.jpg)
A Sip
Greetings blogworms! The topic for this certain blog is bound to be another controversial one. It is on the topic of free will. Since it is such an interesting and profound topic, there has been much written on it. However, I have chosen (pun unintended) to utilise two particular resources which I have found especially useful in discussing and explaining this (at times) complex concept. These will be Martin Luther’s magnum opus, “The Bondage of the Will”, and Jonathan Edwards’ “Freedom of the Will”. Because of the enormity of these texts, I will split the discussion into two blogs, one for each text. This blog will use Luther’s masterpiece whilst my next blog will use Edwards’. So without further ado, let the juices flow!
Spring Time!
Before we get on to what Luther argues, we should first look at the context of his book. For those who don’t know, Martin Luther was one of the leaders on the frontline of what we call the Reformation, a time when the corruption of the Roman Catholic church was being exposed and critiqued, eventually leading to a split which resulted in Protestantism and all its subsequent denominations we have today.
Luther and his other Reformers are arguably best remembered as being guided by several principles, better known as the ‘Solas’; ‘sola fide’ (faith alone), ‘sola gratia’ (grace alone), sola Dei Gloria (to God alone be the Glory), solo Christo (Christ alone), and ‘sola Scriptura’ (the Scriptures alone). But perhaps the most important of these, from which all others are derived, is the latter one – ‘Sola Scriptura’. You see for the Reformers, the Bible was their only binding authority on anything concerning the Divine. It was through this banner, proudly raised in their battle for the truth, that many Biblical truths were rediscovered, and subsequently, many perversities of that truth also uncovered.
Because of the nature of their battle, many of the Reformers were persecuted. Luther was not immune to this. He was prejudicially tried, slandered, excommunicated, and even had threats upon his life. But throughout all these ordeals, Luther would not budge from holding and proclaiming the clear truths contained in Scripture. In fact, the ordeals seemed to harden his resolve to proclaim them even more. This refusal to recant anything Biblically true is epitomised in the words he is best remembered for, given at his trial at the Diet of Worms in 1521, “Here I stand. I can do no other.”
This attitude was perhaps best shown when in 1524, one of Luther’s many Catholic detractors, the widely acclaimed and respected Humanist theologian Erasmus of Rotterdam, published a work on the contentious subject of free will. The work, entitled “Diatribe on Free Will”, stated its intention as neutrally discussing and setting forth the arguments for both sides. On the contrary, what it actually did was assert free will and confute the arguments against it, held most prominently by Luther. If this did not enrage Luther directly, then Erasmus using the authority of certain church fathers and theologians, rather than what he explained were obscure Scriptures, certainly did the trick. Whilst Luther never had the intention to write on the matter of free will, Erasmus’ blatant challenge to his Reformed theology provided him the opportunity to not only defend these views, but write what is considered (and Luther himself considered) his magnum opus; the best of all his works. So the next year, Luther got to work responding to Erasmus’ work in Luther’s typical (and at times comical) brilliant wit, Biblical insight and sharp tongue, systematically attacking Erasmus’ definitions, his logic and his Biblical exegesis.
But I’m sure by now, some of my modern readers will be asking the question, “Why did Luther see the topic of free will so important as to argue about it in a 280 page book? I mean, aren’t there many more important and practical topics we can talk about as Christians? You know, like charity, poverty and Spiritual Warfare?” Well, as I hope to demonstrate in this blog, the topic of free will has many significant implications to Christianity and the Truth than we at first may think.
1) WHY IS THE TOPIC OF FREE WILL IMPORTANT?
Erasmus held the view that no doubt countless others in this age hold, that free will is useless and utterly pointless to discuss, there being far more important topics to discuss (the hypocrisy and contradiction in the fact that Erasmus wrote a book on a subject that he considered not worth discussing was exposed by Luther early in his book). Right off the bat, Luther explains in s.7 that free will is important to discuss first and foremost because it concerns salvation. In other words, if I have a free will, I should want to know not only what God has to do, but likewise what I must and can do to be saved. As Luther says, “if I know not the distinction between our working and the power of God, I know not God Himself. And if I know not God, I cannot worship Him, praise Him,…nor serve Him; for I shall not know how much I ought to ascribe unto myself, and how much unto God” (p.31).
2) PREDESTINATION AND FREE WILL
Luther then goes on to explain his view on free will which is commonly known as ‘fate’ amongst Pagans, and called Predestination or the Doctrine of Necessity by theologians (s.11); “that God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will” (p.33). This means that what appears to us to have been done mutably and contingently, is in reality done necessarily and immutably by the will of God (s.9). Therefore if this is true, Luther argues, then there can logically be no such thing as free will.
Erasmus preempts Luther’s arguments for Predestination and argues that even if it were true, it should not be preached as it is confusing, removes any motivation for morality and most importantly, because it creates division in the Church. Luther counters this, explaining that even if it does create disturbance of peace and commotion, God’s Word and its Truths must be proclaimed no matter what (s.19). It is not up to us to decide what parts of the Bible can be preached based on keeping peace, as Jesus Himself said boldly and plainly, “I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Mt 10:34). Luther further argues that these seemingly paradoxical truths should be preached as Predestination (and its subsequent teaching of Election);
i) Humbles Christians – “A man cannot be thoroughly humbled, until he comes to know that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsel, endeavours, will, and works, and absolutely depending on the will, counsel, pleasure, and work of another, that is, of God only. For if, as long as he has any persuasion that he can do even the least thing himself towards his own salvation, he retain a confidence in himself and do not utterly despair in himself, so long he is not humbled before God; but he proposes to himself some place, some time, or some work, whereby he may at length attain unto salvation. But he who hesitates not to depend wholly upon the good-will of God, he totally despairs in himself, chooses nothing for himself, but waits for God to work in him; and such an one, is the nearest unto grace, that he might be saved” (p.54); and
Luther and his other Reformers are arguably best remembered as being guided by several principles, better known as the ‘Solas’; ‘sola fide’ (faith alone), ‘sola gratia’ (grace alone), sola Dei Gloria (to God alone be the Glory), solo Christo (Christ alone), and ‘sola Scriptura’ (the Scriptures alone). But perhaps the most important of these, from which all others are derived, is the latter one – ‘Sola Scriptura’. You see for the Reformers, the Bible was their only binding authority on anything concerning the Divine. It was through this banner, proudly raised in their battle for the truth, that many Biblical truths were rediscovered, and subsequently, many perversities of that truth also uncovered.
