Walther on Ro. 9:20-23: vessels of wrath and mercy; against Calvinism, go to the Greek words

[2025-10-09: added note in red]

      While researching and translating one of Walther's convention essays, the 1877 Western District (also the 1873 Western District, p. 56, [Convention Essays, p. 40]), I ran across his explanation of Romans 9:21-23 that cleared up my confusion of what these verses actually say.  Calvinists, who hold that God predestined some to damnation, or "Double Predestination", use these verses for their own interpretation of God's election to damnation for some. And indeed the major English translations of these verses are in need of clarification so that one may not be misled. While Calvinists claim to be strictly according to the Bible, we find that not to be the case with these verses. From the essay, p. 92:

C. F. W. Walther, and Lutheran teaching, on Romans 9:20-23:

In our passage we now speak of vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy; of the former it is said in our German Bible that they were prepared for condemnation; of the latter it is said that God had prepared them for glory. In the Greek, however, it is more precisely said of the latter that God prepared them beforehand, not merely prepared them; but this word "beforehand" is not used of the vessels of wrath. This is very important! For from this we see that all who are saved are prepared for salvation by God before the foundation of the world, whereas the vessels of wrath, i.e. those who are damned, are also prepared for damnation, but firstly, not beforehand, and secondly, not by God, but by the devil and their own evil will. Here our doctrine shines forth completely. It would be blasphemy to say that the Holy Spirit has forgotten to add the words "before" and "from God" to the vessels of wrath, so that we have nothing to give to these different ways of speaking! He, who is eternal wisdom, knew perfectly well why he says "from God" one time and not the other, why he says "before" one time and not the other. It is also very important to know that verse 22 in the Greek does not contain the words "therefore there", but instead the words "but if [Εἰ δὲ]". From this we see that when the apostle says in the previous verse, "Does not a potter have power to make one lump into a vessel for honor and another for dishonor?", he does not mean to say: and this is how God really does it, but that he only wants to reject human reason with its foolish objections, which so readily masters and even blasphemes God as soon as it cannot understand why he acts as he does. The apostle rather wants to say: As natural as we find it that a potter makes a soup tureen from clay, and from the same material a nasty vessel, which is placed in a corner so that it is not seen, and how no one confronts him about it: it is just as natural that whatever God may do, no one may confront him about it. This thought, that God does not allow himself to be mastered by us, also precedes the 20th verse, where it expressly says: "Yea, dear man, who are you, then, that you want to be right with God?" No one should therefore be misled by the words "therefore there" into Calvinistic errors, since these words are not in the original text at all, and since the apostle does not say: as a potter makes vessels of honor and dishonor from a lump, so God also first made vessels of mercy and then vessels of wrath; but he continues: "But if God... bore the vessels of wrath with great patience?" So the apostle's meaning is: What will you, what can you say then? [cp. All Glory To God, p. 221] 

I had thought that Walther was the only Lutheran teacher to point out this teaching, but he then referred to the Formula of Concord which taught much the same thing: FC SD XI 79-80. But Walther goes one step further than the Formula by introducing the second point, that the "vessels of mercy" were chosen "beforehand", not "in time". The following chart delineates Walther's points:

Potter (Ro. 9:21):

	Vessels unto dishonour	Vessels unto honour
Prepared by	Potter	Potter

God (Ro. 9:22-23):

	Vessels of wrath	Vessels of mercy
Prepared by:	Devil & themselves	God
When:	In time	“afore”, “beforehand” (προητοίμασεν)
God’s action:	endured	made known the riches of His glory

These verses set God in contrast to the potter. 

    In searching for a literal translation of the Bible, I was pleased to find that the Disciples’ Literal New Testament (DLNT) had perhaps the best translation of the initial words of verse 22: "But what if God…". The word "but" clearly shows that verse 22 is in contrast to verse 21, i.e. God is not like the potter in regards to the "vessels of wrath", He endures them, He does not make them. The DLNT had a wonderful footnote to verse 23: "Note that God endured the one group, but actively prepared-beforehand the other". (I may purchase the DLNT based on this. Hopefully it does not have too much "Reformed leaven".)

      May the readers (like me) be enabled to defend against the false Calvinistic error and be strengthened in their faith in a gracious God who will stay with us if we don't push Him away. (The full text of Walther's essay is upcoming in a future blog series.)

