|
|
Martin Luther Our Most Eminent Teacher Pastor
Marshall December
2007 But
since the early 1800s, Lutherans have been fudging on this. They
haven’t changed the stated position itself – they still declare
Luther is the best – it’s just that they now willfully, defiantly
and shamefully ignore what he wrote, while letting the words stand that
say he’s the best teacher we have. So modern Lutherans say they’re
Lutherans but they bark up other trees and drink from other wells. To
see this at work, one has only to check out the April 2007 issue of Lutheran
Women Today (volume 20), which explores how best to understand God,
and see that Luther is never mentioned, while Michelangelo and James Weldon Johnson are! This is
but one example taken from a massive trend of denial and neglect. Bible.
Two
more examples of how Lutherans are doing this regards how we read the
Bible and what we think about Judaism. When the New Testament quotes the
Old Testament, for instance, it doesn't explain the context of the Old
Testament words – who is saying what, to whom, and for what reason.
Nor is the historical background sorted out or the literary nature of
the words sized up – as modern
critical Biblical analysis does. Rather it just quotes the earlier holy words with
absolutely no commentary. So when Jesus quotes Zechariah 12:10 in John
19:37, he gives no citation but simply says, “And again another
scripture says, ‘They shall look on him whom they have pierced.’”
And when James 2:23 quotes Genesis 15:6 it only says, “The scripture
was fulfilled which says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned
to him as righteousness.’” [For other examples, see Luke 20:42; Acts
2:25, 34, 7:48-49, 13:35; Romans 9:15, 17, 25, 10:11, 16, 19, 21, 11:2,
9, 12:19, 14:11, 15:12; 1 Timothy 5:18; Hebrews 5:6; James 4:5-6.] So
Luther argued for the plain sense of a Bible verse. He didn’t write
commentaries in order to make “the Bible say the opposite of what it
seems to say” (Donald H. Juel, “Homosexuality and Church
Tradition,” Word & Word,
Spring 1990). Rather, Luther argued, we should “just hear” the Bible
verse, and give up trying to “interpret” it (Luther’s
Works 23:229; 39:165). So he worked long and hard, for instance, to
show that when Jesus said of the sacramental bread in Matthew 26:26,
“This is my body,” that little word “is’ in this simple sentence
actually means “is” and not something fancier and obscure like
“represents” (LW 37:30-35). Jews. And many American Lutherans have also rejected Luther because of his alleged anti-Semitism or hatred of the Jews – even formally condemning him twice for this at national conventions in 1974 (ALC) and 1994 (ELCA). These critics believe that Luther spews forth his hatred in his famous 1543 treatise called The Jews and Their Lies (LW 47:137-306) – a book that supposedly inspired Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) when he was devising his plan during WWII to kill off the Jews throughout Europe. It has become fairly common to suppose that "Luther's diatribes in the sixteenth century are an eerie foreshadowing of Nazi practices four centuries later" [Michael Berenbaum, The World Must Know: The History of the Holocaust as Told in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Second Edition (1993, 2006) p. 8]. Indeed even "Thomas Mann linked Luther to Hitler as did Lord Vansittart, once the highest civil servant in the British Foreign Office, Archbishop Temple and the Very Reverend R. W. Inge of the Church of England shared this opinion, and so did William L. Shirer, the author of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, a bestseller" [Uwe Siemon-Netto, The Fabricated Luther (1995) p. 23]. So even the prestigious Luther scholar, George Wolfgang Forell, concludes that in Luther's critique of the Jews, "the great theologian of the cross revealed his triumphalist Achilles’ heel” [The Luther Legacy (1983) p. 63]. And other scholars agree. James M. Kittelson says this treatise is a "poison" in the church [Luther the Reformer (1986, 2003) p. 275]. Heiko A. Oberman says Luther "becomes a pawn of modern anti-Semitism" in this 1543 treatise [Luther (1989) p. 297]. And Martin Marty says that Luther is at his worst when writing this treatise and that it contributes to his overall judgment that Luther is an "extreme" thinker – and unjustifiably so [Martin Luther (2004) pp. 174, 194]. Not all, however, who reject this 1543 treatise also reject what Luther says elsewhere, but a growing number are doing so. For instance, more and more are supposing that if Luther was too harsh on the Jews, then when he condemns homosexual behavior (LW 3:255), he's also being too harsh on gays and lesbians as well [see Homosexuality, Science, and the "Plain Sense" of Scripture (2000) ed. David L. Balch, pp. 190-191]. So words like these from students of Luther make it look like he is guilty as charged. And it surely doesn't help that a vicious anti-Semite in Hitler's government was named Martin Franz Julius Luther (1895-1945) (see Christopher R. Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939 – March 1942 (2004) pp. 342-43]. But I think these judgments against Luther are unjustifiable. This is because, in large part, Luther's four-part, 170 page book on the Jews is rarely read-through carefully by those who condemn it and understood even less well by those who skim over it once or twice, searching for juicy invectives – since they have already made up their minds against Luther on other grounds – whether they be sacramental, Biblical, catechetical, psychological or ecclesiastical – and are only in search of some non-controvertible evidence to clinch their case against him. They know nothing about – and care even less – that the great Luther scholar, E. Gordon Rupp in his book Martin Luther: Hitler's Cause or Cure? (1945) leveled Peter F. Wiener's book, Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor (1945, 1999), which accused Luther of anti-Semitism largely because of this 1543 treatise on the Jews. Consequently their judgment against Luther for his treatise on the Jews is skewed and less than compelling. So
if
the truth would be known, Luther "was not involved with later
racial anti-Semitism. [For] there is a world of difference between his
belief in salvation and a racial ideology" [Martin Brecht, Martin
Luther, 3 volumes (1985-1993) 3:351].
