"No salvation outside the church" in light of Luther's dialectic of the hidden and revealed God.

Hendel, Kurt K.

Ralph W. Klein has been a seminary professor for four decades. A great deal of his scholarship and teaching has intentionally addressed the life and mission of the church as well as the academic context. This exploration of Martin Luther's theological insights and their contemporary implications is intended to celebrate Klein's commitment to the gospel, his sensitivity to ecumenism and interreligious dialogue, and his conviction that theological scholarship can focus on practical questions of faith and of the church's calling in the world.

The claim that there is "no salvation outside the church" has been an integral part of the Christian tradition since the time of Cyprian in the third century. While it continues to be affirmed within the Christian community, it also has inspired substantial debate. Its theological, missiological, eccle-sial, and ecumenical implications are varied, and it presents the contemporary church with complex challenges as the church strives to carry out God's mission in the world. The assertion is consistent with Luther's evangelical perspective. At the same time, Luther's dialectic of the deus revelatus and the deus absconditus provides contemporary theologians with resources to amend and reinterpret this assertion.

Luther clearly affirms that there is no salvation outside the church. It is either explicitly or implicitly articulated in much of his theological corpus. Nowhere is it stated more clearly than in a normative text of the Reformation movement, a text that ultimately was included among the Lutheran confessional writings, namely, the Large Catechism. In his discussion of the third article of the Creed he makes a variety of statements that clarify his position. While criticizing the Roman church for fostering human works as a means of obtaining grace and salvation and thereby obscuring Christ's redemptive activity and the Holy Spirit's work of sanctification, Luther asserts:

Where he [the Holy Spirit] does not cause it [the Word] to be preached and does not awaken the understanding of it in the heart, all is lost....For where Christ is not preached, there is no Holy Spirit to create, call, and gather the Christian church, apart from which no one can come to the Lord Christ.(1)

Stressing the necessity of forgiveness in the lives of sinners, he warns: "Outside this Christian community, however, where there is no gospel, there is also no forgiveness, there is also no holiness." (2) However, his clearest statement occurs in the conclusion of his explanation of the Creed where he praises the Creed as a careful explication of the essence, will, and work of the Holy Spirit. He points out that

we could never come to recognize the Father's favor and grace were it not for the LORD Christ, who is the mirror of the Father's heart. Apart from him we see nothing but an angry and terrible judge. But neither could we know anything of Christ, had it not been revealed by the Holy Spirit. (3)

The saving self-revelation of God occurs only within the community of faith. Hence, Luther concludes:

These three articles of the Creed, therefore, separate and distinguish us Christians from all other people on earth. All who are outside this Christian people, whether heathen, Turks, Jews, or false Christians and hypocrites--even though they believe in and worship only the one, true God--nevertheless do not know what his attitude is toward them. They cannot be confident of his love and blessing, and therefore they remain in eternal wrath and condemnation. For they do not have the LORD Christ, and, besides, they are not illuminated and blessed by the gifts of the Holy Spirit. (4)

It is not surprising that Luther makes this bold assertion, for it is clearly consistent with the chief articles of his evangelical theology, namely, his Christology and the related doctrine of justification. The very heart of his theology therefore informs his thinking.

In order to illustrate the theological logic of Luther's conclusion it is advisable to review briefly the chief contours of his justificatory thought. On the basis of his biblical studies and his spiritual struggles, those Anfechtungen (5) that were a consistent aspect of his faith journey, Luther articulated a doctrine of justification that he considered to be a faithful explication and proclamation of the gospel. Saint Paul was Luther's chief teacher and provided him with the "grammar of faith," as Kenneth Hagen has argued. (6) The Reformer maintained that since the fall all human beings are sinners whose nature is radically corrupted by original sin, which is hereditary and which manifests itself in sinful deeds. (7) Humans have difficulty obeying the second table of the law, especially as Luther explicates the Decalogue in his Catechisms, (8) but they are absolutely incapable of fulfilling the first table, especially the first commandment. (9) Thus, natural human beings are concupiscent and enemies of God who have lost the freedom of the will and the image of God. Echoing Saint Augustine, Luther insists that although Adam and Eve were able not to sin (posse non peccare) as well as to sin (posse peccare), their progeny are no longer able not to sin (non posse non peccare). Hence, they stand under God's just condemnation and are wholly dependent on God for their salvation.