M12: Quenstedt & Calvin tell the truth about M.; do Dingel & Kolb on Melanchthon & Leipzig Interim?

[2024-07-19: added another quote of Dr. Kolb on the Leipzig Interim; 2023-06-18: added note on Dr. Dingel below in red text.]

       This continues from Part 11 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C. F. W. Walther's 1876 essay “The ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon on the Part of Luther.” — Walther now brings out the unsettling ambiguity in Melanchthon's writings after the presentation of the Augsburg Confession, and Luther's corrective counsel to him. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 336-337 [EN]:

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 12 of 28  - - - - - - -

As early as 1530, Melanchthon, as we have already seen, was guilty of using ambiguity to establish peace. [See above Part 8, p. 332 ff. above, Baumgartner] Among other things, he himself wrote to Luther on August 22: “Eck sneered at the word 'alone' [sola], if we say that men are justified by faith alone; but he did not condemn the matter, saying it was offensive to the ignorant. For I forced him to confess that righteousness is rightly attributed by us to faith.  He (LuW 337) wanted us to write: that we are justified by grace and faith; I did not resist, [“non repugnavi”] but that foolish man does not understand the word ‘grace’.” (II, 299. f.  [StL 16, 1401-1402, #1057]) To this news of the foul peace Luther answered him: "You write that Eck was compelled by you to confess that we are justified by faith; would to God, you would have compelled him not to lie. (Luther’s Letters, de Wette. IV, 145; [StL 16, 1402 #1676; not in old  series Am. Ed.]) *) 

——————                                                                                 

*) [Johannes] Quenstedt writes: "When, after the delivery of the Augsburg Confession at the Imperial Diet of 1530, a settlement of the points of contention between the princes and theologians of both parts was negotiated from August 16 to 22, it pleased Melanchthon to leave that word 'grace' in its ambiguity, that he and his comrades could take and interpret it for the mere affect of divine benevolence, but Eck and his comrades, as usual with them, for virtuous qualities, which were poured into men by the benevolence of God, as the principal cause; which meaning does not prevent man from obtaining salvation through merit, as the secondary cause, which would be infused into him by God out of his good will, as the primary cause. In such ambiguities Philip was extremely pleased, as can be seen from his letter of August 22. But Luther disliked this ‘wickedness’ (Ephes. 4:14) from the beginning; hence he wrote a reply to Melanchthon on August 25th.”. (Theol. did.-pol. II, 770)  

In 1539 Calvin wrote to Farell: 

“I sent him (Melanchthon) a few articles in which I had briefly summed up the sum of the matter.  He himself agrees with these without contradiction, but he admits that in that part there were some who demanded something more crass, and with such rigidity that I do not say, tyranny, that for a long time it was to be feared that they saw him alienated from their opinion. Though he does not think that there is a friendly agreement, he wishes that this unity, whatever it may be, be cultivated until the Lord will have led us on both sides to unity in His truth. As for himself, have no doubt that he believes as we do.” (Calvin. epp. p. 24) 

The consequence of his dissimulation towards his opponents was, then, that they took him completely for their side, far from it, that he, as he undoubtedly intended, at least at that time, to have brought them closer to the truth through the same. [i.e. opponents misread M. at that time]

- - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 13  - - - - - - - - - -

The time in 1530 at which Luther had to warn Melanchthon about his ambiguity in the meaning of the word "grace" is critical in understanding Reformation history. — In the next blog post we present Excursus 1 on the testimony of Martin Chemnitz pertinent to Walther's points about Melanchthon.  Then in Part 13…

- - - - - - - -   LC-MS Opposing Theologians, Drs. Dingel & Kolb:   - - - - - - - - -

      In the preceding Part 11, we saw indisputable testimony of the differing natures of Melanchthon and Luther.  But what about their doctrine?  What do modern historians conclude about Melanchthon's theology? Dr. Irene Dingel, is a frequent associate of Dr. Robert Kolb in church historical literature.  She judged, in her 2008 essay "Culture of Controversy" in editor Kolb's book Lutheran Ecclesiastical Culture, 1550-1675, (p. 22, emphasis mine): 

"In contrast to the Augsburg Interim, this Leipzig “alternative” [i.e. Leipzig Interim] preserved evangelical doctrine but reflected some medieval Catholic practices in ceremony and custom." 