Therefore Luther can say that "we Goyim... confess that Mary [the
Mother of our Lord Jesus] is not ours but rather the Jews' cousin and
blood relative [whom] we praise and laud... highly" (LW
47:260). Now no anti-Semite could ever say this – without retching. But
Luther says it, not only clearly and deliberately, but also with joy,
passion and pride – something which, if not noted and appreciated,
only distorts Luther. So being part of his view of salvation, Luther's critique of the Jews – which is actually only a critique of Judaism – is not due to any personal hatred for the Jews, but is only a matter of following what the Bible has to say – especially the New Testament (but see also LW 47:178-192 on Genesis 49:10) – believing that "it is incumbent on all to know God's book" (LW 47:280). So in this treatise on the Jews Luther is arguing against the religion of Judaism and not against the Jews in any anti-Semitic way at all, because that is what the Bible does. And it's a terrible mistake to suppose that his is anti-Judaism implies anti-Semitism – since it clearly doesn't. So when Luther is attacked for his views on the Jews, more often than not, the real target is the Bible and not Luther's supposed hatred at all. So most critics of this 1543 treatise don't actually have a beef with Luther's fabricated anti-Semitism at all – regardless of what they say. What they're really upset about is Luther's harsh view of Christian salvation – which Luther says is deeply embedded in the Bible itself. But this is harder to own up to, since attacking a deeply Biblical view of salvation can boomerang on the critics, making then look religiously irresponsible. Now regarding salvation, we're told two things in the Bible about the Jews. First, that they, like all people, are welcome to believe in and follow Christ, because “God shows no partiality” (Acts 10:34). So the Jews are not excluded simply because of their ethnic background. Saying that would be anti-Semitic. That being said, however, the Bible also teaches that when a Jew – or anyone else, for that matter, follows Judaism – the view that God blesses those who keep his Law – that person becomes “unworthy of eternal life” (Acts 13:46). This is because Judaism, as a religion, cannot deliver what it promises – for it has become “obsolete” due to the appearing of Jesus Christ, the Messiah and very Son of God (Hebrews 7:19, 8:13; 2 Corinthians 3:10; 1 Peter 1:18; Romans 3:20, 8:3). This negative judgment is not anti-Semitic but only against the saving power of Judaism, which is rooted in following the law. So as the Jewish convert to Christianity, Roy H. Schoeman, has written, it is a “pernicious error” to suppose “that the Old and New Covenants are two ‘separate but equal’ parallel paths to salvation, the one intended for Jews, the other for Gentiles” [Salvation is From the Jews (2003) p. 353]. The truth rather is that salvation only comes through the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12). It is this anti-Judaism which is at the heart of Luther's 1543 treatise on the Jews. But this anti-Judaism doesn’t imply that Christianity hasn’t benefited from Judaism. To the contrary, Christians have received from Judaism the Law, the critique of idol worship, covenants with Noah, Abraham and David and the stirring witness of the patriarchs and prophets, to say nothing of the Savior himself (Romans 9:4-5) (LW 47:302)! So Christians have rightly taken these treasures and built upon them. But none of these gifts assures sinners of God’s love for them and the hope of eternal life once they've died and gone to meet their maker (1 Corinthians 15:26-56). Salvation from God's wrath only comes through “faith in Jesus Christ” (Romans 3:22, 5:9; John 3:16, 36). This is the truth given
us, which we must honor, even though, as Lutherans know and confess, it is “repulsive... to
the judgment of reason,” and that a religion based on the law, like
Judaism, is “more plausible” [The Book of Concord (1580) ed. T. Tappert (1959) p. 139]. But that
offense doesn’t make Christianity any less true. No, not at all. In fact,
this offensiveness may even contribute to its truth (Matthew 11:6). So
when Luther says that the Jews should be punished for their rejection of
Christianity and their attempts to draw Christians into Judaism (LW 47:290), he's only
laying out what the Bible says. Luke 16:16
says, for instance, that “every one enters the kingdom
of God violently.” St.
Paul was knocked flat on the road to Damascus, right before he "put on Christ" (Acts
9:4; Galatians 3:27). And everyone since then has been required to die to themselves
too – being knocked flat spiritually, if you will – in order to believe in Jesus (2 So even in the Old Testament, we must note – quite apart from Luther's treatise – that God tries to scare the Jews straight. Again and again he punishes them mercilessly – especially through invading military powers under the leadership of Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28) and Nebuchadrezzar (Jeremiah 39:3). And in Hosea, God specifically says – and quite abhorrently – of the disobedient Jews, that their children should be killed, their families should become infertile, and that they should be driven from their homes and made to wander among the nations (Hosea 9:7-17). It's important to note here, how much this prophecy sounds like what years later showed up in Hitler’s playbook. This helps one see the horrible truth about the ghastly nature of the Bible. So attacking Luther's alleged anti-Semitism in the name of some loving Bible is to get tangled up in theological chicanery. The message of the Bible is tough and one has to settle for that or throw it out. All sophisticated, urbane efforts to clean up the Bible fail the death of a thousand qualifications. And it must also be noted that these tough Old Testament words inspired Luther (who quotes Hosea eight times in his treatise) when he advises destroying Jewish synagogues, homes, religious books, preventing rabbis from teaching, ending gainful employment and safe-conduct for Jews, and imposing hard labor on them (LW 47:268-272). So indeed his polemic against Judaism is not derived from a personal hatred for them, but is rather "drawn from the Old Testament... prophets" [Gerhard O. Forde, "Luther and the Jews," (ALC, 1977) p. 18]. In the raging debate, then, over whether or not it's right to spank our children, Luther would come down squarely on the side of spanking (see John Rosemond, To Spank or Not to Spank: A Parent's Handbook, 1994). For he deeply believed in Proverbs 13:24 that sparing the rod spoils the child. This, in effect, then, is what he is doing in his 1543 treatise on the Jews – giving them a good licking (LW 47:197) – as offensive as that may seem to more liberal ears. But if Luther rightly opposed killing the Jews for their disobedience (contra the Old Testament prescription), why did he still advise other terrible punishments against them? Why didn't he ignore those Biblical punishments as any enlightened, urbane Christian would? Many suppose he didn't ignore them because he hated the Jews and was a terrible, evil person [see Richard Marius, Martin Luther (1999) p. 377]. But what Luther says is very