Posted on 12/18/2013 8:35:23 AM PST by GonzoII
|
It is no secret that Martin Luther eliminated all works as having anything to do with our justification/salvation. In what most call his “greatest work,” The Bondage of the Will, Luther commented on St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: The assertion that justification is free to all that are justified leaves none to work, merit or prepare themselves… For if we are justified without works, all works are condemned, whether small or great; Paul exempts none, but thunders impartially against all. Paul’s point in saying justification is a free gift was not to eliminate works as necessary for justification, or salvation, in all categories. Men must, among other things, choose to open the free gift (see II Cor. 6:1), do good works (see Romans 2:6-7; Gal. 6:7-9), be faithful unto death (Rev. 2:10; Matt. 10:22), keep the law (Romans 2:13; Matt. 19:17), be obedient (Romans 6:16; Heb. 5:9), etc. in order to be finally justified or saved. St. Paul was answering “Judaizers”—believers in Christ who were attempting to re-establish the law of the Old Covenant as necessary for salvation in the New. This was tantamount to forfeiting Christ, or rejecting the free gift, because it represented an attempt to be justified apart from Christ. Paul says, in Galatians 5:4-7 and 2:18, those Christians who were being led astray in this way had “fallen away from grace” precisely because they were attempting to “build up again” the law that had been “torn down” through the cross of Christ. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love. You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth (Gal. 5:4-7)? For St. Paul, any works done either before entering into Christ or apart from Christ profit nothing. But works done in Christ are a different story. Before Christ, unregenerate men are “dead in trespasses and sins,” and “by nature children of wrath,” as Paul writes in Ephesians 2:1-3. But after entering into Christ, Phillipians 4:13 says, “I can do all things in [Christ] who strengthens me.” And according to Romans 2:6-7, “all things” includes meriting eternal life. A Compounding Problem Unfortunately, Luther’s error did not cease with bad exegesis of St. Paul. As is so often the case, one error leads not just to one more but to a litany. For example, Luther was so consumed with the notion that man can have nothing to do with his own salvation—no works—he claimed any belief that man must actively cooperate in salvation at all to be equivalent to a denial of the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. In one of his sermons, Luther declared: [Catholics] know very well how to say of him: I believe in God the Father, and in his only begotten Son. But it is only upon the tongue, like the foam on the water; it does not enter the heart. Figuratively a big tumor still remains there in the heart; that is, they cling somewhat to their own deeds and think they must do works in order to be saved—that Christ’s person and merit are not sufficient. . . . They say, Christ has truly died for us, but in a way that we, also, must accomplish something by our deeds. Notice how deeply wickedness and unbelief are rooted in the heart. Saying man must “accomplish something” in Christ does not deny the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice; it merely states, in agreement with St. John no less, that man must, among other things, “walk in the light” of Christ in order for Christ’s all-sufficient sacrifice to become efficacious in his life: If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin… If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness (I John 1:7-9). Notice, we must walk, and we must confess. The Errors Continue In The Bondage of the Will, Luther takes the next logical step in denying works to be involved in salvation in any sense by declaring man’s will to be absolutely passive when it comes to salvation; and consequent to that, he expressly denies the truth of man’s free will: So man’s will is like a beast standing between two riders. If God rides, it wills and goes where God wills. . . . If Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan wills. Nor may it choose to which rider it will run, or which it will seek; but the riders themselves fight to decide who shall have and hold it. Luther’s famous notion of simul justus et peccator (“at the same time just and sinner”) is another error rooted in leaving man completely out of the equation when it comes to his own justification. It means, in effect, man’s justification is accomplished extrinsic to him. God declares a man just via a divine, forensic declaration—a legal fiction—rather than the biblical notion of a real inward transformation that makes him truly and inwardly just (cf. II Cor. 5:17; Eph. 4:24). Moreover, if it is grave error to acknowledge man has a causal role in his own salvation, claiming other members of the body of Christ have a role would be equally errant. There goes an essential element of the communion of saints. St. Paul obviously did not get the memo here, because he wrote: “Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers” (I Tim. 4:16). There are many other errors we could add to this litany of Lutheran misstandings, but what I would argue to be Luther’s most egregious errors came as a direct consequence of his denial of free will. Think about it. If you deny free will, but you also teach that at least some people will end up in hell—and Luther did just that—then it necessarily follows that God does not will all to be saved. This is logical if you accept Luther’s first principles. The problem is it runs contrary to plain biblical texts like I Tim. 2:4: “God wills all to be saved” (see also II Peter 3:9: I John 2:1-2), and Matthew 23:37, which records the words of our Lord himself: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets. . . . How often would I have gathered your children . . . and you would not! Interestingly enough, in The Bondage of the Will, Luther attempts a response to this last text that becomes quite telling: Here, God Incarnate (sic) says: “I would and thou wouldst not.” God Incarnate (sic), I repeat, was sent for this purpose, to will, say, do, suffer, and offer to all men, all that is necessary for salvation; albeit he offends many who, being abandoned or hardened by God’s secret will of Majesty, do not receive Him thus willing, speaking, doing, and offering. . . . It belongs to the same God incarnate to weep, lament, and groan over the perdition of the ungodly, though that will of Majesty purposely leaves and reprobates some to perish. So what is Luther’s response to Jesus’ obvious willing all to be saved? Certainly, he would acquiesce to the Master and acknowledge God’s universal salvific will, would he not? After all, Jesus Christ is, in one sense, the will of God manifest in the flesh. Unfortunately not. Luther claimed Christ’s human knowledge to be lacking when it came to understanding “God’s secret will of Majesty,” which led our Lord’s human will to find itself in opposition to the divine will. Poor Jesus. If he only knew what Luther knew. We could multiply texts like “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9), or “No one knows the Father except the Son” (Matt. 11:27) that render this kind of thinking untenable. We could talk about the Hypostatic Union. But that would go beyond what we can do in this short post. In the final analysis, we see here in Martin Luther the old addage, error begets error, painfully pellucid. What began in denying man has anything to do with his own salvation ends with problems Christological stretching from here to eternity . . . literally. |
Okay, I've done it, Tim:
Matthew 23:37: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets. . . . How often would I have gathered your children . . . and you would not!
