confusion in later years could have been avoided. For in this sense he is in agreement with the Formula:

This means that we must always take as one unit the entire doctrine of God’s purpose, counsel, will, and ordinance concerning our redemption, call, justification, and salvation, as Paul treats and explains this article (Rom. 8:28ff.; Eph. 1:4ff.) and as Christ likewise does in the parable (Matt. 22:2–14), namely, that in his purpose and counsel God had ordained the following:
…
3. That he would be effective and active in us by his Holy Spirit through the Word when it is preached, heard, and meditated on, would convert hearts to true repentance, and would enlighten them in the true faith.

4. That he would justify and graciously accept into the adoption of children and into the inheritance of eternal life all who in sincere repentance and true faith accept Christ.¹⁸

Election is not Absolute

Gerhard states that election is not absolute:

To the question about election we respond with the words of the apostle, Eph. 1:4: “God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world.” According to the Hebrew wording, to be chosen in Christ means to be chosen through and because of Christ, who is to be apprehended by faith. Therefore the cause of election should not be sought in some absolute good-pleasure of God by which He chose a few people. Rather, because God foresaw from eternity that Adam along with all his descendants would fall into eternal death because of his rebellion, because of the rigor of divine justice Christ had to intercede. He placated the wrath of God and turned the Father from being a stern punisher of sins to being kind. For this reason we say that Christ is the cause of election, or, what is the same, we say that God made His decree of election in view of the satisfaction to be made by Christ and to be received by faith. This is what the apostle intends when he says, “We have been chosen in Christ” [Eph. 1:4].¹⁹

It is important to note that here “absolute” does not refer to there being the possibility that the elect may become “non-elect.” Rather it refers to the nature of election itself. An absolute election is entirely disconnected from the atonement. In the same sense, reprobation is not “absolute.” That is, it is not an eternal decree of God:

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. …

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].²⁰

When we consider how, above, Gerhard denied that the cause of election is in man, he maintained, on the contrary, that the cause of reprobation is in man. Yes, God foreknew the fall, and the reprobate, but He did not ordain either. God also foreknew faith, but Christ himself is the cause of election.

Here we can see that one Gerhard’s chief purposes in maintaining the intuitu fidei formula is to remove the monster of uncertainty by which the sinner doubts that he could be saved even if he has faith, because in the end, he may not be one of the elect, but rather one of the reprobate. On the contrary, he is to find his election in Christ:

Second, the question arises: From what source can we know that we are in the number of the elect? We respond. 1 John 5:10: “Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony within himself.” Those whom God has predestined from eternity He calls in time through the Word and justifies through faith (Rom. 8:29). Such faith exhibits itself through true invocation of God, through bearing the cross, and through a zeal for holiness. However, if faith is made weak in the midst of trials and the feeling of faith is almost extinguished in us, we should look to the universal promises whereby God offers His grace to all. We should look to the merit of Christ, which concerns all; to the ministry of the Word and Sacraments, in which God offers all the benefits of His Son; and to Baptism, which is the testimony of a good conscience [cf. 1 Pet. 3:21]. We should have recourse to the use of the Holy Supper, in which Christ offers that very body which was given up into death for us to eat and that very blood which He shed on the altar of the cross for us to drink. From all these we ought to conclude that God earnestly wants us to acknowledge our sins, to believe in Christ, and to become partakers of eternal salvation through faith.²¹

The Nature of Related Things

Gerhard also, in several places, refers to the principle of the “nature of related things.” This is a set of rules that governs the consideration of the relationship among different entities, actions, or concepts. It is an extension of logic. “Micraelius states: ‘Related things are together both in nature and in recognition, so that when one is posited, the other is posited, too, and when one is recognized, the other is recognized too.’ … Here Gerhard is saying that since divine benefits are as promises can be received only by faith, when the promises of divine benefits are mentioned, faith is implied.”²² An example of the nature of related things is that if someone is a son, they must have a father. The former necessarily implies the latter. Thus is is impossible to state that election is in Christ without also bringing a consideration of faith into election, because Christ is apprehended only by faith:

The foundation of that specific grace of God by which He chooses people to eternal life is Jesus Christ, the God-man, considered with all His merit and satisfaction. Eph. 1:4: “God chose us in Christ.” On the other hand, because the merit of Christ benefits no one without application, from the nature of related things, mention of Christ in election includes the concept of faith embracing Christ. 2 Thess. 2:13–14: “God chose us from the beginning to be saved through the sanctification of the Spirit and faith in the truth.”²³

But I add the minor premise from the nature of related things: God has loved no one in Christ for eternal life unless he is in Christ through faith. Therefore respect for faith [intuitus fidei] cannot be excluded from this love.²⁴

As with the phrase “consideration of faith,” we can see that Gerhard’s appeal to the nature of related things does not intend to make foreseen faith a cause of election, but only to state that faith can in no way be excluded from election.

The Intention of the Terms

As we said at the outset, it important to consider the historical and theological context which caused the 17th century theologians to adopt this langauge. And the context, in this case, is the doctrine of Calvin. Gerhard spends the bulk of Commonplace X responding to what today we call Supralapsarianism. This is the most extreme form of Calvinism that posits that God, from eternity, elected certain people to eternal life, and elected the rest to eternal damnation. Because of this, he then ordained that man fall into sin, that Christ would become true man and be crucified for the sins of the world, that God would then, out of his grace, accept the sacrifice of Christ as if it were sufficient for sin, and then, also of grace, determined that He would justify those who had faith in Christ, and would preserve them until their death in this faith. Note that not only is faith an afterthought in this scheme, but Christ Himself is also an afterthought. The entire scheme of how God would carry out his eternal decree is thus almost arbitrary.

To strip faith from any consideration in election automatically makes God capricious, and election becomes, as the formula calls it, a “military muster” as if God is a general going down the lines, arbitrarily deciding that this or that person would be saved or damned, based on nothing but His whim. Thus not only is it necessary to respond that election is in Christ from the very beginning, but also that faith, as the only means whereby Christ may be apprehended, is also considered from eternity, in God’s act of electing man. Gerhard used the terminology “in view of faith” to answer the Supralaparian Calvinists who denied that faith, and even Christ, had any part in God’s election. However, in the process Gerhard also added “forseen” faith to the concept, and created a conundrum that has created difficulties ever since.

Resolving the “Contradiction”

Given the conflicting statements of Gerhard, it is tempting to leave the matter as unresolvable, and simply say that Gerhard was being sloppy and inconsistent. However, this would be uncharitable, and ahistorical. For it is always a mistake to read into the past the controversies of the present, and presume that every consequence of one’s formulation of Christian doctrine is immediately evident.

Therefore, even though we must grant the serious problems that result from the intuitu fidei formula, it is worthwhile to attempt to synthesize in a concise statement, just what Gerhard was getting at with his various statements. As to that, I propose the following:

Intuitu fidei is not a determining factor or cause of election. Rather God’s foreknowledge of persevering faith is itself a part of election in the sense that in electing one to eternal life in Christ, God also sees the means and the end of the thing. For God, His eternal election makes it so, so that it cannot be otherwise than that His elect persevere in faith until their end and are thus saved. In election there is an absolute that embraces the entire ordo salutis. It cannot thus be otherwise that when God elects, He sees the beginning, middle, and end simultaneously. In this sense, election is always intuitu fidei, without the foreknowledge of faith in any way becoming a cause of election.

This summary does not remove the difficult expressions, nor the unfortunate manner in which they have been abused by later theologians of the 19th and 20th centuries. However, it does make clear that Gerhard did not intend to abandon the doctrine of the Formula of Concord regarding election.

The Consequences of the Intuitu Fidei Formula

It is clear that Gerhard’s concern in the use of “foreseen faith” is to completely reject the doctrine of Calvinism which relegates faith, and even the atonement of Christ itself, as a mere tool by which God carries out his bare eternal decree, which decree He made entirely without reference to Christ or faith. But our difficulty is that it leaves us with with a very unfortunate formulation of election which not only can but has been horribly abused in the Lutheran Church. As much as we must be charitable to Gerhard, giving him as much benefit of the doubt as possible, we also must correct the erroneous formulation, and in particular, the incorrect way in which Gerhard considered the foreknowledge of God as it applies to election, even if he did not do so in a causal sense. Pieper writes, not in answer to Gerhard, but those who used his formula:

The statement (οὓς προέγνω), ‘whom He did foreknow,’ in Rom. 8, 29, has been cited. But these words are not suffered to express what they state in their literal meaning, but the interpreters take the liberty of casting aside the object ‘whom’ (οὓς), and substituting for it as object an entirely different concept: ‘whose persevering faith He did foreknow.’²⁵

In his earlier years, before Walther was embroiled in the predestination controversy which began in the Synodical Conference in the 1870s, he acknowledged how one might properly speak of foreknowledge of faith in regards to election:

There is a great difference between saying: ‘God has chosen those of whom He foresaw that they would believe and remain in the faith,’ and saying: ‘God has chosen some because He foresaw that they would believe and remain in the faith, or, because, of their faith.’ The former is quite correct, according to Rom. 8, 29; the latter is Pelagianistic.”²⁶

It is clear that with Gerhard the former applies, and not the latter. Gerhard is not guilty of Pelagianism or synergism in his formulation of God’s foreknowledge. In fact, he takes great pains to deny man any part in his election, whether that of his conduct, or of his responsibility for responding to the Gospel. But it is also true that he has changed the object of Romans 8:29 from the persons themselves to the final faith of those persons. We cannot assent to this change. As Pieper notes, the object of God’s electing foreknowledge is not “what” but “who.” God foreknows all things, but the foreknowledge from which He elects is not something about the elect, but the elect themselves.

The difference matters greatly, for once the object moves beyond the man himself to something about the man, it is difficult to exclude the possibility that the object of foreknowledge is itself a cause of election. Later, after Walther was fully embroiled in the Predestination controversy, he repudiates the entire formula of Gerhard because of the manner in which it was appropriated by the American Lutherans who taught a synergistic view:

We believe, teach, and confess that the cause which moved God to elect is alone His grace and the merit of Jesus Christ, and not anything good foreseen by God in the elect, not even faith foreseen in them by God; and we therefore reject and condemn the opposite doctrines of the Pelagians, semi-Pelagians, and synergists as blasphemous, dreadful errors which subvert the Gospel and therewith the whole Christian religion.²⁷

It should be noted that Walther never once accused Gerhard himself, nor any of the 17th century Lutherans of synergism in any form. In fact, so certain was Walther that Gerhard and the later dogmaticians were free of synergism, that he even states:

Inasmuch as our dogmaticians most certainly teach the certainty of election and salvation based upon the divine promises of grace, which make our salvation a matter to be disposed of by the Lord’s hand and not by our own, they have, quite as certainly, in effect forgotten the intuitu fidei theory, have forgotten it not only in part, but wholly.²⁸

Nevertheless, he was quite critical of their use of the intuitu fidei formula, even stating that it undermined their fervent defense of the Scriptural doctrine over and against Calvinism by giving the Synergists a shelter in which their error could hide. For this reason, he says: “We may best avoid misunderstandings, so easily called forth, if we entirely abstain from using the new terminology of the seventeenth century dogmaticians.”²⁹

Pieper writes:

Whoever really holds fast to the grace of God in Christ and rejects every cause of conversion and salvation in man, and, hence, really holds faith to be donum Dei, no longer has any interest in intuitu fidei when the correct doctrine of Predestination is exhibited to him from Scripture and the Confessions. For this reason we maintained during the predestination controversy that also Gerhard and the rest of the old theologians would have dispensed with the intuitu fidei over against us, that is to say, if they had had to deal, not with Calvinists, but with us in the matter of predestination.³⁰

This may seem like a bold statement, but by “us” Pieper means the “us” that was at the time embroiled in the Predestination controversy in the Synodical Conference on both sides of this issue. That is, Gerhard could not have maintained his formula if he had to deal with the abuse to which it was put by the other side. An examination of that controversy is in order, particularly because of how often Gerhard’s name was dragged into it, for the same arguments continue to be made today.