God, of course, has redeemed humanity through the Christ, who is fully divine and fully human, (10) who became incarnate and took on humanity's sin and punishment and who was victorious over all the powers that separate God and human beings.(11) It is only because of Christ's redemptive work that life and salvation are once again human possibilities. They cannot be earned or merited but are free gifts received in and through faith for the sake of Christ.(12) Faith is essential, for only faith trusts God's promises and, therefore, receives what is promised.

Thus, the church is the arena of God's justifying activity. Faith is not a human work but, like all other life-giving and life-sustaining blessings, a gift of God. It is created in individuals by the Holy Spirit through the means of grace. Those means, the Word and the sacraments, are granted to the church and are available only in and through the community of faith. Those who come to faith receive forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation and are incorporated into the church, the body of Christ. There their faith is also nurtured through the Word and the sacraments. The members of the church, both individually and corporately, thus become means of the means of grace and agents of salvation to those who are not yet part of the body of Christ.

Luther's conclusion that those outside the church face God's wrath and condemnation reflects his evangelical theology. He was convinced that Christ alone redeems (solus Christus). The benefits Christ has won for us are received only through faith (sola fide) because of God's grace (sola gratia). Faith is created by the Holy Spirit only through the means of grace. Those means are available only in the church. All who receive the gift of faith become members of the church, where their faith is then nurtured through Word and sacraments. It is for these reasons that there is no salvation outside the church.

Luther's conclusion thus has a clear theological logic. The various assertions he made that led him to this conclusion are necessitated by his evangelical theology, except the last one. I support that contention later in this essay. However, a significant dilemma of Lutheran evangelical theology must first be addressed, because it is related to Luther's notion of the deus absconditus and has implications for the topic under discussion.

The dilemma is inherent in the Lutheran doctrine of justification and is related to the assumption that some are saved while others are not. The doctrine of justification asserts that God alone saves and justifies, that God has already redeemed humanity in Jesus Christ, and that the justification of all is God's intention. Yet, the Lutheran tradition also has consistently maintained that there is no salvation outside the church and that therefore not all are saved or justified. The dilemma is that God, who has already redeemed all in Christ, apparently does not justify all. As already noted, Luther argued that since the fall all unregenerated human beings are enemies of God who cannot obey God's will and fulfill the law. Only God can and does save. No one can do anything to prepare for or merit salvation. In light of their sinful nature, all human beings are the same in God's sight and equally incapable in matters of salvation. Why, then, does God overcome the enmity and rebellion of some, grant them faith and justify them and not others?

In response to this crucial and troubling question, Philip Melanchthon proposed that there are three causes of conversion: the Holy Spirit, the Word, and the human will that does not resist God's activity. Thus humans themselves are the reason why some are saved and some are damned. The passivity or active resistance of the will determines the eternal destiny of each individual. God cannot be blamed for the fate of the condemned.

Melanchthon's solution was rejected by most of his colleagues, although it addressed the dilemma and avoided the doctrine of double predestination. His position was criticized as synergistic by many of his fellow evangelicals and was rejected in the Formula of Concord.(13) Seeking to avoid any hint of synergism, the Lutheran confessional writings maintain that the blame for people's condemnation must be ascribed to the devil and the perverse human will, even as they reject that the human will somehow cooperates with God in conversion.(14) This is also Luther's most consistent position.(15)

However, this explanation is found wanting. After all, the will of every unregenerate human being is perverse and at enmity with God, and the devil always opposes God's saving and justifying activity. There is therefore no essential distinction between one person and another. Furthermore, only God can and does save and justify. Human beings cannot cooperate with God in their justification. Indeed, any attempt to do so is a usurpation of God's role and fails to let God be God.