Because of the nature of their battle, many of the Reformers were persecuted. Luther was not immune to this. He was prejudicially tried, slandered, excommunicated, and even had threats upon his life. But throughout all these ordeals, Luther would not budge from holding and proclaiming the clear truths contained in Scripture. In fact, the ordeals seemed to harden his resolve to proclaim them even more. This refusal to recant anything Biblically true is epitomised in the words he is best remembered for, given at his trial at the Diet of Worms in 1521, “Here I stand. I can do no other.”
This attitude was perhaps best shown when in 1524, one of Luther’s many Catholic detractors, the widely acclaimed and respected Humanist theologian Erasmus of Rotterdam, published a work on the contentious subject of free will. The work, entitled “Diatribe on Free Will”, stated its intention as neutrally discussing and setting forth the arguments for both sides. On the contrary, what it actually did was assert free will and confute the arguments against it, held most prominently by Luther. If this did not enrage Luther directly, then Erasmus using the authority of certain church fathers and theologians, rather than what he explained were obscure Scriptures, certainly did the trick. Whilst Luther never had the intention to write on the matter of free will, Erasmus’ blatant challenge to his Reformed theology provided him the opportunity to not only defend these views, but write what is considered (and Luther himself considered) his magnum opus; the best of all his works. So the next year, Luther got to work responding to Erasmus’ work in Luther’s typical (and at times comical) brilliant wit, Biblical insight and sharp tongue, systematically attacking Erasmus’ definitions, his logic and his Biblical exegesis.
But I’m sure by now, some of my modern readers will be asking the question, “Why did Luther see the topic of free will so important as to argue about it in a 280 page book? I mean, aren’t there many more important and practical topics we can talk about as Christians? You know, like charity, poverty and Spiritual Warfare?” Well, as I hope to demonstrate in this blog, the topic of free will has many significant implications to Christianity and the Truth than we at first may think.
1) WHY IS THE TOPIC OF FREE WILL IMPORTANT?
Erasmus held the view that no doubt countless others in this age hold, that free will is useless and utterly pointless to discuss, there being far more important topics to discuss (the hypocrisy and contradiction in the fact that Erasmus wrote a book on a subject that he considered not worth discussing was exposed by Luther early in his book). Right off the bat, Luther explains in s.7 that free will is important to discuss first and foremost because it concerns salvation. In other words, if I have a free will, I should want to know not only what God has to do, but likewise what I must and can do to be saved. As Luther says, “if I know not the distinction between our working and the power of God, I know not God Himself. And if I know not God, I cannot worship Him, praise Him,…nor serve Him; for I shall not know how much I ought to ascribe unto myself, and how much unto God” (p.31).
2) PREDESTINATION AND FREE WILL
Luther then goes on to explain his view on free will which is commonly known as ‘fate’ amongst Pagans, and called Predestination or the Doctrine of Necessity by theologians (s.11); “that God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will” (p.33). This means that what appears to us to have been done mutably and contingently, is in reality done necessarily and immutably by the will of God (s.9). Therefore if this is true, Luther argues, then there can logically be no such thing as free will.
Erasmus preempts Luther’s arguments for Predestination and argues that even if it were true, it should not be preached as it is confusing, removes any motivation for morality and most importantly, because it creates division in the Church. Luther counters this, explaining that even if it does create disturbance of peace and commotion, God’s Word and its Truths must be proclaimed no matter what (s.19). It is not up to us to decide what parts of the Bible can be preached based on keeping peace, as Jesus Himself said boldly and plainly, “I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Mt 10:34). Luther further argues that these seemingly paradoxical truths should be preached as Predestination (and its subsequent teaching of Election);
i) Humbles Christians – “A man cannot be thoroughly humbled, until he comes to know that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsel, endeavours, will, and works, and absolutely depending on the will, counsel, pleasure, and work of another, that is, of God only. For if, as long as he has any persuasion that he can do even the least thing himself towards his own salvation, he retain a confidence in himself and do not utterly despair in himself, so long he is not humbled before God; but he proposes to himself some place, some time, or some work, whereby he may at length attain unto salvation. But he who hesitates not to depend wholly upon the good-will of God, he totally despairs in himself, chooses nothing for himself, but waits for God to work in him; and such an one, is the nearest unto grace, that he might be saved” (p.54); and
ii) Allows for faith – “Therefore, that there might be room for faith, it is necessary that all those things which are believed should be hidden. But they are not hidden more deeply, than under the contrary of sight, sense, and experience... This is the highest degree of faith - to believe that He is merciful, who saves so few and damns so many; to believe Him just, who according to His own will, makes us necessarily damnable, that He may seem, as Erasmus says, 'to delight in the torments of the miserable...' If, therefore, I could by any means comprehend how that same God can be merciful and just, who carries the appearance of so much wrath and iniquity, there would be no need of faith. But now, since that cannot be comprehended, there is room for exercising faith” (pp.54-55).
Finally, it is an important truth to preach as God’s trustworthiness hinges upon it, because “if you doubt, or disdain to know that God foreknows and wills all things, not contingently, but necessarily and immutably, how can you believe confidently, trust to, and depend upon His promises?” (p.37). If God’s will can be changed and affected by what we do, then how can He guarantee that He will fulfill His promises? How can He even guarantee victory over sin, death and Satan if the end is not certain and unchangeable?
3) WHAT IS FREE WILL?