different than that. He says, instead, that he advised punishments first to witness to the Holy Scriptures – for Jesus himself rebuked the Jews (LW 47:277) – and secondly, to scare the Jews straight so that they might receive God's blessings (LW 47:267). Luther believed that the Jews were a stubborn, stiff-necked people, as the Bible says (Exodus 32:9; Ezekiel 3:7-9; Acts 7:51-53) (LW 47:252). Therefore he knew that harsh corrections were needed if they were to be helped – "harsh" or "sharp" mercy was required, rather than "gentle" mercy (LW 47:268, 272, 276, 292) – for that's what it takes to "soften" up recalcitrant sinners (LW 47:206) – something Christians also need to know regarding themselves (LW 47:161, 253). His driving concern, then, was not vengeance or anything like that, but only the “welfare” of the Jewish people (LW 47:178, 267, 274). He had no interest in killing them off as Hitler did – for Luther knew that vengeance belonged to God alone (LW 47:189). Luther, then, to the contrary, only wanted to end God’s long-standing wrath against the Jews (LW 47:241, 263, 273, 292), and he knew that would only come about through faith in the Messiah (LW 47:215, 295). "Innumerable people, both young and old" within Judaism had accepted Christianity with sincerity down through the centuries, and Luther wanted many more Jews to do the same (LW 47:283, 306). That being the case, it would be unloving and unwise to
repudiate Luther’s 1543 treatise on the Jews. In this way Luther's treatise is eminently – and surprisingly – pastoral. "Underlying the divine chastisement is God's 'painful grace,' the purpose of which is to strangle the old Adam so that the believer might turn to God alone for every good" [Dennis Ngien, Luther as a Spiritual Adviser (2007) p. 155]. So condemning this treatise only undercuts these noble Christian goals – something no faithful, self-respecting Christian should ever want to do, or dare to do. The fact that many have done so anyway points to their lack of understanding and compassion for the Jews. This is because they are not willing to bear ignominy and vilification for trying to scare the Jews straight as Luther was. They instead are content to rest in the comfortable, unbiblical view that the Jews are safe for eternity without any belief in Jesus as their savior. But such comfort I cannot countenance because "it belongs to the very essence of a faith founded on justification by grace, that there is no distinction, and that I am called to preach Christ crucified, not by Jews, but by us all, and thus to proclaim him to all" (Forde, "Luther and the Jews," p. 19).
|
|
|
|
Luther’s
Catechis Cutting Up Our Sinful Hearts The
same could be said for Luther’s famous Ninety-Five
Theses (1517), which began the reformation of the church in
Now in the Small Catechism Luther also uses the sword of God’s Word (Hebrews
4:12) to cut us up mercilessly. But these lacerations are either skipped
or passed over lightly by most readers. This is deplorable, of course.
Few care, however. Nevertheless,
Luther begins his little gem by saying that if you won’t learn it you
should be refused “food and drink,” and banished from your home [The
Book of Concord (1580) ed. T. Tappert (1959) p. 339]. Then in the
first section he tells us that fearing God doesn’t mean casual respect
for a dignitary. Rather it means being afraid that God will “punish”
us if we transgress his commandments (p. 344). In the next section he
tells us of our religious impotence – that we cannot by “our own
reason or strength” believe in Jesus Christ. So if we believe it’s
because God has “enlightened” us and “preserved” us in the
faith. When we therefore believe in Jesus it’s not because we have
chosen to or selected him from among various live options (p. 345). For
in matters of religion we must never suppose we’re free to make up our
own minds – regardless of what the evangelists say when they tell us
to make Jesus our personal lord and savior. This can’t be since our
faith doesn’t depend on the “exertion” of our will (Romans 9:16).
In the third section Luther says we “deserve nothing but
punishment” (p. 347). So we can’t go around saying God is always
looking for new ways to bless us. That’s just not the case – the
opposite rather is. He’s out to crush us – like a bug on the
sidewalk. Just remember all those mothers with their little crying
babies that he mercilessly drowned in the flood (Genesis 7:21; Isaiah
13:9; Matthew 3:12; Romans 2:5-11). At the end of this section he says
this life is nothing but a “world of sorrow” (p. 348) – so much
for those much vaunted lakefront summer vacations. All they really are is distractions.
In the section on baptism he says there’s nothing cute about
it. Rather it is about drowning or putting to death our sins and evil
lusts “by daily sorrow and repentance” (p. 349). So thinking that
when we rejoice in Christ (
In the section on the Lord’s Supper he says it’s all about
the “forgiveness of sins” (p. 352). So it’s not a meal where we
select our favorite beverage or type of cup. Neither is it a
light-hearted community celebration. That only turns this testament
about the forgiveness of sins into a silly little carnival. In the
section on prayer we’re told to make the sign of the cross on
ourselves and know that “the wicked one” is trying to run us over on
a daily basis (p.352). And in the last section we’re told that “all
the household well will fare” if and only if every member in the
family learns their lessons and does their chores daily. Otherwise chaos
will ensue – and with that a model dysfunctional family. Luther continues these swipes in his Large Catechism (1529) – which is some five times longer. There we read: “Like pigs and dogs [we] remember no more of the Gospel than [a] rotten,... shameful, carnal liberty” (p. 359); “The most common idol on earth is.... money and possessions” (p. 365); “We grossly... desecrate the holy [Sabbath when we] listen to God’s Word as [we] would to any other entertainment” (p. 378); “Let everyone... remember that God is not to be taken lightly.... If you obey him you are his dear child; [if not, take] shame, misery and grief for your reward” (p. 385); “God calls all persons murderers who do not offer... aid to men in need” (p. 391); “[Christianity] is not a nice, soft life” (p. 392); “Christ... restored [me] to the Father’s... grace.... [by suffering and dying] that he might make satisfaction... and pay what I owed, not with silver and gold but with his own precious blood” (p. 414); “Let no... Christian... think... he will have peace... on earth” (p. 429); “God’s Word cannot err” (p. 444); “A Christian life is... a daily Baptism,.... incessantly... purging out whatever pertains to the old Adam” (p. 445); ‘The Lord’s Supper is given as a daily food... so that our faith may... grow continually stronger. For the new life should be one that continually... progresses” (p. 449); and “If you proudly stay away from confession, then... you are no Christian” (p. 460). The Messenger, October 2005.) |
|
|
|
Martin
Luther’s The Bondage of
the Will (1525) [De
servo (~liberum) arbitrio (~voluntas); which
might more accurately be translated, On Unfree
Choice] Preface [A]
One of My Best Books.