would: past of will--Websters
The Lord affirms free will, Luther denies it. I think the choice is clear.
Comments?
The assumption is that free will is independent of man’s nature, but it is not. Just as a lion eats meat, but not grass, the sinful man will not strive after God, only the regenerate will follow after God. It is not a matter of free will, but man following in his own nature. So, man does what he will because it is his nature, and a nature inclined against God will not follow Him.
Not to carp about fine theological points (and this is a VERY narrow interpretation of what is essentially hair-splitting), but Martin Luther died believing he was a better Catholic than the Pope himself. If not for free will, would Luther have set himself against the might of the entire Roman Catholic clergy? His message certainly resonated with many of the people of northern Europe, who were also rather distantly connected to Rome as well.
This has all been hashed out, sometimes with deadly consequences, for over four centuries now. But is there not agreement that the Protestant sects have much more in common with the Roman Catholic Church, than they have differences?
A question I’ve always asked is...
What GOOD THING did Saul of Tarsus do to merit salvation?
Act 9:15
But the Lord said unto him (Ananias), Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
Saul had only been knocked of his horse and blinded at that time. He was on a mission to Damascus to kill Christians.
Sin kills. No Get Out Of Hell card. There is a Satan. Beware.
This mentions Catholics. Would it serve everyone better to be an open thread?
Comments?
Certainly...Please re-read the passage in Matt. 23. Jesus does NOT say "free will" in the past tense. Men have wills, they are just not "free". You have supplied this in order to support your claim, a common and fatal flaw in the "free will" thought process. But, even your error is being managed without you necessarily perceiving it.
Now, read Rom. 9, where Paul is specifically arguing against your claim. His point is precisely that God chooses on whom His mercy will rest and NOT man. And, in anticipation of the objections he has heard all over the world, he says, "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?' On the contrary, who are you O Man who answers back to God? The thing MOLDED will not say to the MOLDER, 'Why did you make me like this?' will it?..." And so forth. The text is your friend, my FRiend.
My interpretation, based on the context, would be that the οὐκ ἠθελήσατε (ouk ethelesate), or "would not," refers to the people of Jerusalem being unwilling to allow Jesus to protect them from what is mentioned in the previous verse, the "these things [that] shall come upon this present generation," namely the destruction of the Temple and the resultant diaspora.
Whether salvation requires works or not, or whether individuals have the capacity to choose salvation for themselves or not, would therefore not be decided upon by this passage. The reference instead is to the unwillingness of those in Jerusalem to be protected by Jesus. It is a settled point in Christianity that anyone is free to accept or reject a specific act that God is willing to do for one's good: e.g., refuse to accept a prophecy and therefore lose out on the blessings associated with the prophecy, or refuse to accept the guidance of the Spirit and therefore lose out on the protection associated with that guidance (cf. Acts 21:3-14, Paul refusing to listen to the Spirit's guidance to avoid going to Jerusalem).
Out of curiosity are you making this claim based on the above article or have you actually read Bondage of the Will?
Religion Moderator,
How can you call a thread “Ecumenical”, when it starts with an outright criticism of one side in the article?
I would appreciate your thoughts.
ampu
Luther preached "if we are justified without works, all works are condemned, whether small or great," because it is not the works that actually appropriate justification, but the faith that is behind it is counted for righteousness:
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, (Romans 4:3-6)
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness;
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (Titus 3:5)
Note that works of righteousness extends beyond the Law, but any system of works-merit as themselves actually being the means by which man is justified, versus the faith real works express.