In my short amount of experience with discussing this topic of free will with both believers and non-believers alike, I can tell you that one of the reasons there is so much debate and disagreement is primarily because of a confusion and misunderstanding of the term ‘free will’. Luther responds to this by recommending that the term should cease to be used altogether because it is a deceptive term, falsely conveying to the public the ability the will has in and of itself to change itself and being subject to no one, when theologians use it in a completely different sense to denote the least ability that is ineffective of itself without Divine Grace and thus naturally held captive by Satan (s.26). Luther does come to a reluctant compromise though, explaining that if people must use the term ‘free will’, they may not use it in reference to things above man ie Salvation, but only with reference to the things below man such as using his possessions (though even in this God still overrules by His free will) (s.26). All this being said, Luther admits that the term ‘necessity’ is also an inadequate term when discussing human will as it denotes to lay people a sense of compulsion; that is, that humans are forced to do things contrary to their will, which is certainly not the case (s.10).
Erasmus gives the definition of free will in his book as being “a power in the human will, by which, a man may apply himself to those things which lead unto eternal salvation, or turn away from the same.” Luther attacks this definition by arguing it is too narrow and vague, suggesting a more apt term would be “mutable will” or “vertible will” as only God can be described as truly ‘free’; that is, under no restraint to do what He pleases (s.41). It would be ludicrous to call man free when he cannot will any number of things such as death, perdition or to even turn himself into a butterfly (s.44). Luther also argues that there is no medium between willing good and not willing good, as Erasmus would argue (s.49). Willing can never be a mere neutral willing; it must be accompanied by striving and an endeavour towards something (s.49). As Jesus says in Matthew 12:30, “He that is not with Me is against Me.” Here, Jesus draws the eternal line in the sand; either you serve Him, or you serve sin and the enemy, Satan. There is no middle ground.
Furthermore, Luther argues from 1Co 2:9-10 that man does not have the power in himself to apply himself to the things pertaining to Salvation because he does not and cannot comprehend the things pertaining to Salvation without the Spirit revealing them to us (s.43). Experience and history testify to this truth as how many great non-Christian philosophers and thinkers of the past even came close to knowing anything of the Gospel or Salvation? Put bluntly, none. So logically, if man cannot naturally know the things of God, how can he then apply himself to things which he is ignorant of?
Therefore, Luther continues, only God by His Grace can work those things in us pertaining to Salvation. Thus, a man without the Grace of God is bound to only do evil by necessity (s.25) and must serve sin (s.50). But this does not mean he is forced to do evil against his will; on the contrary, he willingly does evil (s.25). Even when he is externally forced to do something against his will, his will still remains the same internally (s.25). You see, the only will that is strictly free is God’s (s.26) and as such, we cannot change our own wills (s.48). The only way that our wills, which are born bound to the service of sin, can be changed so as to desire and seek that which is Godly and good is for God to do so by His Grace:
“When God works in us, the will, being changed and sweetly breathed on by the Spirit of God, desires and acts, not from compulsion, but responsively, from pure willingness, inclination, and accord; so that it cannot be turned another way by anything contrary, nor be compelled or overcome even by the gates of hell... In a word, if we be under the god of this world, without the operation and Spirit of God, we are led captives by him at his will, as Paul says (2Ti 2:26). So that, we cannot will anything but that which he wills. For he is that "strong man armed," who so keepeth his palace, that those whom he holds captive are kept in peace, that they might not cause any motion or feeling against him; otherwise, the kingdom of Satan, being divided against itself, could not stand; whereas, Christ affirms it does stand. And all this we do willingly and desiringly, according to the nature of will: for if it were forced, it would be no longer will. For compulsion is (so to speak) unwillingness. But if the "stronger than he" come and overcome him, and take us as His spoils, then, through the Spirit, we are His servants and captives (which is the royal liberty) that we may desire and do, willingly, what He wills.” (pp.56-57)
Thus, Luther describes the human will aptly as “a beast between the two. If God sit thereon, it wills and goes where God will...If Satan sit thereon, it wills and goes as Satan will. Nor is it in the power of its own will to choose, to which rider it will run, nor which it will seek; but the riders themselves contend, which shall have and hold it” (p.57). In other words, our will is either a slave to Satan and free from God, or a slave to God and free from Satan – but it is never truly free. He further shows this by using another analogy; that of a log falling (s.45). He explains that the human will is like a log that can go either upward or downwards. Due to gravity, it can only fall downward though. The only way it can go upwards is if someone helps it. So like this log, it would be false and misleading to describe it as free to go or turn whichever way it wants as it can only ever go one way without help. Thus, ‘free’ is very much an empty term to Luther (s.50).
4) WHAT IF A CHRISTIAN DOESN’T AGREE?
Luther responds to Erasmus’ long list of church fathers who supposedly affirmed free will in their theology by explaining that not everything a Christian says is true (s.31). We, as Christians, can often speak by the Spirit on one topic, and by the flesh on another (s.29). Furthermore, none of the miracles or martyrdoms of any of the church fathers were done to verify their stance on free will, but rather the truth regarding the Christ (s.29). And even when these past Christians have confessed a belief in free will, Luther goes on to argue, their feelings, experience and practice have contradicted what they have said (s.30).
Erasmus also reasons that if free will was such an important issue, then why did God overlook its correction in so many men? Luther responds to this by explaining that God usually suffers His people to be in error, using examples like the kings of Israel (s.32). But even amongst such widespread error in His Church, He always reserves for Himself “seven thousand” (ie. a small section of His people) who are not so in error and are in the truth (Ro 11:14). He also corrects many on their death bed (s.32). However, Luther cautions Erasmus in trusting that every person in the visible church who claimed to be a Christian and asserted free will, was actually Christian (s.32). It is often difficult to know who the wheat are, and likewise who the tares are; who the sheep are, and likewise who the wolves are.
5) WHAT DO THE SCRIPTURES SAY?