Dr. Dingel makes no mention of the actual wording on Justification, and it's ambiguity, in the Leipzig Interim, and only gives her opinion that it "preserved evangelical doctrine". That is not church history, but her opinion. We saw above that Melanchthon even exhibited this same ambiguity 18 years earlier in 1530. (Dingel also makes no mention of Melanchthon's letter to Carlowitz of April 28, 1548.) [2023-06-18: Dr. Dingel made the same erroneous judgment in her essay "Melanchthon and the Establishment of Confessional Norms" in the 2012 book Philip Melanchthon: Theologian in Classroom, Confession, and Controversy., p. 163: "…the article on justification which Melanchthon had drawn up in the 'Leipzig Interim' preserved Evangelical teaching."]

      Dr. Robert Kolb, in his 2001 book Sources and Contexts, stated the following on the "Leipzig Interim" p. 183: 

“However, the statement of the final draft regarding justification, … contained ambiguous language regarding the doctrine [of Justification]. In fact, parts of it had been borrowed directly from the Augsburg Interim.”

[2024-07-19:] Then in his Kolb/Wengert version of the Book of Concord (p. 563), he said the following about the reference to the "Interim" in Article III of the Formula of Concord:

“Although the Augsburg Interim, with its doctrine of double justification, is probably meant here, the “Leipzig Interim’s" article on justification had been fiercely attacked by the Gnesio-Lutherans for its formulations that seemed to compromise the Lutheran understanding of salva­tion 'by grace alone' and 'through faith alone.'”

Kolb's reporting differs from that of his associate Dr. Dingel who makes no mention of the "ambiguous language". (Why does Dr. Kolb join his histories with Dr. Dingel's?) But even Kolb avoids spelling out the actual "ambiguous language" (Sources and Contexts, p. 185): “the merciful God draws… (men) in such a manner that their will cooperates, if they are of the age of reason.” That  "ambiguous language" fits well with the papist teaching, if not outright Synergism. — But even Dr. Kolb's weak defense of the doctrine of Justification, if one can call it that, overturns the judgment of Dr. Dingel's non-defense at this critical point, a point of "terrible pressure" according to Dr. Rosenbladt. (Where now is Kolb's claim of "much greater precision"?) This disqualifies Dingel, (perhaps even Kolb) as a truly Lutheran theologian, not to mention that she has no Scriptural basis (jure divino) for her teaching position in the Church as a woman. [1 Tim. 2:12, blog post here] — And what about Dr. Kolb, who in his "objectivity" makes himself suspect in this matter, for in his own 2005 Bound Choice book, he speaks of the "Leipzig Interim" (p. 106) as the "effort to present an official Saxon policy that seemed to comply with the catholicizing Augsburg Interim, such words appeared to be a perfidious betrayal." The same was true in his 2012 History where he avoids stating this unequivocally, only saying (p. 178) that "this doctrine was ambiguously stated according to its critics". Is he a critic of the "ambiguous" language in the "Leipzig Interim" or not, i.e. is he Lutheran or not? (It seems he has put his Lutheran "bias" too far onto the shelf.)

      Dr. Kolb strangely never mentions the name of Carlowitz (see Part 11) in all his chief books in recent decades, but he did mention it in an October 1997 Concordia Journal article on Melanchthon, p. 310: 

"To be a colleague of Luther's was, of course, not an easy task. It was like being harnessed to a dynamo. Melanchthon himself complained about living under the burden of servitude to Luther. (fn#7: In a letter to Christoph von Carlowitz, 28.4.1548, Corpus Reformatorum, VI:880)"  

Even though Kolb did not use a pejorative term in 1997 against Luther, he came close, giving no rebuttal to Melanchthon's complaint. (He did call Luther "overheated, overblown, harsh, and petulant" in 2012, p. 155; [2023-05-15: Löscher's judgment is the opposite of Dr. Kolb - see Part 11]) Why did Kolb not mention this "servitude" letter to Carlowitz in his subsequent history books? Why did he not point out how this letter gave aid to the opponents of true Lutheranism? Is he justifying Melanchthon's charge against Luther? Was he seeking favor with today's Melanchthon defenders? (Maybe Kolb does not want to be "harnessed to a dynamo.") And this report is hardly an improvement over Dr. Green's omission of Carlowitz's name because the significance of Carlowitz is that he was an opponent of the expelled Elector John Frederick, and a follower of Erasmus, an opponent of Luther. Melanchthon was complaining of his dissatisfaction with Luther not to friends of true Lutheranism, but to a foe.  Why do all these modern theologians avoid reporting about this if it is not embarrassing for their defense of the legacy of Melanchthon?… or not embarrassing for their so-called "objectivity"?