“Regarding the plan to collect my writings in volumes, I am quite cool
and not at all eager about it because, roused by a Saturnian hunger, I
would rather see them all devoured. For I acknowledge none of them to be
really a book of mine, except perhaps the one On
the Bound Will and Catechism”
(Luther’s Works 50:172-173, Letter of July 9, 1537). [B]
Not My Will Be Done. “A
good will is found only where there is no will. Where there is no will,
God’s will, which is the very best, will be present…. [But] you may
say, ‘Well, did God not endow us with a free will?’ I reply: To be
sure, he gave you a free will. But why do you want to make it your own
will? Why not let it remain free? If you do with it whatever you will,
it is not a free will, but your own will. God did not give you or anyone
one else a will of your own. Your own will comes from the devil and from
Adam, who transformed the free will received from God into his own. A
free will does not want its own way, but looks only to God’s will for
direction. By so doing it then also remains free, untrammeled and
unshackled…. Our will is the most formidable element in us, and
against it we must pray, ‘O Father, do not let me get to the point
where my will is done. Break my will; resist it. No matter what happens
let my life be governed not by my will, but by yours. As no one’s own
will prevails in heaven so may it also be here on earth.’ Such a
petition or its fulfillment is indeed very painful to our human nature,
for our own will is the greatest and most deeply rooted evil in us, and
nothing is dearer to us than our own will” (LW
42:48 – 1519). [C]
Free Will = Self Will. “I
would wish that the words, ‘free will,’ had never been invented.
They are not found in Scripture and would better be called ‘self
will’ which is of no use. But if anyone wishes to retain these words,
he ought to apply them to the newly created man…. But those who are
involved in sins are not free, but prisoners of the devil…. This error
about ‘free will’ is a special doctrine of Antichrist. Small wonder
that it has spread all over the world, for it is written of this
Antichrist that he will seduce the whole world. Only few Christians will
be saved” (LW 32:94 –
1521). [D]
I Cannot Believe. “I believe that by my own
reason or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to
him. But the Holy Spirit has called me through the Gospel, enlightened
me with his gifts, and sanctified and preserved me in true faith” [Small Catechism (1529) 2:6, The
Book of Concord (1580), ed. T. Tappert (1959) p. 345]. [E]
Knowing You’re Saved.
“I will… send My Son…. in order that you may be able to know
whether you are predestined or not…. If you listen to Him, are
baptized in His name, and love His Word, then you are surely predestined
and are certain of your salvation. But if you revile or despise the
Word, then you are damned; for he who does not believe is condemned
(Mark 16:16)” (LW 5:45 –
1542). [F]
Bound But Still Responsible.
“You must use the things given and granted to you by God in His
kindness. You must rule, work, and strive not to tempt God. You must not
throw yourself headlong into danger… because you have the promise that
God does not want to forsake you…. For God fulfills His promises with
definite means. One should not join those fanatics – who conclude that
everything is foreknown – and say: ‘If I have been predestined, I
shall be saved; if not, I shall perish. If it is necessary to die, care
for the body and life will profit nothing. If I am destined to be
learned, I shall become learned even without books, etc.’ But God has
not given His promises with this arrangement…. He does not want to
fulfill the end of His promises without means; He wants to do so through
means. He has given us the use of the creatures, and these must be used
by Christians until we come to the end of the divine promises” (LW
5:256-257). Introduction
[G]
Writing On the Run. “While
writing The Bondage of the Will,
Luther was occupied with the problems of the peasants’ revolt, with Müntzer’s
revolutionary, spiritual Christianity, and with the newly initiated
controversy over the Lord’s Supper, to say nothing of his personal
career, amid all these complications considerably altered by his
marriage and the founding of his own large household in June 1525. The De
servo arbitrio was composed mainly in the autumn of 1525. By the end
of December 1525, it was in print” [Bernhard Lohse, Martin Luther’s Theology, ed. and trans. Roy A. Harrisville
(Fortress, 1999) pp. 162-163]. [H]
His Quickly Written, 8 Day Book.
“I am sending you, my Michael [Stifel], my rebuttal of Erasmus, which
I completed as best I could in a short time and in a hurry…. [It seems
that Luther finished the manuscript between November 11 and 18; see WA
18, 581. The printing began while Luther was still working on the
manuscript]” (LW 49:140, Letter, 12-31-1525 and note 3). [I]
Like [J]
Reviving Double Predestination.
“In The Bondage of the Will
Luther must be set against a debate already a thousand years old in the [K]
Going Against Modern Ideas.
“The Bondage of the Will is
Luther’s polemical tract against Erasmus – and ‘modern’ men of
all eras” [Heiko A. Oberman, Luther:
Man Between God and the Devil (Yale, 1989) p. 211]. [L]
Yet Moderns Intrigued
Nevertheless. “De servo
arbitrio remained in comparative obscurity for a
quarter-millennium…. In marked contrast to its relative neglect in the
period after Luther’s death stands a modern fascination with the work.