So how should we respond to the vast array of works by past Christian writers, who at times contradict each other? Well to the Reformed mind of Luther, the answer is quite plain – the Scriptures. Whereas the words of men are often vague, uncertain and unarticulated (particularly on this topic) (s.30), the Word of Scripture (and that means ALL of it [s.37]) is clear and certain, being the only authority for discussing anything Divine in nature (s.34). Rather than interpret and evaluate Scripture through men’s words (as Erasmus had done with such men as Jerome and Origen), we should interpret and evaluate men’s words through Scripture. Where what a man has said is contrary to Scripture, we should discount it as spoken by his flesh; where what he has said aligns with Scriptural truths, then we should affirm that as being spoken by the Spirit (s.33).
To Erasmus’ skepticism of this clarity and infallibility of Scripture to men, Luther replies by explaining that many have been blind to the clear truths concerning the falsehood of free will (and other clear Biblical truths) because of Satan’s stronghold over the human mind (s.38). This is so that the power of God can be displayed more fully and for longer, lest by one word God could open the eyes of all men to all truth and knowledge, thus being saved and made perfect instantly (s.38). Because if God did this, what need would there be for a Bible or faith or hope, or more importantly, His Glory and strength manifest in human weakness?
So for Luther, not only does experience not attest to any power of so called free will, but the Scriptures are most clear on the topic – they neither mention free will nor assert it anywhere (s.40). Therefore, those who assert the affirmative should have the onus of proof of proving free will (s.29). Nonetheless, so high is Luther’s view of Scripture and so confident is he in their clarity, that he spends the rest of his book taking the onus on himself and arguing solely from the Bible, exegeting countless verses both beautifully and insightfully. There are so many verses that Luther uses to disprove free will that I will have to pick the best few to discuss below as I’ve already written quite a bit, lest I turn this blog into its own book. So, let’s move on to the most important section - what the Bible says on the matter!
NB: Due to word limit, was forced to omit discussing some important verses used by Luther which affirmed God’s sovereignty and disproved free will; these were; Jer 10:23; Pr 16:1,9; and Pr 21:1.
6) THE COMMANDMENTS
Luther explains that man is left to his own counsel and will for the things beneath him (eg. dominion over animals), but for the things concerning the things above him (eg. things of God and Salvation), he is subject to divine precepts and commands (such as the 10 Commandments), being directed and led according to God’s will and counsel (s.51). By God giving these divine precepts and commands, He is not telling us what we CAN do, but rather what we OUGHT to do (s.54). He is not inferring that we have the natural inherent ability to obey these commands, but rather making our depravity known to us so that we may call for the aid of the Divine Physician (s52). As Paul says in Romans 3:20, “through the law we become conscious of sin.”
“I have set before you life and death...therefore choose life.” (Dt 30:19)
Luther opposes Erasmus’ inferring from this verse free will, explaining that the command ‘choose life’ does not necessarily infer that man can or will choose life; for if he could do so by himself, what need would there then be for the Spirit or Christ (s.56). Luther draws a parallel here to Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:13, whereby there also are two paths described. Following Romans 3:20, Luther argues that this command is used to demonstrate the impassibility of one path, and how wide and easy the other is (s.56).
Responding similarly to Erasmus’ own analogy of a man commanded to raise his right arm, Luther contends that the man has his right arm tied and his left arm free, thus, when he is commanded to raise his right arm, he is roused from his ignorance to know that his right arm is bound and he can only raise his left arm (s.58). In other words, when a man attempts what is commanded, he learns of his impotency which he did not know of before (s.57). Man is ignorant of this impotency because Satan holds men captive to sin so that they are blind to it (s.58). As Jesus exclaimed on the Cross, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do” (Lk 23:34). This says that not only is man unable to will that which he does not know, being that which is good, but he is also naturally unable to know the evil that he does do (s.73). Thus, the purpose of these commands is to reveal to man his misery so that he would be prepared, “bruised and confounded with the knowledge of himself, for grace, and might send him to Christ to be saved” (p.117).
“Return to Me, and I will return to you,” says the Lord of hosts. (Mal 3:7)
Likewise, this verse (and others like it using the conditional tense) does not show what man can do, but (again) rather what man ought to do for God to do something (s.60).
So He [Jesus] said to him, “…But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Mt 19:17)
This verse combines both the conditional and the imperative tenses, showing us again not what we can do, but what we are unable to do ourselves to be saved (s.68). Instead, it shows man what God must do in him to be saved; that is, for God to change his will so as to give him a new will to keep the commandments (s.68). After all, only what God wills happens, including whether we will good or not (Isa 1:19) (s.59). So on the contrary, rather than showing man’s ability, this verse, Luther argues, shows man’s total inability and reveals the need for God’s Grace (s.68).
Luther further argues that it is not that man cannot merely desire or endeavour to keep the commandments, but rather that he does that have the ability in himself to keep any of them at all (s.53). If all the commandments, according to Jesus in Matthew 22:40, hinge upon the commandment, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind,” and not one of us have the ability to love God with ALL of our hearts etc, how unable are we to keep any of them (s.60)!
“For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ But the word is very near you; in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.” (Dt 30:11-14)
Rather than speaking of the innate ability and level of ease that men have to keep the commandments as Erasmus asserts, Luther argues that these words used convey nothing more than distance and destinations (s.65). It shows that Moses had been a faithful law giver who has given the law to the Israelites so that they are without excuse when they disobey them (God actually foretells and forewarns their upcoming disobedience and depravity); that is, the fault lies solely in them and not the law or the lawgiver as they had the law which was accessible and near to them (s.65). For as Luther afore stated, if man can keep the commandments with such ease, what need is there of Grace or Christ? In fact, the Apostle Paul explains Moses’ words here in saying, ‘the word is very near you’, as referring to the word of faith; that is, in Christ, not the law (Ro 10:5-10). As Luther repetitively reminds and teaches Erasmus and the reader, this verse and all others of the same ilk are designed to describe what we OUGHT to do, not what we CAN do or DO do, so that we may be wrought with our own impotency, wretchedness and fault (s.65).