      The true church historian in this matter was not Drs. Green, or Kolb, or Dingel, but Prof. F. Bente who reported (p. 99 or here) of the Leipzig Interim that "Even the Lutheran sola (sola fide, by faith alone) is omitted in the article of justification." — We will cover the doctrine of Justification in more detail in a future post. But we reinforce Bente's (and Walther's) history of Melanchthon with a refreshingly clear testimony from Martin Chemnitz in Excursus 1.

Pieper's eulogy– B.B. Warfield: Dogmatics, Inspiration – America's premier Presbyterian theologian

      I have previously blogged about the great Presbyterian theologian B.B. Warfield and his communications with Prof. Franz Pieper.  Recently I came across Pieper's comments on the official memorial address given at Warfield's passing by his successor in 1921.  And we see that Pieper presents the last word on the legacy of Warfield, from the Lutheran teacher of the 20th century.  

      There are at least two surprising items of interest in this writing about Pieper's stress on the importance of teaching Christian doctrine, or Dogmatics. The background for one of these items is that opposing Lutherans in America, especially the Ohio Synod, charged the Missourians with "Calvinism" regarding their doctrine of Election. Whose teaching was Lutheran, and whose was not? Dr. Warfield, a Calvinist, gives the surprisingly definitive answer.   — Then of course we hear again of the ridicule that Warfield endured in his own circles for holding on to the doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture.  It is a shame that Prof. Mark Noll today practically treats Warfield in the same way.  Today's LC-MS treats Pieper and Walther the same way on their stand on Inspiration, as Warfield's associates treated him in his day.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 21 (Sept. 1921), p. 284-286; translation by BackToLuther, highlighting is mine. German text here.

[Page 284]

Ecclesiastical-Contemporary History. 

Too much dogmatics? In the July issue of the Princeton Theological Review, the memorial address of Dr. [Francis Landey] Patton was published that he gave on Dr. [B.B.] Warfield, who died February 16 of this year [1921]. Dr. Warfield had been Professor of Dogmatics at Princeton Theological Seminary since 1887, and Patton said that through Warfield “the department of Systematic Theology has been built up and has attained a position in this Seminary [Princeton] which it never had before.” Of course, Warfield was quite alone in the faculty at last with his adherence to the Inspiration of Scripture and his emphasis on the importance of Christian doctrine, in contrast to the common ideas about the nature of the Christian religion. This led to the reproach of his own community that he placed too much emphasis on the dogmatic education of the students. Dr. Patton addresses this accusation in his memorial address. Patton himself does not share Warfield's point of view, which was already known to us and also appears in the memorial address. But he does say in Warfield's defense (page 285), while at the same time lamenting the lack of interest in doctrine in his church fellowship: 

“You may wonder sometimes how much time should be given to Systematic Theology in the curriculum of the Seminary, and may be disposed to think that it already has in this institution rather more than its share. Let me speak freely here. You may tell the student that when he leaves the theological seminary, he should keep up his Greek and Hebrew, and prosecute a systematic course of study. But you may be sure that very few men will do it. If he has the time to study as we had who graduated fifty-six years ago, the graduate will gratify his literary appetite and consult his own tastes; but he will follow no cut-and-dried plan. If he has a self-directing mind, he will not adopt a program made by somebody else. But we must remember that times have changed in fifty years. The minister of to-day has his hands full of the activities of the church and other activities besides, and in the inevitable division of labor which has come about we have professors with whom the claims of highly specialized learning shut out to a large extent the opportunity for general reading, and pastors whose readings must come in the intervals between crowded hours, and be very general at that. And yet it is theology which must constitute the backbone of a minister’s pulpit-work, and that he may use it in a free, familiar, unconstrained expression of himself, it must by some hidden process of metabolism enter into the tissues of his being and become part of his life. It is when he is in the seminary and bring into the pulpit beautiful bouquets which they have gathered from the garden of poesy. The reason is that in many cases they have lost faith in the Gospel of salvation, and have parted company with the doctrines of redeeming grace. I am addressing myself more particularly at this moment to young men who are about to enter the ministry, and I wish not to be misunderstood. Art, science, literature, philosophy, are yours; all are yours, and ye are Christ’s and Christ is God’s; use them all in the service of the Sanctuary. Pour the red wine of the Gospel into the golden chalice of your choicest workmanship. But remember that no amount of intellectual attainment will profit you if conviction dies.”