Hence, the questions persist. Why does God overcome the opposition of the devil and of the fallen human will in some and not in others? Why does God justify some and not others? Is it because God is able to justify only a certain number, or does God will to justify some and to condemn others? Is it simply impossible to resolve the dilemma raised by the Lutheran doctrine of justification, or does the Lutheran heritage necessaitate a doctrine of double predestination, even though the sixteenth-century confessors(16) and Lutherans since then have rejected that doctrine?

Luther himself If apparently did not share the concerns of his colleagues and heirs regarding double predestination and affirmed it in his debate with Desiderius Erasmus. By doing so, Luther addressed the dilemma, although in a way that is inconsistent with his own theological method and troublesome in light of his understanding of the gospel.

The proposal I delineate in this essay affirms the doctrine of justification by grace through faith, avoids the doctrine of double predestination, and addresses the dilemma, but in a way that differs significantly from Luther's solution.

Having illustrated that the assertion that there is no salvation outside the church is a logical theological consequence of Luther's justificatory thought and having noted the challenging dilemma raised by his assertion that we are saved by grace through faith alone, it is now necessary to explore the Reformer's dialectic of the hidden and revealed God (see Isa 45:15) as a theological resource that sheds important light on the assertion and on the dilemma. This dialectic also has the potential of expanding the theological, ecumenical, and missiological horizons of contemporary evangelical theologians without necessitating a universalist position. While this dialectic is apparent throughout Luther's vast corpus of writings, he explores it intentionally and extensively in the "Heidelberg Theses" and in Bondage of the Will. These two writings serve as chief sources of the following discussion.

The deusrevelatus is a particular focus of attention in the "Heidelberg Theses." Rom 1:19-25, 1 Cor 1:17-31, and the theophany recorded in Exod 33:18-23 clearly inform Luther's striking assertions. With his penchant for paradoxical thinking, Luther proposes that God's ultimate self-revelation is in hiddenness. He cautions those who wish to be theologians of the cross--that is, true theologians--not to focus on the invisible things of God revealed through God's mighty works of creation, such visible things as God's "virtue, godliness, wisdom, justice, goodness, and so forth.... The recognition of all these things does not make one worthy or wise."(17) The reason why true theologians should not seek the invisible things of God revealed through God's mighty acts of creation is explained by Paul in Romans 1. It is because humans have misinterpreted these natural revelations, have not honored God, have become fools while claiming to be wise, and have "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal men or birds or animals or reptiles." Thus God gave them up to their sins "because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (Rom 1:23; 25). Paul notes in this passage, and Luther agrees, that although God is revealed in the wonders of creation, human beings have misinterpreted and misused that revelation and have become idolaters, making God into their image rather than recognizing God as God wishes to be known and confessing God to be God. For this reason, asserts Luther, God has chosen to reveal God's essence in a radically different and surprising way, in what the Reformer calls the back or invisible things, namely, in weakness, in folly, in the incarnation, and on the cross. Luther clearly reflects Paul's insights in Romans 1 as he notes:

Because men misused the knowledge of God through works, God wished again to be recognized in suffering, and to condemn wisdom concerning invisible things by means of wisdom concerning visible things, so that those who did not honor God as manifested in his works should honor him as he is hidden in his suffering. As the Apostle says in I Cor. 1:[21], "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe." Now it is not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in the humility and shame of the cross. (18)

It is crucial to note Luther's emphases in this passage. God is revealed and wishes to be recognized in the suffering, humility, and shame of the cross. However, God is hidden in suffering. Hence, God is revealed in hiding, and only this revelation is sufficient and redemptive. Those who seek to know the invisible things of God, namely, God's glory, majesty, wisdom, and justice, through the wisdom of natural revelation are chastised as theologians of glory by Luther. They will never know God, at least not as Savior. Those who focus on the incarnate Christ suffering the shame and humiliation of the cross are theologians of the cross and recognize the nature and work of God in that hidden revelation.