For the only kind of faith that justifies is the kind that effects works of "the obedience of faith," and thus as works are faith in action, and to believe is to obey, then in differentiating btwn that faith versus an inert faith which James protests against, then it can be said that man is justified by works, in the sense that one is justified the kind of faith that confesses the Lord Jesus in word and in deed (given opportunity). Yet man believes unto righteousness in heart before that is confessed.
".. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10:10)
We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; (2 Corinthians 4:13)
And what you will not see from Staples, etc. is Luther's affirmation of works in that sense:
Reformation on faith and works
In his Introduction to Romans, Luther stated that saving faith is,
a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]
This is what I have often said, if faith be true, it will break forth and bear fruit. If the tree is green and good, it will not cease to blossom forth in leaves and fruit. It does this by nature. I need not first command it and say: Look here, tree, bear apples. For if the tree is there and is good, the fruit will follow unbidden. If faith is present works must follow.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:340-341]
“We must therefore most certainly maintain that where there is no faith there also can be no good works; and conversely, that there is no faith where there are no good works. Therefore faith and good works should be so closely joined together that the essence of the entire Christian life consists in both.” [Martin Luther, as cited by Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963], 246, footnote 99]
What Augustine says is indeed true: He who has created you without yourself will not save you without yourself. Works are necessary for salvation, but they do not cause salvation; for faith alone gives life. For the sake of hypocrites it should be said that good works are necessary for salvation. Works must be done, but it does not follow from this that works save… Works save externally, that is, they testify that we are just and that in a man there is that faith which saves him internally, as Paul says: ‘With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation’.” [What Luther Says 3: 1509]. [Ewald M. Plass, “What Luther says,” page 1509]
“Thus faith casts itself on God, and breaks forth and becomes certain through its works. When this takes place a person becomes known to me and to other people. For when I thus break forth I spare neither man nor devil, I cast myself down, and will have nothing to do with lofty affairs, and will regard myself as the poorest sinner on earth. This assures me of my, faith. For this is what it says: "This man went down to his house justified." Thus we attribute salvation as the principal thing to faith, and works as the witnesses of faith. They make one so certain that he concludes from the outward life that the faith is genuine.”[Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341]
“Thus, faith must be exercised, worked and polished; be purified by fire, like gold. Faith, the great gift and treasure from God, must express itself and triumph in the certainty that it is right before God and man, and before angels, devils and the whole world. Just as a jewel is not to be concealed, but to be worn in sight, so also, will and must faith be worn and exhibited, as it is written in 1 Peter 1, 7: "That the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold that perisheth though it is proved by fire," etc.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2:245-246]
In those therefore in whom we cannot realize good works, we can immediately say and conclude: they heard of faith, but it did not sink into good soil. For if you continue in pride and lewdness, in greed and anger, and yet talk much of faith, St. Paul will come and say, 1 Cor. 4:20, look here my dear Sir, "the kingdom of God is not in word but in power." It requires life and action, and is not brought about by mere talk.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341-342]
More .
It is true that God man is not passive in conversion, as he does make a volitional response to believe (unlike in election before they were born, but election is not the same event as conversion), but that is because God draws men to Himself, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32), opens hearts,. (Acts 16:14) and grants repentance faith,. (Acts 11:18; Eph. 2:8,9) thus in conversion and in living that out man is doing what he otherwise would not and could not do.
And in His grace to men who actually serve punishment, God also rewards faith in recognition of the works one does:
Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. (Hebrews 10:35)
Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. (1 Corinthians 3:8)
Yet these rewards are due to God's faithfulness to His covenant, in which in grace He promises to reward the obedience of faith, though in justice what all actually deserve is eternal damnation while eternal life is a gift. (Rm. 6:23)
As for Rome, its emphasis on merit fosters the idea that man actually earns eternal life with some mercy thrown in. This is not an exhortation to continue in the faith that has obtained eternal life - which Scripture says you can know you currently have (in the light of the evidence of things which accompany salvation: 1Jn. 5:23; Heb. 6:9,10) - and thus do works that correspond to faith in response to having received eternal life, but doing works as if to to earn salvation on the basis of their good works, their faith being in a God who does so, with some mercy included because of Christ.
This mercy is not that of a soul who personally, consciously came to God as one damned and destitute of anything to merit eternal life by, and who instead deserved eternal punishment, as instead they typically presume they became children of God as infants via sprinkling in recognition of proxy faith.
Thus they are formally justified by interior goodness, and thus this salvation process usually ends by becoming good enough to enter glory thru suffering in "purgatory" commencing at death. Which also is unScriptural, and which is what Luther primarily protested against.
I agree. Do you think my point defending free will in post #1 supports this belief?
On the article. I trust Tim Staples knowledge in regard to Luther.
Outside of that, I believe my post quoting Christ does confirm free will in man.
John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. they do so of their free will. And I will raise him up on the last day.
Can such a heart choose God? If so there is no need for a Savior.
And in Scripture Christ overules Paul?
Be very careful and think before you answer this.
It seems clear to me that Christ is lamenting the decision (free will) of the non-regenerate in Jerusalem in my first post.
Go ahead and lay out your point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.