Gerhard During the American Predestination Controversy

The Missouri controversy on predestination came in two stages. The first began in 1870, with the Iowa synod accusing Missouri of crypto-calvinism. They were later joined by the Ohio synod who quickly took center stage and attempted to rely upon the 17th century Lutheran theologians intuitu fidei formulation of election to support their claims. However, they went much further than Gerhard did. They made election contingent on faith, rather than maintaining that God elected to faith in Christ. However, they found themselves in conflict with the Formula, and attempted to reconcile there position by proposing that the Formula used election in two different senses, a narrow sense which they found in XI, par. 5, which applied only to those who responded to the Gospel,³¹ and in a wide sense, in XI, par. 8, and 15–22, which referred particularly to the ordinatio mediroum, i.e., the “election” of the means of grace as the means by which all must be saved, and this applied to all men.³² Missouri responded that the means of grace were not the object of election at all. Specific individual people were the objects of election, but election also ordained that it was through the means of grace that they be converted, preserved, and saved. This stage of the controversy resulted in the Ohio leaving the Synodical Conference in 1881. The Norwegian synod followed in 1883, though they remained in fellowship.

The controversy continued in the Norwegian synod, and led to a division with about a third of her pastors and congregations leaving, eventually to join with other smaller Norwegian groups in 1890 to form the United Norwegian Church in America. The election controversy continued among the Norwegians for some years. Near the beginning of the 20th century, a revival, of sorts, of Norwegian culturism and solidarity drove a corresponding move to re-unite the various Norwegian Lutheran bodies into a single fellowship. This eventually led to the Madison Settlement (Opgjør) of 1912. However, this document, echoing thoughts from the beginning of the controversy, proposed two different formulations of the doctrine of election, one which expressed the doctrine of the Formula of Concord, and the other, which they termed a “second form,” which on the surface was the intuitu fidei form as taught by Pontoppidan,³³ whose explanation is essentially equivalent to Gerhard,³⁴ but in truth went well beyond the 17th century intuitu fidei, for it attributed to man “responsibility in respect of the acceptance or rejection of grace,” something Gerhard never taught. The Settlement maintained that neither form was in conflict with the other, but that both were proper formulations, and both could be maintained and taught:

But since in regard to the doctrine of Election it is well known that two forms of the doctrine have been used, both of which have been recognized in the orthodox Lutheran church, some, in accordance with the Formula of Concord, include under the doctrine of election, viz., that some, with the Formula of Concord, make the doctrine of Election to comprise the whole order of salvation of the elect from the calling to the glorification, (cf. ‘Thorough Explanation,’ Articles 10-20) and teach an Election ‘to salvation through sanctification by the Holy Spirit and faith in the truth,’ while others, like Pontoppidan, in agreement with John Gerhard, Scriver and other acknowledged doctrinal fathers, define Election specifically as the decree of final glorification, with the Spirit’s work of faith and perseverance as its necessary postulate, and teach that ‘God has ordained to eternal life all those whom from eternity He foresaw would accept the proffered grace, believe in Christ, and remain steadfast in this faith unto the end;’ and since neither of these two forms of doctrine, presented in this wise, contradicts any doctrine revealed in the Word of God, but lets the order of salvation, as otherwise presented in God’s Word and the Confessions of the Church remain entirely intact and fully acknowledged, we find that this fact ought not be divisive of church unity, nor ought it disrupt the unity of spirit in the bond of peace which God wills should obtain between us.³⁶

This, once more, brought Missouri back into the matter, for though the Norwegian Synod was no longer a member of the Synodical Conference, she was still in fellowship with them. Franz Pieper wrote his book, “Conversion and Election” as a direct response to the Madison Settlement, and maintained that these “two forms of election” were entirely incompatible with one another, and could in no way be reconciled. With this salvo, the theologians of the Ohio Synod once more joined the fray, with even the Genral Synod weighing in. The back and forth literature of that era makes it very clear that little had changed since the controversy began in 1870. If anything, the synergism of the modern intuitu fideists was clearer than ever.

The election controversy, so far as Missouri was concerned, finally ended when, in 1918, a small minority of the Norwegian Synod refused to take part in the union due to their compromised doctrine on election. They reorganized as the Norwegian Synod of the American Evangelical Lutheran Church, commonly known thereafter as the “little Norwegian Synod,” the body now known as the Evangelical Lutheran Synod. In 1920, in a single resolution, the Synodical Conference received the little Norwegian Synod as a member, and broke fellowship with the newly-formed Norwegian union church.