What God is revealed by hiding on the cross as the Incarnate One? In Christ theologians of the cross see God as God wants to be seen, as a God who exercises power in weakness, whose glory is shame and humiliation, who brings life by means of death, whose suffering leads to resurrection, whose divine majesty is clothed in human flesh. It is no wonder that Luther maintains paradoxically that God is hidden in God's ultimate self-revelation. That is why faith is absolutely necessary in order to recognize God in the crucified Christ. It is, however, only in the Christ that God chooses to be revealed. It is only through the Christ that God and God's will are known. Luther supports this assertion by noting Philip's request to Jesus in John 14:8: "Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied." Jesus responds: "Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father" (14:9). Luther concludes, therefore: "For this reason true theology and recognition of God are in the crucified Christ...." (19) Thus in the Christ God is revealed by hiding, and in Christ God is revealed as the One who saves.

Luther's focus in the "Heidelberg Theses" is on the deus revelatus. He presents a challenging, yet fascinating, depiction of the deus absconditus in Bondage of the Will. This lengthy and complex work is one of Luther's most important and profound theological treatises. It not only illustrates the boldness and dialectical creativity of his thought but also raises crucial questions regarding the theological consistency and validity of his biblical exegesis. The radical nature of Luther's understanding of the hidden God, the deus absconditus, is surely evident in this treatise.

Luther warns that the theologian and believer must distinguish between the God preached, or revealed, and the God hidden, "that is, between the Word of God and God himself."(20)The hidden God, or "God himself," does many things and wills many things that are not revealed even in Scripture. (21) Hence, God is hidden "behind and beyond Scripture." (22) He does not say so explicitly, but the implication of his arguments are that the hidden will and the hidden deeds of God are not even apparent in and through God's ultimate self-revelation, in Jesus Christ. Luther also insists that human beings must leave this hidden, majestic God alone (23) and focus on the Word, which witnesses to the Incarnate Word, but he ignores his own advice and explicates what the deus absconditus wills and works. In doing this, Luther becomes a theologian of glory who seeks to look into the face of God rather than a theologian of the cross who focuses on God's back and, hence, the visible things of God. Luther contradicts his own theological method as he explores the hidden will of God and asserts boldly that God wills to reject some even as God wills that all sinners be saved in the revealed will. He essentially posits a doctrine of double predestination and maintains that the condemned suffer their fate in accordance with God's inscrutable will. Indeed, he affirms St. Augustine's assertion that God works both good and evil within people, (24) although he nuances that assertion later in the treatise and explains that God uses the evil that is already within a person to work evil by means of that individual. (25)

In order to support his position regarding God's will to condemn, Luther cites the biblical record and points out that God hardened Pharaoh, (26) foreknew that Judas would betray Jesus, (27) and loved Jacob but hated Esau. (28) He also examines the passages from Isaiah 45 and Romans 9 regarding the potter and the clay. (29) He stresses that this majestic, hidden will has no standards but itself (30) and that God is no more unjust in condemning the undeserving than in graciously rewarding the undeserving. (31) The impact of Paul's discussion in Romans 9 is clearly evident as Luther seeks biblical warrant for the doctrine of double predestination. Thus his chief theological mentors, Paul and Augustine, are obvious resources as he carries on his literary dialogue with his famous antagonist, Erasmus of Rotterdam.

While elucidating God's hidden will, Luther is careful to dictate what the human response to the will and work of the deus absconditus must be. Because God is God and humans are creatures, they cannot probe into the mystery of God's hidden will, (32) nor dare they question or judge it. (33) Rather, they must "pay attention to the word and eave that inscrutable will alone." (34) God cannot be approached in God's majesty but only "insofar as he is clothed and set forth in his Word..." (35)The hidden will of God can only be revered, feared and adored. (36) The ultimate human response to the hidden God as well as the revealed God is, therefore, faith. Thus, Luther maintains, it is the "highest degree of faith" to believe that God is merciful when God saves so few and damns so many. (37)