7) THE EXHORTATIONS AND REWARDS
“Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” (Mt 5:12)
The New Testament and the Gospel consist of a number of promises and exhortations as opposed to the Old Testament which consisted of the law and threatenings (s.69). Because of these, Erasmus claims that they would be useless and unnecessary if man does not have a free will and thus cannot have any merit upon which these rewards and punishments may be given. Luther responds to this by explaining that when the Bible speaks of rewards and punishments, these do not refer to the merit of worthiness, but rather the merit of consequence (s.70). In other words, any rewards that God disperses to a person is not based on whether the person is worthy of such a reward, but rather the reward follows as a consequence of the person willing something (s.70). So though God determines who will will what, He rewards and punishes as a consequence of whether they do something which He has determined, not based on whether they deserve it so to speak.
Luther goes on to explain that the primary reason these rewards are promised is to exhort and threaten believers so they are comforted, can persevere and not become disheartened (s.71). Furthermore, those that are to receive rewards do not seek them, but rather they seek the Glory of God (s.70). They are given these rewards out of Grace, not because they have merited them through being worthy for then Grace ceases to be grace. Moreover, the Kingdom of Heaven was prepared for its sons before they were even born. Therefore, it would be incorrect to say these sons merited the Kingdom before they had done anything; instead it would be more correct to say that the Kingdom merited the sons rather than vice versa (Mt 25:34) (s.70). And in the same way that the Kingdom prepares and merits its sons, so likewise does Hell prepares and merit its sons (Mt 25:41) (s.70).
“You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.” (Mt 7:16-20)
Though we are judged by our fruit, this does not mean that we made the good fruit (s.73). Rather, this good fruit that believers produce is given to them as a gift from the Spirit of Grace, for ‘what do we have that we did not receive?’ (1Co 4:7) (s.73). So why then does God attribute these fruit to the trees then? As Luther reasons, just as we call a birthday gift which we did not buy our own, and claim ownership of our arms and legs though we clearly did not make them, so we claim the good fruit we produce as our own though we did not make them (s.73). Thus, any rewards given for this fruit is likewise given as a gift of Grace.
8) GOD’S WILL
“Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?” (Eze 18:23)
One of the great and comforting truths about God’s nature in the Bible, Luther explains that this verse concerns the preached and offered mercy of God rather than the secret will of God (s.64). Whilst the fact that God would will and predestine that man sin and hence suffers eternal damnation seems to contradict what this verse is saying, Luther argues that there are two seemingly different wills of God; the one is the revealed will and nature of God that we receive from Scripture; the other is the hidden and unrevealed will and nature of God that we know not (s.64). We will later see that Jonathan Edwards titles these wills the “will of decree” (Sovereign Will) and the “will of command” (Moral Will).
Luther states that we should respond to God’s revealed will and nature (eg. His mercy and love) by preaching it to all peoples, whereas we should respond to His hidden will (whereby He preordains who will partake and receive this preached and offered mercy) with reverence and adoration (s.64). We should not inquire into this hidden will, nor speculate as to its design, but rather accept and admire it (s.64). As Paul appositely says in Romans 9:20, “O Man, who are you to reply against God?”
God is infinite and incomprehensible to mankind, an “unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” (1Ti 6:16) (s.66). In order for us to understand any of His infinite glory and nature, it requires God to reveal this to us in and through Scripture. However, we must not confuse the Word of God (His revealed will) with God Himself, as there is much that God is, does and wills that He has not revealed to us and has chosen to hide (s.64). We are to be concerned and deal with God as He reveals Himself to us by His Word, but concerning His hidden majestic self, we are to have nothing to do with Him (s.64). In other words, we are to be guided by His Word, and fear and adore His hidden will (s.64).
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!” (Mt 23:37)
This is an example of Jesus weeping over the Jews and their unwillingness. Here, we have God Incarnate (His revealed self in human form) expressing His sorrow over the perdition of the wicked, though His hidden will according to its purposes wills that some are left unwilling and left to perish (s.66). God preached deplores death, sin and wills all men to be saved, but God hidden neither deplores nor takes away death, working life and death in all things and reserving to Himself a free power over all things (s.64). So when a man dies and rejects God, it is his human will’s fault (s.64). However, God in His hidden will had determined either not to change the man’s will and its fault, and/or to leave his salvation up to the will (s.64). Luther again responds to this seeming paradox by declaring that it is not for us to question and inquire as to why this hidden will purposes what it does, but rather to simply revere and adore it (s.67).
9) THE TOTAL DEPRAVITY OF THE HUMAN WILL AND FLESH
And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” (Ge 6:3)
Luther uses this verse to show how early on in Scripture the Spirit of God is contrasted with the flesh of man. When it is used thusly, rather than arbitrarily signifying a corporeal body as in John 1:14 and Matthew 19:5, it signifies the corruption of ALL men (s.111) and is used to denote everything that is contrary to the Spirit; that is, sin (Jn 3:6) (s.113). The Hebrew word for ‘strive’ in this context would be better translated as ‘judge’, Luther argues (s.112). Therefore, this declaration by the Lord is the declaration of an angry God and Judge who had declared that He would, in 120 years, withdraw His Spirit from the world which had been judging the flesh of the world; in other words, the Spirit had been rebuking its sin through the Spirit-full preaching of Noah (s.112). However, because flesh is flesh, but for the Grace of God, it becomes hardened and sins more severely, so God brought on the flood (s.112).
Then the Lord said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.” (Ge 8:21)
Here, God is promising not to give man what he deserves lest He be continually bringing a flood to destroy him as he is evil from birth (s.114). This is not some men, or simply one generation, but it is very clear from this context that God attributes evil to ALL men of every generation; yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Ge 6:5)
These verses show that all men are not merely prone to evil, but are evil continually and always; ‘all days’ of their lives (s.114). This is not some part or section of man, but includes every aspect of his being; his mind, his heart, his spirit; ALL of it. This especially includes their wills which are thus bound to the service of sin and hence NOT free. If this were not the case, and there was some part of man which was inherently good and righteous before God, then Christ would thus only become a Redeemer of part of man and thus He would not be Lord of all of a man, only that part which needed redeeming (s.121). If this were indeed the case, then Christ would only be a part-redeemer, and moreover, He would be inferior to that inherent good in man, and dare we speak it, Christ would cease to be Lord of all and God would cease to be sovereign over all – we would instead be sovereign and lord of all; we would be god (s.121). What blasphemy this sort of semi-Pelagianism, Humanism and Arminianism leads to!