Of course, this confident conviction of the saving truth can only be present in the preacher's heart if the preacher is unceasing in his study of Christian doctrine, in other words, if he continues to study unceasingly. Otherwise, in spite of all external activity, he becomes necessarily “stale”. Walther called this “verbauern” [rusticate]. —

We would like to say a few words about the late Dr. Warfield. Among the American Reformed theologians, Warfield was considered the most thorough expert of German modern theological literature. We may add that he also studied the writings of the Missouri Synod diligently and with great interest. Soon after Dr. Walther's death in 1887, he turned to the undersigned with a request for writings from which he could gain a clear picture of Walther's doctrinal position. We complied with the request, and the result was that the Princeton dogmatist (page 286) requested further submissions, including Synodical reports. A theologian of the General Synod who had visited Princeton published, somewhat indiscreetly, that he had found Dr. Warfield's study table covered with Missourian synodical reports. From this, too, some of our opponents in the dispute over the doctrines of Conversion and Election of Grace believed that they could accept that our doctrine of Election of Grace was identical with the Calvinist doctrine.  The fact is that Dr. Warfield recognized the difference between our doctrine and Calvin's teaching. Nor did he share our position in the doctrine of eternal election. He believed, like his predecessors Charles and A. A. Hodge, that the Election of Grace must be combined with an Election of Wrath. On the other hand, Warfield argued that the doctrine of the Missouri Synod, in contrast to other American Lutheran synods, was the doctrine of the Formula of Concord, which, like the Missouri Synod, teaches an Election of Grace but firmly rejects an Election of Wrath. Warfield has been accused of being “scientifically” backward because of his commitment to the inspiration of Holy Scriptures from within his own fellowship. They even allowed themselves to transfer him to “Borneo” with his view of the Holy Scriptures. It was a consolation to him, as he announced in letters and occasionally in publications, that a great Lutheran synod of America, whose ministry’s “scholarly character cannot be denied”, unanimously and without clauses, professed to be inspired by Scripture. F. P. [Franz Pieper]

[ref. Christian Dogmatics I, 272, Christliche Dogmatik I, 327-328]

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

      We see just how much Dr. Warfield, a Presbyterian Calvinist to the end, read from the Missourians!  It was surely embarrassing for the opposing American Lutherans to read that Warfield's study table was "covered with Missourian synodical reports".  I think I will follow Warfield in this, even if today's LC-MS scarcely does.

B.B. Warfield – studied the Missouri Synod & held to the  Inspiration of Holy Scripture

Hist16: Chp 12— Election of Grace Controversy, on Predestination

      This continues from Part 15 (Table of Contents in Part 3), a series presenting an English translation of Pastor Christian Hochstetter's 1885 496-page book entitled (abbreviated) The History of the Missouri Synod, 1838-1884. It also follows an Excursus on a "sharp polemic" of Walther against one of his bitterest opponents. — The doctrine at issue in this chapter is called in German "Gnadenwahl" which translates properly into "Election of Grace". It is only "a consolatory article" of faith (FC, Ep 11, 1). Unfortunately this term is usually shortened in translation to just "Election" or "Predestination" and so it loses the all important qualifier "Grace". (The dispute in America is sometimes referred to as the "Predestinarian Controversy".)