In the nineteenth century followers and foes alike rediscovered De
servo arbitrio, and it became the source of both severe criticism of
the reformer’s theology and new insights into the nature of his
thought” [Robert Kolb, Bound Choice, Election, and [M]
Free Will Not Christian. “On
the Bondage of the Will hurt Erasmus deeply. He replied twice. For
Luther, his own single contribution to the debate was enough. He fully
intended the implication that Erasmus was not a Christian. It was not
just that Erasmus was in error, but also that he was putting himself
forth as a teacher of the faithful. In such a situation no holds were
barred” [James M. Kittelson, Luther
the Reformer (1986, 2003) p. 206]. [N]
Condemning De Servo. “Gordon Rupp praised The Bondage of the Will extravagantly. It is not a judgment I share.
The work is insulting, monstrously unfair, and utterly
uncompromising…. Of all his Catholic foes, only Erasmus sought to
approach Luther gently. Luther responded with a blast that echoes with
cannonades and associated horrors of the coming religious wars – wars
fought over doctrines with no hope of rational solution, elaborate
formulations dissolved finally in the religious skepticism that gave us
the Enlightenment and either depersonalized God or chased him out of the
infinite heavens in the interest of peace and goodwill among
humankind” [Richard Marius,
Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death (Harvard, 1999)
p. 456]. [O]
His Greatest Book. “The
Bondage of the Will is the greatest piece of theological writing
that ever came from Luther’s pen…. In its fertility of thought, its
vigour of language, its profound theological grasp, its sustained
strength of argument and the grand sweep of its exposition, it stands
unsurpassed among Luther’s writings. It is the worthiest
representative of his mature thought that he has left us, and is a far
finer memorial of his theological prowess than are the smaller tracts of
the preceding years, which are so much better known” [Martin
Luther on The Bondage of the Will, trans. J. I. Packer & O. R.
Johnson (Revell, 1957) pp. 40-41]. [P]
Lutherans Against Luther.
“Ignoring Luther’s exposition of God’s foreknowledge as creative,
the concordists instead repeated the distinction of Prosper of Aquitaine
[390-463], which Spangenberg [1528-1604] and Chytraeus [1531-1600],
among others, had used, between God’s foreknowledge of all things and
his predestination of his chosen children to salvation (SD XI:4-27).
This distinction does not solve the theodical problem. It only asserts
that God is not responsible for the evil he foresees. It thus also
evades the issue of God’s lordship over all that leads to questions
about the origin of evil. Where Luther specifically admitted that the
human mind could not grasp the ways of God, the Formula [1577] sidesteps
the question. It seems content to get God off the hook. It returns to
the position of Augsburg Confession article XIX: only the human creature
and Satan are responsible for evil. It is precisely at this point…
that the Formula diverges most from De
servo arbitrio” (Kolb, Bound
Choice, p. 268). [Q]
Not American. “Schmucker
[1799-1873] was opposed to any form of a doctrine of election. He stated
adamantly [that] ‘the theory of absolute predestination is generally
regarded, by the laity at least, with horror’” [David A. Gustafson, Lutherans
in Crisis: The Question of Identity in the American Republic ( [R]
What the Church Needs.
“Writing a book on Luther’s Bondage
of the Will is a foolhardy business – not because the arguments
are so hard to understand but rather because they are difficult for
sinners to take…. The result has been as Luther predicted. The people,
and now even the professors, know practically nothing of this doctrine
– knowledge of which Luther considered absolutely essential to
salvation! Small wonder that the [S]
A Better Title: The Grandeur of
the Creator. “An appropriate alternative for the title [to
Luther’s book on the bound will, that] might better capture [its
intent, would be] ‘the Grandeur of the Creator’” (Kolb, Bound
Choice, p. 20). [T]
A Raucous Hymn. “[The Bondage of the Will is] a raucous hymn to the freedom of God”
[Martin Marty, Martin Luther
(Penguin, 2004) p. 133]. [U]
Within God’s Own Triune Rapture of Freedom. “God is freedom antecedent
to himself as determinate free will. He can intelligibly be said to be
this as the Father is the source of the Son and both are freed in the
Spirit [2 Corinthians 3:17]…. [This] hangs beautifully together said
of the triune God and as part of one conceptual structure with
propositions asserting his triunity, and if said of any other sort of
God makes a mere collection of disparate debating points – and it may
well be the personal unitarianism of most modern historical scholars
which has so often led them to see de
servo arbitrio as just such a farrago [or hodgepodge]…. Human
freedom, in the only sense Luther wants to talk about, is nothing less
than participation in God’s own triune rapture of freedom,…. that
God frees us ‘by the Spirit,’ by that personhood in which he is his
own freedom” [Robert W. Jensen, “An Ontology of Freedom in De
Servo Arbitrio of Luther,” Modern
Theology 10 (July 1994 247-252, pp. 250, 252]. Selections
from De servo arbitrio [1]
Only God Opens Our Hearts. “Free choice is a pure fiction; for,
like the woman in the Gospel (Mark 5:25), the more it is treated by the
doctors, the worse it gets…. Therefore, we must pray to God that he
may open my mouth and your heart, and the hearts of all men, and that he
may himself be present in our midst as the master who informs both our
speaking and hearing” (Luther’s
Works 33:18-19). [2]
Sinners Make the Bible Unclear. “It is true that for many people
much remains abstruse; but this is not due to the obscurity of
Scripture, but to the blindness or indolence of those who will not take
the trouble to look at the very clearest truth…. Let miserable men,
therefore, stop imputing with blasphemous perversity the darkness and
obscurity of their own hearts to the wholly clear Scriptures of God” (LW
33:27). [3]
Ice-Cold Christianity. “Christianity as you [Erasmus] describe it
includes this among other things: that we should strive with all our
might, have recourse to the remedy of penitence, and entreat by all
means the mercy of the Lord, without which no human will or endeavor is
effective; also that no one should despair of the pardon of a God who is
by nature most merciful. These words of yours, devoid of Christ, devoid
of the Spirit, are colder than ice itself” (LW
33:30-31). [4]
Wishy-Washy Teaching. “That prudence of yours makes you veer
about, determined not to commit yourself to either side, but to pass
safely between Scylla and Charybdis; with the result that, finding
yourself battered and buffeted by the waves in the midst of the sea, you
assert everything you deny and deny everything you assert” (LW
33:33). [5]
Best Laid Plans of Mice and Men.