As one considers the challenging nature and content of Luther's notion of the deus absconditus, the question arises as to why he found it necessary to articulate these ideas. A careful reading of Bondage of the Will suggests the following answer. Methodologically, Luther viewed the content of his argument as an effective and convincing response to the anthropological assertions of Erasmus. However, he also had important theological reasons for stressing the majesty and hiddenness of God and the related doctrine of double predestination. For Luther, the doctrine of justification and, hence, the gospel were at stake in his debate with Erasmus. There-fore, he sought to reject the freedom of the will (38) and to stress that humans are totally dependent on God for their spiritual destiny. (39) He also wanted to emphasize the necessity of faith. (40) Perhaps most importantly, he eagerly defended the absolute freedom and nocontingency of God so that God is able not only to make promises but to keep them as well. After all, the eternal destiny of humanity depends on God's freedom and power to save.

How does this analysis of Luther's notion of the hidden and revealed God address the assertion that there is no salvation outside the church? It is not surprising that in their own time and place Luther and most of his European contemporaries, whether they supported or opposed the Reformation, agreed with the historic assertion that salvation is limited to the community of the faithful--the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. This claim was neither new nor radical. It had been made since the time of Cyprian, and at the beginning of the fourteenth century Pope Boniface VIII had even asserted that all human beings must be subject to the bishop of Rome in order to be saved. (41) Many of his contemporaries rejected Boniface's exalted vision of papal authority, but few extended salvation beyond the borders of the church.

It is much more difficult to defend these traditional salvific boundaries in the twenty-first century context when ecumenism and interreligious dialogue are affirmed as ideals by many Christians and when absolute truth claims, a tendency toward exclusivity, or signs of religious imperialism are seen as problematic or rejected altogether by many within the church and surely within society in general.

It is possible, then, to question and even reject these exclusive claims of Luther and of the broader Christian tradition without denying central affirmations of that tradition? At first glance, it appears that Luther's doctrine of justification and his dialectice of the hidden and revealed God unequivocally support the assertion that there is no salvation outside the church. However, if one nuances these doctrines carefully, especially his notion of the deus absconditus, and considers their varied implications, it is possible to challenge contemporary students and heirs of Luther to expand their theological and missiological perpectives.

It must be stressed, first, that evangelical theology clearly affirms the uniqueness of Christ as Savior and as God's ultimate and absolutely trustworthy self-revelation. Humanity's salvation is always impacted by and assured by Christ's redemptive work. Hence, it is impossible to embrace a radical universal ist position on the basis of Luther's theological insights.

Evangelical theology also necessitates the joyful claim that there is salvation within the church. After all. the church is the sphere of the Holy Spirit's activity where the means of grace, the Word and the sacraments, are proclaimed and celebrated. It is precisely through those means that the Holy Spirit creates and nurtures faith. Within the church forgiveness of sin is granted to all who trust God's promises. Although they remain sinners as well as saints, people of faith are renewed and made holy, their very nature is transformed, and they bring forth the fruits of faith whereby they serve God and their neighbors. Their eternal destiny is assured by the gracious gifts that they receive freely for the sake of Christ. There is, therefore, salvation within the church.

Evangelical theology is, by definition, christocentric. In Christ God's will for humanity is revealed with certainty and clarity, and through Christ God has accomplished God's saving acts. The gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ and brings life and salvation. People of faith proclaim this gospel within the church because they are nurtured by that proclamation. They also proclaim it in the world with the conviction that God intends all to be saved, that faith is created and nurtured through the gospel, and that Christ is not only their Savior and Lord (42) but the Redeemer of all.

A christocentric, evangelical perspective therefore insists that the will of the deus revelatus, the God revealed in Christ, is to save the whole creation. That will has not been abrogated or superseded. However, as Luther asserts so strikingly in Bondage of the Will, God is not limited by God's revelation; God is also deus absconditus whose majestic will is hidden beyond revelation. While the Reformer could not resist the temptation to explicate God's hidden will in his diatribe against the Diatribe of Erasmus, it is more consistent with his theology, particularly with his theology of the cross and his Christology, to leave the hidden will of God alone and to approach God as God clothed in the Word, specifically in the Word Incarnate. When one does, one sees God's back,(43) not God's face, and meets God as Savior. Hence. God's hidden will remains hidden, even in Christ, although God's will revealed in Christ is trustworthy. It is also consistent with Luther's theology to distinguish but never to separate the deus revelatus and the deus absconditus. Luther is not a dualistic but a paradoxical theologian. Therefore, it is theologically defensible to assume that the hidden will of God does not contradict the revealed will. It also is necessary to leave God's hidden will alone, with the faithful assumption that humans will not know this will until they are enlightened by God with the "light of glory." (44) In the meantime, they trust that the revealed will sheds light on the hidden will.