But I was glad to see that Dr. Fred Kramer translated the term properly as… "Election of Grace" in his translation, and so I would honor him on this.  Those who lose their way on this doctrine are essentially going astray on just what divine "Grace" really means.  But not the Old Missouri Synod. — Two fruitful readings to accompany this chapter would be: (1) the 2018 CPH book Walther's Works: Predestination, which contains the translation of the two excellent Pastoral Conferences of 1880 and 1881 (German texts here & here) discussed in Hochstetter, and (2) Franz Pieper's masterful 1913 book Conversion and Election, A Plea (Hathi, German: Zur Einigung).

Some quotes from Chapter 12: (353-409)
357: Walther to F. A. Schmidt: “Well then, you want war, you shall have war”
358: Schmidt: “May the Colossus of the Missouri Synod break into a thousand pieces.”
359: "Calvinist error also dominates the whole of pantheistic philosophy of all times."
360: "Modern Christianity is designed to make people think that they are great saints."
361: "God has not only chosen for salvation, but also for the whole Christian life."
362: "Schmidt and his followers attack… the confession of our Church"
362: "also the faith of man cannot be the cause of God's election"
363: "Faith is not a cause of election but the consequence of it"
365: "the formula intuitu fidei not only unclearly indicates the relationship of faith to the election of grace, but that it even allows, and even has already experienced, an interpretation that is harmful to the doctrine of free will."
367: Did Walther teach "in view of faith" (intuitu fidei)?: "Anyone who says so is lying."
370: "perversion… if we are accused… of excluding faith,… disregarding… salvation through faith alone."
374: "Faith is not to be introduced here as the cause; …My faith does not make me certain of this"
375: "A judge is just… This would lead to the result that it would no longer be an election of grace".
377: Stellhorn's error on Election of Grace: "some people do not notice the deception"
378: God: "I did not pass you by, … The fault is yours that you are going to hell."
379: "It is an election of grace for us in our salvation.… revealed…in the Holy Scriptures, not a trial."
381: "man's self-decision instead of divine grace"
382: "the elect remain elect, even during a temporary apostasy, as David's example shows"
383: "an election made 'in view of faith'… must fall out on the side of the semi-Pelagian Arminians,"
383: "Calvin's doctrine is based much more on an election of wrath than on a election of grace"
383: "We Lutherans do not know such ready-made saints."
385: Christ "is the book of life,… There is no book of death"
385-6: "abominable Calvinists… teach that the order of salvation is for the pious… children of God alone!"
393: Luther: "This predestination of God is a cause for many to stand fast, for no one a cause to fall."
394: “Allwardt: 'I do not know whether I am chosen in the strict sense!'… what kind of faith … rests on uncertainty?… the Roman Catholic doctrine of doubt… nobody can be sure whether he will be saved!”
398: "they want… passive behavior a property of the natural man… prepare himself on his conversion"
401: Walther: "We do not want to give man a share in his salvation, but give glory to God alone."
401: "the accusation of Calvinism… was intended to … justification to their synergism"
403: Ohio: "that man converts… by the grace of God alone is a completely unreasonable doctrine."
405: "In this matter, then, the crown of all doctrines must be at last preserved, the doctrine of justification"
407: Stoeckhardt: "no glory for our opponents that today's mediating German theology…approves of them"
409: Walther: "the high article of the Election of Grace, which is so incomprehensible to reason"
Images of some men appearing in Chapter 12: (353-409)

     Schmidt  ———  Stellhorn  ———  Tressel ——— Schwan —— O. Fuerbringer  ——   Allwardt   ——   Lehmann   ——   Brobst

    G. Fritschel  ———  Sihler  ——  E.A.W. Krauss —— Philippi —— A.L. Graebner — Stoeckhardt ——  Pieper  ——  R. Lange

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The following is an English translation of C. Hochstetter's Geschichte… by BackToLuther utilizing the DeepL Translator with minor assistance from Dr. Fred Kramer's translation.  All hyperlinks, highlighting and red text in square brackets [] are mine. All internal hyperlinks are active in this embedded window, external links should be opened in a new tab or window.

      Walther's masterful handling of opponents as weak Christians during discussions (see p. 365-366) calls for a further personal testimony from a CHIQ article in 1931.  This will be presented in the next "Excursus" and will be compared to a misjudgment against Walther by a Fort Wayne seminary professor. — After the break below, an example of a well-known Calvinist author/preacher of today, then the customary fine print version of the above chapter. — In the next Part 17, Chapter 13a.