“Why are these things abstruse to us Christians, so that its is
irreverent and… vain to discuss… them when heathen poets and even
the common people speak of them quite freely?.... [For] fact and
experience prove… that no man’s plans have ever been
straightforwardly realized, but for everyone things have turned out
differently from what he thought they would be” (LW 33:41). [6]
Actually Consoling. “This
is the one supreme consolation of Christians in all adversities, to know
that God does not lie, but does all things immutably, and that his will
can neither be resisted nor changed nor hindered” (LW
33:43). [7]
Losing God is the Worst. “Diseases,… seditions, sects,… wars,
and anything else of this sort…. are temporal [and] less evil to
endure than the inveterate wickedness through which souls will… be
lost if they are not changed by the Word of God; and if that Word were
taken away, then eternal good, God, Christ, the Spirit, would go with
it. But surely it is preferable to lose the world rather than God the
creator of the world,… who is better than infinite worlds!” (LW
33:53). [8]
God’s More Than We Can Grasp. “The operations of God are not
childish or bourgeois or human, but divine and exceeding human grasp”
(LW 33:54). [9]
Don’t Try to Save More Than a Few. “The Word of God and
traditions of men are irreconcilably opposed to one another, precisely
as God himself and Satan are mutually opposed, each destroying the
work… of the other…. [Those who] abuse [God’s] freedom…. should
not be considered so important that in order to prevent [this] the Word
of God must be taken away. If not all cannot be saved, yet some are
saved, and it is for their sake that the Word of God comes” (LW
33:54-55). [10]
Criticizing God is Foolish. “You are of the opinion that the truth
and usefulness of Scripture is to be measured and judged by the
reactions of men, and the most ungodly men at that…. To talk as you
do, one must imagine the Living God to be nothing but a kind of shallow
and ignorant ranter declaiming from some platform, whose words you can
if you wish interpret in any direction you like” (LW
33:59-60). [11]
Wait on God in Despair & Humility. “No man can be thoroughly
humbled until he knows that his salvation is utterly beyond his powers,
devices, endeavors, will, and works, and depends entirely on the choice,
will, and work of another, namely, of God alone. For as long as he is
persuaded that he himself can do even the least thing toward his
salvation, he retains some self-confidence and does not altogether
despair of himself, and therefore he is not humbled before God…. But
when a man has no doubt that everything depends on the will of God, then
he completely despairs of himself and chooses nothing for himself, but
waits for God to work; then he has come close to grace, and can be
saved” (LW 33:62). [12]
Why We Need Faith. “This is the highest degree of faith, to
believe [God] merciful when he saves so few and damns so many…. If,
then, I could by any means comprehend how this God can be merciful and
just who displays so much wrath and iniquity, there would be no need of
faith. As it is, since that cannot be comprehended, there is room for
the exercise of faith…, just as when God kills, the faith of life is
exercised in death” (LW 33:62-63). [13]
Royally Free In Slavery to God. “If a Stronger One comes who
overcomes him and takes us as His spoil, then through his Spirit we are
again slaves and captives – though this is royal freedom – so that
we readily will and do what he wills” (LW
33:65). [14]
A Beast Ridden. “Thus
the human will is placed between the two like a beast of burden. If God
rides it, it wills and goes where God wills…. If Satan rides it, it
wills and goes where Satan wills; nor can it choose to run to either of
the two riders” (LW 33:65). [15]
No More Than a Passive Aptitude. “To say that free choice exists
and has indeed some power, but that it is an ineffectual power is… a
contradiction in terms…. But if the power of free choice were said to
mean that by which a man is capable of being taken hold of by the Spirit
and imbued with the grace of God, as a being created for eternal life or
death, no objection could be taken. For this power or… disposing
quality or passive aptitude [passivam
aptitudinem], we also admit…. For heaven… was not made for
geese” (LW 33:67). [16]
Only God Is Free. “Free choice is plainly a divine term and can be
properly applied to none but the Divine Majesty alone; for he alone can
do and does whatever he pleases in heaven and on earth (Psalm 115:3). If
this is attributed to men, it is no more rightly attributed than if
divinity itself also were attributed to them, which would be the
greatest possible sacrilege” (LW
33:68). [17]
We Can’t Turn in Any Direction We Like. “The expression ‘free
choice’ is too imposing, too wide and full, and people think it
signifies – as the force and nature of the term requires – a power
that can turn itself freely in either direction without being under
anyone’s influence or control…. Since, then, we have lost the
meaning and content of such a vainglorious term, or rather have never
possessed it,…. [it is] a danger to salvation and a thoroughly
injurious illusion” (LW
33:68-69). [18]
Maybe We Have a Meager Freedom. “If we are unwilling to let this
term go altogether – though that would be the safest and most
God-fearing thing to do – let us at least teach men to use it
honestly, so that free choice is allowed to man only with respect to
what is beneath him and not what is above him. That is to say, a man
should know that with regard to his faculties and possessions he has the
right to use, to do, or to leave undone, according to his own free
choice, though even this is controlled by the free choice of God alone,
who acts in whatever way he pleases. On the other hand in relation to
God, or in matters pertaining to salvation or damnation, a man has no
free choice, but is a captive, subject and slave either of the will of
God or the will of Satan” (LW
33:70). [19]
Humans Are Liars and Can’t Be Trusted. “Scripture calls man
‘vanity’ and a ‘lie,’ which is nothing else than saying that all
things human are vanities and lies” (LW
33:75). [20]
Saints’ Actions Speak Louder Than Their Words. “All your
bragging words about the power of free choice [looks] like the man who
watched the play in an empty theater. But I can easily show you, on the
contrary, that holy men such as you boast about, whenever they come to
pray or plead with God, approach him in utter forgetfulness of their own
free choice, despairing of themselves and imploring nothing but pure
grace alone, though they have merited something very different. This is
often the case with Augustine, and it was so with Bernard when, at the
point of death, he said, ‘I have lost my time, because I have lived
like a lost soul.’ I do not see that any power is claimed here which
could apply itself to grace, but every power is accused of having done
nothing but turn away from grace. It is true that these same saints
sometimes in their disputations spoke differently about free choice, but
that is just what I see happening to everybody; they are different when
they are intent on words or arguments from what they are when they are
concerned with feelings and actions…. But men are to be measured by
their feelings rather than their talk, whether they are godly or
ungodly” (LW 33:76-77). [21]
Smarty-Pants [22]
Having to Prove the Bible’s
Brightness. “All spirits are to be tested in the presence of the
Church at the bar of Scripture. For it ought above all to be settled and
established among Christians that the Holy Scriptures are a spiritual
light far brighter than the sun itself, especially in things that are
necessary to salvation. But because we have for so long been persuaded
of the opposite by the pestilential saying of the Sophists
that the Scriptures are obscure and ambiguous, we are obliged to
begin by proving even that first principle of ours by which everything
else has to be proved – a procedure that among the philosophers would
be regarded as absurd and impossible” (LW 33:91). [23]
Saved by a Miracle Alone.