The following consequences can be drawn when one assumes such a theological stance. First, believers, particularly evangelical theologians, will resist the temptation to describe what God's hidden will is. Rather, they will humbly and necessarily accept the reality that God chooses not to reveal God's face, only God's back, and that much about God remains hidden beyond revelation. They will let God be God, both in God's revelation and in God's hid-denness. Second, people of faith will approach the hidden God as they do the revealed God, namely, in and through Christ and with the christological assurance that it is God's will to save. Third, on the basis of the doctrine of justification by grace through faith as well as the dialectic of the hidden and revealed God they will confess that God alone can and does save.

With such a perspective evangelical theologians, who are theologians of the cross, will proclaim Christ, even as they avoid speculating about the fate of those who have not yet come to faith and who do not confess Christ. They therefore need not assert the condemnation of such people. Rather, knowing that only God saves and confessing that they cannot and dare not dare into God's hidden will, they leave the fate of those who are not members of the church in God's hands. They do so with the assurance that in Christ God has saved all and with the expectation that God intends to bless all with the benefits of Christ's redemptive acts. That expectation is warranted because the hidden God is none other than the revealed God, and people of faith consider God's hidden will in light of God's revealed will. (45). Hence, they must be open to the possibility that in God's hiddenness God has done and will continue to do surprising things for the sake of God's creation. After all, there is much that God has chosen not to reveal even in the Word. (46) If part of the hidden will of God is to justify people in ways of which they are not aware, that is God's prerogative. As Luther argues so consistently, the person of faith is called to believe and to confess that God's actions are just, no matter what God does, because God is just. God's promises in Jesus the Christ, witnessed by the prophets, apostles, and believers throughout the ages, are not abrogated, even if God has another plan of salvation. God has kept those promises in the past and continues to keep them. The church is a visible manifestation of that fact. Thus, God's revealed will is trustworthy, and God's self-revelation in Christ is sure. God's hidden will, no matter what it is, will not contradict God's revealed will. Christ is the Christian's assurance of that fact and so is the believer's faith.

People of faith who affirm the gospel and the dialectic of the deus revelatus and the deus absconditus cannot become universalists. They cannot claim with certainty that there is salvation outside the church, even as they need not assert that there is no salvation outside the church. Rather, they are called to proclaim Christ joyfully and humbly, with the assurance that it is God's will to save and that God creates and nurtures faith through that proclamation. The rest must be left in God's hands because God alone saves and justifies. Humans, even believers, cannot determine their own fate or the fate of others. That is God's prerogative. The revealed God assures believers that God is Savior. The hidden God prevents them from limiting God's freedom or possibilities, even in matters of salvation.

(1.) The Large Catechism, The Creed, III, in The Book of Concord (hereafter BC), ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 436, 45.

(2.) The Large Catechism, The Creed, III, BC, 438, 56.

(3.) The Large Catechism, The Creed, III, BC, 440, 65.

(4.) The Large Catechism, The Creed, III, BC, 440, 66.

(5.) See Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation 1483-1521, trans. James L. Schaaf (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 76-82. Brecht provides a concise but helpful discussion of the role of the Anfechtungen in Luther's spiritual quest.

(6.) Kenneth Hagen, Luther's Approach to Scripture as Seen in His "Commentaries" on Galatians 1519-1538 (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1993).

(7.) The Smalcald Articles, III, 1, BC, 310-11, 1-3.