Throughout the years, the old Norwegian Synod had tolerated the expression of election as found in Gerhard, namely, the use of the term intuitu fidei, but insisted that it could only be used insofar as Gerhard himself used it,³⁷ that is, by entirely rejecting any concept of the individual having responsibility for believing the Gospel, or that faith was a cause of election in any sense, or that human conduct in any manner influenced God’s election.

Timeless Lessons

As it is with history in general, so it is with historical theology: It the nature of man to justify himself. Thus, the present looks to the past and sees what it wants to see. But when it comes to historical theology, we cannot make history our own to do with as we please. This is not just a matter of integrity, but of respect and love. We believe in the resurrection of the dead, and the life everlasting. When we read, learn from, and apply the writing of our theological forebears, we must remember that they are not dead, but sleeping. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Pieper, Walther, Gerhard, Chemnitz, and Luther are not dead, but sleeping. To take their words and missapropriate them to our own uses, is not just dishonest, but offensive. These men are not only our fathers int he faith, but our brethren, due the same charity and consideration as if they were still alive and in our presence. To abuse their words is to sin against a Christian brother. Far too many forget this.

Therefore, in Christian charity, we must take Gerhard in his own historical context, and remember his struggles and his faithfulness. Which of us has not, in a zeal for the truth, overstated our case? Who among us has the deep wisdom to foresee the consequences of every figure of speech and theological formulation which we adopt in defense of the truth? God be praised that His Holy Word continues to turn us from human folly and pride, and back to the Gospel of the forgiveness of sins in Christ Jesus. The doctrine of election was given to us by God for comfort, that in the middle of our many tribulations and doubts, God would hold before our eyes the suffering and death of His Son, Jesus Christ, and declare to us, “Behold His Body and Blood, given and shed for the remission of your sins. Behold the Lamb of God who has taken away your sins. Behold the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. I knew you in my Son from eternity. I have chosen you in My Son, and no one can take you from me. You are mine. Never doubt it.”

All of this comfort is robbed when the eternal decree that we belong to God in Christ is transformed into a product of our own conduct and personal choice. If God only chose us because He foresaw that we would, of our own choice, belive in Christ, and persevere in this faith until death, then our election is no comfort at all, but a terror. For then, our salvation depends entirely upon our own perseverance it the faith, and not on God’s eternal promise. Gerhard would be horrified that his words are being used to justify such a terrible theology, for his own words condemn it in no uncertain terms. What then do we do with his intuitu fidei? We remember that he was dealing with this very issue, only this same uncertainty and doubt arose from the opposite direction: the doctrine of Calvin. Gerhard rejected the terrible doctrine that God chose us arbitrarily, without reference to the Lamb of God, and the faith by which we are made righteous.

In Gerhard’s presentation on election in view of faith, his chief adversaries were the Calvinists. Gerhard did not respond to the doctrine of Arminius for the simple reason that Arminians were a very small sect in Gerhard’s day. Indeed, this doctrine did not gain any significant following until it was adopted by John Wesley, long after Gerhard was dead.³⁸ The primary docrine of election in the protestant world was that of Calvin. How can we expect Gerhard to anticipate Calvin’s opposite, and the manner in which his words might be abused generations later even by Lutherans? He, as any good pastor does, defended the sheep from the wolves who were at the door, and these wolves were not Arminians, but Calvinists.

Like the doctrine of Ariminius, Calvin’s doctrine robs Christians of all comfort, for it turns God into a terrible God whose saves on a whim such that no one can ever know if they are secure in His Son Jesus Christ. Even in the hour of death, they may well turn from the faith of Christ, because God has so decreed it, and thus be lost. In the time of trouble, neither the doctrine of Calvin, nor that of Arminius is of any comfort to the troubled soul. It is only the Lutheran, that is the Christian doctrine, which comforts the troubled soul. As Luther writes:

God says to you: “Behold, you have My Son. Listen to Him, and receive Him. If you do this, you are already sure about your faith and salvation.” “But I do not know,” you will say, “whether I am remaining in faith.” …