“Free choice or the human heart is so held down by the power of Satan
that unless it is miraculously raised up [mirabiliter
suscitetur] by the Spirit of
God it cannot of itself either see or hear things that strike the eyes
and ears themselves so plainly as to be palpable” (LW
33:98). [24]
Cherish Your Weakness. “It
is not due to the weakness of the human mind… that the words of God
are not understood, but, on the contrary, nothing is more fitted for [capiantur] understanding the words of God than such weakness” (LW
33:99). [25]
Being Stuck. “It would be
more correct to speak of ‘vertible choice’ or ‘mutable choice,’
in the way in which Augustine and the Sophists after him limit the glory
and range of the word ‘free’ by introducing the disparaging notion
of what they call the vertibility of free choice. In such a way it would
be fitting for us to speak, to avoid deceiving the hearts of men with
inflated and high-sounding but empty words” (LW
33:103). [26]
Nothing Between Will & Action.
“What is meant by ‘a power of the human will’ is a capacity or
faculty or ability or aptitude for willing, unwilling, selecting,
neglecting, approving, rejecting, and whatever other actions of the will
there are. Now, what it means for that same power to ‘apply itself’
and to ‘turn away’ I do not see, unless it is precisely… the
action of the will. So [we] must [not] imagine this power to be
something between the will itself and its action, as the means by which
the action of willing and unwilling is itself produced” (LW
33:104-105). [27]
We Must Be Thoroughly Imbued.
“Privately there is simply no one, unless he is thoroughly imbued [perfusus] with the Holy Spirit, who knows, believe, or desires
eternal salvation, even though they never stop talking and writing about
it” (LW 33:106). [28]
We Can’t Will to Die, So
We’re Bound. “Since the works of God which lead to salvation
include death, the cross, and all the evils of the world, the human will
must be able to will both death and its own perdition…. But what is
left here to grace and the Holy Spirit? This plainly means attributing
divinity to free choice, since to will the law and the gospel, to unwill
sin and to will death, belong to divine power alone, as Paul says in
more than one place” (LW
33:106-107). [29]
Free as a Log. “If anyone
told you that a thing was free which could operate by its own power only
in one direction (the bad one), while in the other (the good one) it
could of course operate, though not by its own power, but only by the
help of another – would you be able to keep a straight face, my
friend? By that sort of method I can easily make out that a stone or a
log of wood has free choice because it can move both upward and
downward, though by is own power only downward, and upward only by the
help of another. And as I said above, we shall end with a topsy-turvy
use of language and vocabulary” (LW
33:109). [30]
Theology Must Be Personal &
Intense. “When a man does not take this subject seriously and
feels no personal interest in it, never has his heart in it and find it
wearisome, chilling, or nauseating, how can he help saying absurd,
inept, and contradictory things all the time, since he conducts the case
like one drunk or asleep, belching out between snores, ‘Yes, No,’ as
different voices fall on his ears? That is why the rhetoricians require
feeling in an advocate; and all the more does theology require such
feeling as will make a man vigilant, penetrating, intent, astute, and
determined” (LW 33:113-114). [31]
No Neutral Will. “Perhaps
[you are] dreaming that there is a mean between the two – between
being able to will good and not being able to will good – which is
willing in the absolute sense, without reference either to good or evil,
so that by a certain logical subtlety we may thus steer clear of the
rocks and say that there is in man’s will a kind of willing which,
while it cannot indeed turn toward the good without grace, yet even
without grace does not forthwith will only evil, but is a willing pure
and simple, which by grace can be turned upward to the good, by sin
downward to evil…. [But] it is… a mere dialectical fiction that
there is in man a neutral... willing, nor can those who assert it prove
it…. The truth of the matter is… as Christ says: ‘He who is not
with me is against me’ (Luke 11:23). He does not say: ‘He who is not
with me is not against me either, but neutral.’ For if God is in us,
Satan is absent, and only a good will is present; if God is absent,
Satan is present, and only an evil will is in us. Neither God nor Satan
permits sheer unqualified willing in us” (LW 33:114-115). [32]
Freedom Cut in [33]
Test Shows Blindness. “I
[want] to show Reason how foolish she is in tacking her inferences onto
Scriptures, and how blind she is not to see that they are not always
applicable…. If… God deals with us as a father with his children, so
as to show our ignorant selves our helplessness,… will the correct
conclusion to be drawn from this be: ‘Therefore we can act freely, or
else God is mocking us’? Why does it not rather follow: ‘Therefore,
God is putting us to the test so as to lead us by means of the law to a
knowledge of our impotence’?.... That is the reason why God gives
laws, as Paul teaches (Romans 3:20). For human nature is so blind that
it does not know its own powers, or rather diseases, and so proud as to
imagine that it knows and can do nothing” (LW
33:121). [34]
Adam Bound Too. “If [Adam]
even when the Spirit was present, was not able with a new will [nova voluntate] to will a
good newly proposed to him (that is, obedience), because the Spirit did
not add it to him, what should we be able to do without the Spirit in
respect of a good that we have lost? It is thus shown in that first man,
as a frightening example and for the breaking down of our pride, what
our free choice can do when it is left to itself and not continually and
increasingly actuated and augmented by the Spirit of God. If that man
could do nothing toward increasing his share of the Spirit, whose first
fruits he possessed, but fell away from the first fruits of the Spirit,
how should we in our fallen state be able to do anything toward
recovering the first fruits of the Spirit that have been taken away,
especially when Satan now reigns in us in full force?” (LW 33:124). [35]
Christ Isn’t Needed If We
Imagine Ourselves to be Free. “What need is there of the Spirit or
of Christ or of God if free choice can overcome the motions of the mind
toward evil? Where, again, is the probable opinion which says that free
choice cannot even will good? Yet here the victory over evil is
attributed to that which neither wills nor wishes anything good! It is
really too, too thoughtless [a view]” (LW
33:125). [36]
Ought Doesn’t Imply Can.