It is interesting to notice that both these verse speak of the ‘imagination’ and ‘thoughts’ of man, rather than his actions. This is significant as it shows that God (like Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount) does not gauge sin as merely from the actions of men, but also from his thoughts, intentions and will, all of which being invisible to the eyes of men. Man’s will does nothing but sin willfully and will sin. As Jesus says in Matthew 7:17-18, a bad tree can never bring forward good fruit (s.114). This is not to say, however, that through God’s Prevenient Grace, His Spirit cannot effect a morally good act prior to conversion, as in the case of Cornelius in Acts 10:31 (s.116).
“All flesh is grass, and all its loveliness is like the flower of the field. The grass withers, the flower fades, because the breath of the Lord blows upon it; surely the people are grass. The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever.”
Luther uses this analogy from Isaiah 40:6-8 to show that the seeming glory and good deeds of men and the flesh, their ‘flowers’; their ‘righteousness’, their ‘wisdom’ and their ‘kingdoms’; is all in vain and hence sin (s.118). This applies to all men because they are all born of the flesh (Jn 3:6) (s.119). What a man (not born of the Spirit) does that may seem to be meritoriously good before other men is in fact evil as it seeks self glory (s.120). Put simply, a carnal man does ‘good’ to seek the glory of himself or others, whereas the spiritual man does true and pleasing good to seek the Glory of God (s.120). As Luther afore asserted, there is no medium. Man is either in one of those two categories; either he is of the flesh or he is of the Spirit (s.120).
Since ALL men are naturally of the flesh, God sent His Spirit to justify the ungodly and unrighteous to regenerate them; to make them born from above because those born of the flesh cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Jn 3:3-6) (s.120). So those unregenerate souls are flesh and will be destroyed in the Eternal Fire (s.122). And those fortunate souls who are regenerated become spirit and ceases to be flesh, although a remnant of the flesh is left behind to war against the firstfruits of the Spirit thus received (s.122).
10) ROMANS
Luther then finally turns his attention to his “two champion generals” in the fight against free will; the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, and John the Evangelist in his Gospel (s.134).
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Ro 1:18)
Luther uses this verse to again reiterate that the wrath of God is directed at ALL men, not just some (s.135). To Luther, this is a pivotal point, because the Gospel is not for some at the exclusion of others, but rather the Gospel is for everyone because “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Ro 3:23). To Luther (and Paul), all peoples need the Gospel and Salvation, be they Jews or Gentiles (Ro 1:16) because “there is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who seeks after God” (Ro 3:10-11). All men have their wills bound to sin and therefore require the liberation that comes from Grace and the Gospel preached.
No man has the ability in himself to seek God or seek the Salvation and Righteousness that comes from Faith (Ro 3:21-22), and must therefore be ‘circumcised’ by the Spirit (Ro 2:28-29) who justifies freely (s.143). That which is done by Faith is righteous and that which is done with Faith wanting is sin; there is no middle ground (Ro 4:1-6) (s.147). Either man’s will is totally depraved and requires the Grace of God freely given to justify it, or man’s will has some ability to merit his salvation by some work, in which case, Grace ceases to be grace (Ro 11:6) but a debt earned (Ro 4:4) (s.149).
For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Ro 8:5-8)
Again, Luther shows how the Spirit is contrasted with the flesh. As he already has established, all men are naturally flesh thus, Paul explicitly states that man does not naturally have the ability to either keep the law or please God, only being able to be hostile towards God (s.154). Therefore, Luther rightly concludes from this that the human will is bound to only sin and not able to do the things of God (with Grace wanting); hence, there is no free will (s.154).
(For the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” What shall we say then? Is there righteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. (Ro 9:11-16)
Luther uses this passage to demonstrate that Jacob attained the birthright (a reward) and the Lord’s favour, not through merit or free will as neither Jacob nor Esau had done anything good or evil, nor had been born when God had decided whom to love, but by the Grace of He who calleth (s.99). However, this story and verse does not strictly apply to just the persons Jacob and Esau, but also concerns eternal Salvation (s.100). The person Jacob also refers to a people of God (which is the meaning Malachi intended in Mal 1:2-3), therefore the birthright also pertains to the Spirit of God eg. the blessing, the Word, the Spirit, the promise of Christ and the Kingdom (s.100). As God loves and hates immutably from eternity (since God does not change), God called Jacob and his spiritual descendents (that is, us) because He loved them before they were even born, but not because they first loved Him or because there was any merit in them that caused Him to love them (s.101). Likewise, the hatred of Esau is not temporal only in talking of afflictions, but as pertaining to Eternal Damnation (s.102). One people were chosen to be saved, the other left to be destroyed (s.102).
This seems to offend and affront our human reason so much, but it is this same human reason that praises God when He saves the undeserving yet accuses the same God when He also damns the seemingly ‘undeserving’ (s.107). Luther shows by this how the foolish and selfish human reason simply serves its own profit (s.107). Instead, Luther suggests we praise God for both, and though we do not understand fully why He saves those He does now, we will see why when the Kingdom comes (s.107). God works without respect to merit of worthiness, thus impious ones murmur and complain, judging God’s judgments (Ro 9:19), to which He replies, “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?” (Mt 20:15) (s.106). And so it is with this current incomprehensibility of God’s wrath (s.107). It is not up to our wills to determine who God will show mercy on, it is up to God’s will alone (Ro 9:16) (s.92). Thus, our human wills are subject to the will of God, especially in relation to things pertaining to Salvation, and hence not free.