Observe how pleasantly and kindly God delivers you from this horrible trial with which Satan besets people today in strange ways in order to make them doubtful and uncertain, and eventually even to alienate them from the Word. “For why should you hear the Gospel,” they say, “since everything depends on predestination?” In this way he robs us of the predestination guaranteed through the Son of God and the sacraments. He makes us uncertain where we are completely certain. And if he attacks timid consciences with this trial, they die in despair, as would almost have happened to me if Staupitz had not delivered me from the same trial when I was troubled. …

Staupitz used to comfort me with these words: “Why do you torture yourself with these speculations? Look at the wounds of Christ and at the blood that was shed for you. From these predestination will shine. Consequently, one must listen to the Son of God, who was sent into the flesh and appeared to destroy the work of the devil and to make you sure about predestination. And for this reason He says to you: ‘You are My sheep because you hear My voice.’ ’No one shall snatch you out of My hands.’ ”³⁹

As we contend for the faith it is often the case we need to refine the doctrinal formulations of the past to answer the errors of the present. The case of intuitu fidei is no different. Our chief goal as ministers of Christ is to bring the comfort of His merits, His compassion, His mercy, His full and free remission of sins to His people. Gerhard would have it no other way.

S.D.G.

Pr. Martin W. Diers

End Notes

All Gerhard quotations are from Commonplace X, Theological Commonplaces, tr. Richard J. Dinda, ed., Benjamin T. G. Mayes and Joshua J. Hayes, © 2013, Concordia Publishing House. These quotations shall be designated by “X”.
X, § 52, p. 143.
X, § 169, p. 211.
X, § 170, p. 212.
X, § 173, p. 214.
X, § 175, pp. 215–216.
X, § 161, p. 207.
FC XI, par. 88, p. 631. Tappert.
X, § 161, p. 207.
X, § 50, pp. 142–143.
X, § 152, p. 200.
X, § 173, p. 214.
FC XI, pars. 54–56.
X, § 50, pp. 142, emphasis added.
X, § 173, p. 214.
X, § 52, p. 143.
X, § 175, pp. 215–216.
FCSD, XI, par. 14, 17, 18.
X, § 148, p. 197.
X, §§ 177–178, p. 218.
X, §211, p. 247.
X, p. 143, note 2.
X, § 53, pp. 143, 144.
X, § 149, p. 197.
Lehre und Wehre, 1912, pp. 196ff; as translated in Conversion and Election, Tr. W. H. T. Dau., 1913, p. 73, hereafter referred to as C&E.
Lehre und Wehre, 1863, p. 300. C&E p. 134.
“Thirteen Theses on Election,” C. F. W. Walther, as found in Walther’s Works: Predestination, p. 150; © 2018, Concordia Publishing House. Hereafter this book will be referred to as WaltherP.
C&E, p. 79.
Quoted by Pieper, C&E, p. 77.
C&E, p. 130.
Cf. “Proceedings of the General Pastoral Conference of the Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States on the Doctrine of Election,” WaltherP p. 56f.
Ibid., pp. 72–73.
Pontoppidan’s Sandhed til gudfrygtighed, (Truth unto Godliness) was an explanation of Luther’s Small Catechism. On Election it says: “What is election? God has appointed all those to eternal life who He from eternity has foreseen would accept the offered grace, believe in Christ and remain constant in this faith unto the end.” — Quoted in “The Election Controversy Among Lutherans in the Twentieth Century: An Examination of the Underlying Problems” (2012), John M. Brenner. Dissertations (1934 -). 204. https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/204. Herefter this work will be referred to as Brenner. — Note that this explanation is nearly word-for-word Gerhard’s explanation of intuitui fidei.
cf. C&E, p. 7.
Madison Settlement, as quoted in Brenner, p. 164.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 172, n. 603: “See Koren, ‘An Accounting’ in Grace for Grace, 183-184. This essay was presented in 1884.”
He did respond to the Scholastics and Papists briefly (Commonplace X, Ch. XI), who held Pelagian views on election, however, noteably he does not speak at all of intuitu fidei at all in that chapter but only once makes mention of the need for a consideration of faith in discussing Bellarmine’s view.
Luther, Lectures on Genesis, AE vol. 5, p. 46–47.

Election Intuitu Fidei in Gerhard’sTheological Commonplaces