“Heap up… all the imperative verbs… into one chaotic mass, and
provided they are not words of promise, but of demand and the law, I
shall say at once that what is signified by them is always what men
ought to do and not what they do or can do. This is something that even
grammarians and street urchins know, that by verbs of the imperative
mood nothing else is signified but what ought to be done. What is done,
or can be done, must be expressed by indicative verbs” (LW
33:127). [37]
Bound & Blind.
“Scripture… represents man as one who is not only bound, wretched,
captive, sick, and dead, but in addition to his other miseries is
afflicted, through the agency of Satan his prince, with the misery of
blindness, so that he believes himself to be free, happy, unfettered,
able, well, and alive…. It is Satan’s work to prevent men from
[seeing] their plight and to keep them presuming that they can do
everything they are told” (LW
33:130). [38]
We Can’t Force Ourselves to
Love God. “The love of God is certainly no less required than our
conversion and the keeping of all the commandments, since the love of
God is our true conversion [vera
conversio]” (LW
33:133). [39]
Salvation Is Offered by Another.
“More than half of Holy Scripture contains but sheer promises of
grace, in which mercy, life, peace, and salvation are offered by God to
men” (LW 33:136). [40]
Only For the Despairing.
“The word of grace does not come except to those who feel their sin
and are troubled and tempted to despair” (LW
33:137). [41]
Follow God Bound, Fear God
Unbound. “God hidden in his majesty neither deplores nor takes
away death, but works life, death, and all in all. For there he has not
bound himself by his word [verbo
suo definivit sese],
but has kept himself free over all things…. It is our business,
however, to pay attention to the word and leave that inscrutable will
alone, for we must be guided by the word and not by that inscrutable
will…. It is enough to know simply that there is an inscrutable will
in God, and as to what, why, and how far it wills, that is something we
have no right whatever to inquire into, hanker after,... or meddle with,
but only to fear and adore” (LW
33:140). [42]
We’ll Never Know Why We Were
Allowed to Sin. “Why that majesty of [God] does not remove or
change this defect of our will in all men, since it is not in man’s
power to do so, or why he imputes this defect to man, when man cannot
help having it, we have no right to inquire; and though you may do a lot
of inquiring, you will never find out” (LW 33:140). [43]
Stand in Awe When God Damns
Sinners to Hell. “God incarnate… has been sent into the world
for the very purpose of willing, speaking, doing, suffering and offering
to all men everything necessary for salvation. Yet he offends very many,
who being either abandoned or hardened by that secret will of the Divine
Majesty do not receive him as he wills, speaks, does, suffers, and
offers…. It is likewise part of this incarnate God to weep, wail, and
groan over the perdition of the ungodly, when the will of the Divine
Majesty purposely abandons and reprobates some to perish. And it is not
for us to ask why he does so, but to stand in awe of God who both can do
and wills to do such things” (LW
33:146). [44]
God Gives Us the Will to Obey Him.
“‘If you will; if you are willing,’ that is, ‘If you are such in
the sight of God that he deigns to give you this will to keep his
commandments, you will be saved.’ By this turn of phrase we are given
to understand both things, namely, that we can do nothing of ourselves,
and that whatever we do, God works it in us” (LW
33:149). [45]
Dull Minds Obey God. “It
is not uncommon for men of outstanding intellect to be habitually blind
in a matter which is plain even to a dull and uninstructed mind, and to
show how weak an argument drawn from human authority is in divine
affairs, where divine authority alone has weight” (LW
33:150). [46]
All Deserve to Go to Hell.
“We are… unworthy… and deserving of damnation rather than anything
else” (LW 33:150). [47]
Disinterested Good Works the
Truly Good Ones. “If [the godly] did good works for the sake of
obtaining the Kingdom, they would never obtain it, but would rather
belong among the ungodly who with an evil and mercenary eye ‘seek
their own’ even in God. But the children of God do good with a will
that is disinterested [gratuita]
, not seeking any reward, but only the glory and will of God, and being
ready to do good even if – an impossible supposition – there were
neither a kingdom nor a hell” (LW
33:152-153). [48] Outward Matches Inward. “It has… pleased God to impart the Spirit, not without the Word, but through the Word, so as to have us as cooperator |