For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honour and another for dishonour? (Ro 9:17-21)
Luther immediately argues against the absurd trope that some use to interpret God’s hardening (s.77). Luther exposes this absurdity by stating that if, like Erasmus and others say, God hardens by longsuffering the sinner, allowing him to harden himself, and shows mercy by inflicting afflictions and punishments as to correct this hardening and offering repentance, then God showed mercy by punishing the Jews with Assyria and Babylon, and hardened the world by sending Christ (s.78). It also would mean by sending 10 plagues to Pharaoh, rather than instantly destroying him, God showed mercy by inflicting punishment to correct Pharaoh’s hard heart. However, as Moses and Paul both describe God as hardening Pharaoh’s heart, this trope is contradictory and hence false (s.79). Such statements are ludicrous and point to reading the passage in its plain and ordinary sense (s.78).
Again, Luther also refutes Erasmus’ absurd interpretation that there are two different kinds of free will, that which is cultivated and that which is uncultivated; that which responds positively to God’s mercy and repents, and that which responds negatively and is hardened (s.81). Luther argues that there are no such kinds of will, only one human will as God makes man from the ‘same lump’ of clay; all men have this same will, that which is bound to sin and not free (s.81). God makes the will of the wicked evil not by making or creating evil in them, but by choosing to make them from a corrupt and evil seed; from a sinful clump of clay (Pr 16:4) (s.83). And although He did not make sin, yet, He continues to form and multiply that nature which is defiled by sin from the withdrawal of His Grace and His Spirit (Ps 51:5; Job 14:4) (s.83). God chooses to use evil instruments, using the evil found in them, so He Himself does no evil, but uses this evil for His purposes (Eph 1:11) (s.84). Just like if a man rides a lame horse he rides badly, yet the fault lies with the horse unless the horse be made sound, so God is not in fault for our evil (s.84).
Luther defines ‘hardening’ as to turn the wicked man totally the way of his selfishness and to not seek God or His things, seeking instead his own kingdom, glory, wisdom and power that when someone with an aversion to God opposes him, he is more enraged and roused to indignation against his adversary and God (s.85). Thus, when Moses came to Pharaoh and told him God’s threats to take away his power and his kingdom, the more Moses opposed Pharaoh, the more this hardened his heart and because God did not give him His Spirit, Pharaoh’s heart grew angry, swelled with pride and burned with rage (s.85). When God is said to harden us, this evil is not created anew as though we were passive and neutral vessels, but rather He finds evil in us (and Satan) and leaves it in us, carrying it along by His working, moving it which way He wills (see Shimei in 2Sa 16:10) (s.86). God knows that the will of man is evil and can will nothing but evil so that when He continually presented something contrary to Pharaoh’s will, out of necessity this corrupt will must resist God and be hardened (s.87).
But why did God not will that Pharaoh relent then? Luther replies with the response of Paul again; man should not search their majestic and sovereign Potter’s will, but adore it (s.88). God’s will is the rule of all things; that is, there is no cause or reason (s.88). In other words, God does not will something because it is right (as though He were bound to choose anything!), but rather it is right because God wills it (s.88). The fact that God is good and just to harden the wicked is no more absurd than Christ’s divinity or the Virgin Birth (s.82).
It must, however, be noted that Pharaoh’s hardening was different to that general hardening that is produced by God’s longsuffering of divine goodness (s.89). The purpose of this hardening was to show to the Israelites the promises and mercy of God that were fulfilled in the hardening, giving them hope and faith despite what appears to be trials and suffering (similar to Jesus at the Last Supper regarding future persecution), God miraculously displaying His power to confirm their faith (s.90). God was in control of Pharaoh’s heart otherwise His words of promise could not have been fulfilled (s.90).
Likewise, God foreknew and thus decreed from His certain and immutable will that Judas would by necessity betray Christ, therefore Judas could not have changed his own will nor God’s (s.96). This was not necessity by force (that is, Judas was not compelled to act unwillingly) but rather necessity of immutability (that is, God predetermined Judas to betray Christ infallibly at a certain time, though Judas himself was still willing) (s.97). Luther reaffirms that whilst the desperation that comes from the offence of predestination against our human reason or common sense is healthy, we should respond to the fact that God’s will accomplishes all things by necessity in us with those humble words our Lord taught us, “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Mt 6:10).
“I was found by those who did not seek Me; I was made manifest to those who did not ask for Me.” (Ro 10:20)
Paul uses this verse from Isaiah to show that Grace comes so free, that no thought, attempt or desire after it precedes it (s.155). For example, Paul (formerly Saul) himself had willed what he thought to be most meritoriously good by persecuting the Church, clearly seeking not Christ, yet he received Grace even when he was furiously maddened against it (s.155). Luther again uses this to show that it is not in man’s power or will, therefore, to either save himself or seek after the things of God, thus requiring God Himself, by His Grace, to take the initiative to reveal Himself to such blind rebels and ignorant God-haters, changing their defiant wills.
11) JOHN THE EVANGELIST
He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. (Jn 1:10-11)
The ‘world’ includes all men so that ALL men naturally hate and reject Christ and His people and His Spirit (s.156). This world is the kingdom of flesh ruled by Satan; all that is not transformed into the Kingdom of the Spirit, ie. Christ’s (s.156). All its subjects are held captive as are there wills.
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (Jn 1:12-13)
Luther then brings forth this shining sword, the verse (in my opinion) which most strongly and clearly lays waste to any notion of free will. Here, John explains that it is not by blood (as the Jews wrongly assumed), nor the will of the flesh (the works of the law), nor the human will (s.156). John with one fatal blow crushes any person thinking that they became a child of God, and hence saved based on their human birth, their devoted efforts to be morally good enough, or by their own choice (s.156). No, as Luther so accurately identifies, John teaches that it is not by our choice that we are saved as our will is deficient to choose Salvation and Christ, being bound and not free; no, it is through a divine sovereign choice and birth from above that any of us are saved (Jn 15:16) (s.156). And furthermore, we receive this gift by the Grace of Christ’s merits, not our own (Jn 1:16).
“The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?” (Jn 3:8-9)
Luther uses Nicodemus as the epitome of so-called ‘free will’; he is a respected teacher of Israel, he has an in-depth knowledge of Scripture, he believes in God, he confesses Christ to be true, and he seeks to learn from Christ (s.158). But although he possesses all these seemingly meritoriously good qualities pertaining to salvation, when Christ reveals the true way of Salvation of the New Birth, it confounds him and shows he never sought it (s.158). If Nicodemus’ will could never seek the true way of Salvation, how so all the great philosophers and thinkers of the past who never could have even dreamt of such things as the Son of God, the Spiritual Birth, or Salvation through Faith in Him; no, all these were “wisdom hidden in a mystery” (1Co 1:23-24) revealed by the Gospel and which human will could never seek to attain by its own works (s.158).
“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (Jn 6:44)
If John 1:12-13 is Luther’s shining sword, then this verse is his trusty crossbow. With this verse, Luther shows the utter inability that any man has in himself to come to Christ and thus be saved. Though a man may externally hear the Word of God, unless the Father draws and teaches the man from within through the application of His Grace by the Spirit, NO ONE can have saving faith in Christ (s.162). Luther goes on to explain that, in one sense, there is the drawing of man by external means where Christ is held forth, illuminated by the Spirit, where man is then drawn unto Christ through the sweeter drawing where he is passive whilst God speaks, teaches and draws internally (s.162).
Respected theologian and Bible teacher R.C. Sproul explains that the word that is translated ‘draws’ here would actually better be translated as ‘drags’ because the Greek word used, ‘helkuo’, is used elsewhere in the New Testament to denote someone being successfully dragged somewhere, such as Paul in Acts 16:19 and 21:30 when he is dragged by enraged people to the authorities or dragged away from the Temple to be beaten. Thus, Sproul quotes Jonathan Edwards in calling this act of God drawing (or dragging) by His Grace as “the Holy rape of the soul.” Nonetheless, if this can be indeed called such ‘Holy rape’, I am glad and grateful that He did so to me for I would still be a wretched soul stuck in darkness destined for Hell.
“And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.” (Jn 10:28-29)
One of my favourite verses from the entire Bible which has been a source of much comfort, Luther, like me, also glories in our Salvation being placed in God’s hand (s.164). For if our Salvation was truly up to our supposed ‘free will’, how uncertain we would be as to what to do to fully satisfy God and how weak we would be in having to fight off devils stronger than He (s.164). No, I must concur with Luther here when he says that even if he were offered to control his Salvation through his own will, he would still reject it and place it in God’s strong and mighty hands (s.164). I still do not fully understand how any Christian can reject or deny this beautiful Reformed doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints.
“I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.” (Jn 15:5)
Last, but by no means least, we come to another of Luther’s “Achillean and invincible weapons” (s.126). Delivering another fatal blow to any notion of ‘free will’, Luther explains that the word ‘nothing’ is used here to show that man cannot produce good fruit without Christ and His Grace. Contrary to Erasmus’ interpretation that ‘nothing’ refers to that of which is in degree (that man cannot produce ‘perfected’ good fruit, but can still produce ‘imperfect’ good fruit), Luther argues that either Satan has full captivity of unregenerate man who cannot contribute anything to his liberation and the production of ANY good fruit (be they perfect or imperfect), or Christ is a liar (s.127).
Luther goes on to explain that the good fruit mentioned refer not to the essence of nature (that is, to eat, to drink and other human works), but refers to the essence of grace (that is, evangelical fruits) (s.130). Without Christ and His Grace, man cannot receive the Spirit and His Gifts (Jn 3:27) (s.130). Luther argues this is not to say that ungodly man does not co-operate willingly with God as He carries them along by His omnipotence in their iniquity, nor the regenerate and justified new creatures do not co-operate with His Spirit (s.131). For example, Paul co-operates with God in preaching from without whilst God teaches his listeners from within, Paul explaining that we Christians are led by Him (Ro 8:14, 30) (s.131). However, lest some would see this as inferring our Salvation is ultimately dependent on our co-operation (or Synergism as it is called in Theological circles), just as before we were created we did and endeavoured nothing towards our creation, and after we were created we did nothing toward our preservation in continuing in existence, so it is with regeneration (Jas 1:18) (s.131).
Luther concludes by saying that as many verses there are which exalt the assistance of Grace, these same verses show the need of Grace and hence the insufficiency of the human will, its captivity to sin and its impotency (s.132). For Luther, we should either attribute all to free will, or we should deny it altogether and attribute all to God (Monergism), bearing any seeming contradictions (s.134). In other words, there can be no moderate or medium view allowed as the Semi-Pelagian Arminians would assert (s.134). To allegations against Luther that he argues with too much ardour, he himself admits this and humbly pardons his and Erasmus’ flaws as “men touched with human infirmity”, as we all can identify with (s.134).
Waves
Well, there you have it. I hope you found this discussion useful and insightful. I know many find this topic tedious and pointless, but I pray that I have demonstrated through Luther’s still powerful and God-centric words the importance and relevance of such matters. I also hope, like me, you’re looking forward to the next installment as the more philosophical Jonathan Edwards expands on a lot of Luther’s ideas, going quite in depth. But alas, do not fear, I will try and simplify as best I can.
But for those who may disagree with what has been written in this blog, I pray like Luther that the Holy Spirit will sway your contrary opinion by His Grace and reveal a greater understanding of the Sovereignty of God and His Glory (s.153). As Luther so humbly and brilliantly puts it, “if you cannot manage this cause…do, I pray you, remain content with your own proper gift…But as to this our cause – to this, God has neither willed, nor given it to you, to be equal, though I entreat you not to consider this spoken in arrogance. No! I pray that the Lord may, day by day, make you as much superior to me in these matters, as you are superior to me in all others. And it is no new thing for God to instruct a Moses by a Jethro, or to teach Paul by an Ananias” (pp.279-280) – and I dear blogworm, am such a Jethro or Ananias; at your service. So until next time, put that in your cloud and rain it (Jude 12).
Christus Regnat,
MAXi