(8.) The Small Catechism, The Ten Commandments, BC, 351, 1-354, 22; The Large Catechism, Ten Commandments, 386, 1-431, 333.

(9.) The Smalcald Articles, III, 2, BC, 312, 4.

(10.) Luther's most incisive christological writings dealing with the two natures of Christ are the eucharistic treatises that he addressed to Huldreich Zwingli and his supporters. See especially "That These Words of Christ, 'This is my Body,' etc., Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics" and "Concerning Christ's Supper" in Luther's Works (LW), 55 vols., ed. Helmut Lehmann and Jaroslav Pelikan (Philadelphia: Fortress, and St. Louis: Concordia, 1955-1986), vol. 37.

(11.) The Large Catechism, Creed, II, BC. 434, 25-435, 33.

(12.) The Smalcald Articles, II, BC, 301, 1-5.

(13.) Formula of Concord, Epitome, II, BC, 491, 1-494, 19; Solid Declaration, II 543, 1-562, 90, especially pp. 560, 86-562, 90.

(14.) Apology of the Augsburg Confession, XIX, BC, 235; Formula of Concord, Epitome, XI, 518, 13-519, 15; Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, II, 547, 17-549, 24, 552, 44-45; Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, XI, 653, 78-82.

(15.) LW 31:58-60; LW 32:226; LW 33: 65; The Smalcald Articles, III, BC, 1, 310,1-311, 11.

(16.) Formula of Concord, Epitome, XI, BC, 517, 1-520, 22; Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, XI, 640, 1-656, 96.

(17.) LW 31:52; Explanation of Thesis 19.

(18.) LW 31:52-53; Explanation of Thesis 20.

(19.) LW 31:53; Explanation of Thesis 20.

(20.) LW 33:140.

(21.) LW 33:140.

(22.) Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, trans. Robert C. Schultz (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 277.

(23.) "God must therefore be left to himself in his own majesty, for in this regard we have nothing to do with him, nor has he willed that we should have anything to do with him. But we have something to do with him insofar as he is clothed and set forth in his Word, through which he offers himself to us and which is the beauty and glory with which the psalmist celebrates him as being clothed" (LW 33:139; see also 33:140).

(24.) LW 33:58.

(25.) LW 33:178

(26.) LW 33:179.

(27.) LW 33:194-95.

(28.) LW 33:195-202.

(29.) LW 33:203-6.

(30.) "He is God, and for his will there is no cause or reason that can be laid down as a rule or measure for it, since there is nothing equal or superior to it, but it is itself the rule of all things. For if there were any rule or standard for it, either as a cause or reason, it could no longer be the will of God" (LW 33:181).

(31.) LW 33:207.

(32.) LW 33:188.

(33.) LW 33:61, 139, 290.

(34.) LW 33:140.

(35.) LW 33:139.

(36.) LW 33:139, 140, 188.

(37.) LW 33:62, 174.

(38.) LW 33:64 and numerous other citations throughout Bondage of the Will.

(39.) LW 33:191.

(40.) LW 33:62.

(41.) See Boniface VIII's bull "Unam Sanctam" from the year 1302.

(42.) Luther defines "Lord" as "Redeemer" in his explanation of the second article of the Creed in the Large Catechism. See The Large Catechism, The Creed, II, BC, 434, 27.

(43.) See LW 31:52, "Heidelberg Theses." Explanation of Thesis 20. See also Exod 33: 18-23, which informs Luther's theological insights.

(44.) LW 33:292.

(45.) A practical manifestation of this perspective is the church's stance regarding the fate of infants who have not received emergency baptism.

(46.) The authors of the "Formula of Concord" also caution evangelical Christians to leave God's hidden will alone and to find comfort and assurance in God's revealed will. Yet, they assume that some will be saved and some will be condemned, although they reject the doctrine of double predestination. See, for example, Formula of Concord, Epitome XI, BC, 517,1-519, 15; Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, XI,643, 12-645, 29; 649,52-651,70.

Kurt K. Hendel

Bernard. Fischer. Westberg Distinguished Professor of Reformation History Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago