Luther: "God is the author of the evil as well as the good in us, and as He saves us without any merit on our part. He also damns us through no fault of ours. All that we do is done, not freely, but through pure necessity"

Here's some anti-Protestant commentary and an obscure Luther quote I recently came across:

A Protestant is not obliged to follow the 10 Commandments or practice what he reads in the Scriptures. The founders of the Protestant revolt teach that works are useless and even injurious to salvation. Every action is a sin. 

Luther and Calvin deny the existence of free-will in man. Luther wrote a book called ''Slave Will," in which he states: ''God is the author of the evil as well as the good in us, and as He saves us without any merit on our part. He also damns us through no fault of ours. All that we do is done, not freely, but through pure necessity." (Works of Luther, vol. ii., p. 435.)

This was put together by someone, as far as I can tell, is a defender of Roman Catholicism. The points being made are: 1) Protestants don't believe in or practice good works; 2) if free will is denied, there is no such thing as human responsibility. Let's track down this Luther quote and see what's going on.

Documentation
The source provided is the ambiguous, "Works of Luther, vol. ii., p. 435." A quick search though reveals the entire two paragraphs are a reworking (a.k.a. plagiarism) of an old Roman Catholic book entitled, Christian Apologetics: A Defense of the Catholic Faith By Walter Devivier. A comparison of what this author states and what's posted above demonstrate the similarities:

Finally (it is hardly credible), a Protestant is not obliged to practise what he reads in the Scriptures, however clear it may be. For the founders of the Reformation teach that works are useless and even injurious to salvation; that faith suffices to make us the friends of God; that man once justified before God is sure of being saved, whatever crimes he may afterward commit. What is more, that it is even impossible for man to sin since he is not free. Luther and Calvin go so far as to deny the existence of free-will in man. Luther wrote a book called “Slave Will,” which may be summed up thus: “God is the author of the evil as well as the good in us, and as He saves us without any merit on our part, He also damns us through no fault of ours. . . . All that we do is done, not freely, but through pure necessity.” (Works of Luther, vol. ii., p. 435.)

The "Works of Luther, vol. ii., p. 435" appears to be a reference to the vol. 2 of the Wittenberg edition of Luther's writings. Here is page 435. The text being cited appears to be:

This is an old Latin text dating back to the sixteenth century. A clearer image can be found here.

The quote comes from Luther's De Servo Arbitrio, known in English as The Bondage of the Will. It has been translated into English in LW 33. The place where this quote is located is LW 33:70.

Context

But if we are unwilling to let this term go [free will] 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]

Conclusion
In response to the original anti-Protestant comment which began this entry: first, there's nothing in the immediate context of Luther's words that he suggested acting against the Ten Commandments, that works were useless, and that all action is a sin. True, Luther abhorred the pseudo-works perpetuated by allegedly devout Roman Catholics. Pilgrimages, idolatry, monkery, self-denials, etc., which were considered good works one does for oneself on the road to eventual salvation. Luther plainly teaches that saving faith is a living faith,  a life under the cross, which is a life of discipleship of following after Christ. Our crosses though, do not save. They serve the neighbor. We are called to be neighbor to those around us. Luther says,

We receive Christ not only as a gift by faith, but also as an example of love toward our neighbor, whom we are to serve as Christ serves us. Faith brings and gives Christ to you with all his possessions. Love gives you to your neighbor with all your possessions. These two things constitute a true and complete Christian life; then follow suffering and persecution for such faith and love, and out of these grows hope and patience.[Sermons of Martin Luther (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), 1:34]

Second,  in regard to the Luther quote: it is true though that Luther spoke out against the concept of free will (his entire book the quote was purportedly taken from is about this subject). For Luther, the will is either enslaved by Satan or set free by God.  It is true also that Luther rejected performing works in order to achieve salvation: a rejection of personal merit to achieve salvation.

Third, a comparison of the purported Luther quote and the actual context shows a severe discontinuity.  As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the immediate context in which Luther directly says, "God is the author of the evil as well as the good in us." Was this meant to be a synopsis of Luther's words, "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"? If so, that someone would translate Luther's words in such a crude way shows a profound bias in textual interpretation. It's quite possible though whoever originally put the quote together was citing a different section of  De Servo Arbitrio altogether (see my entry here).

The purported quote goes on to say, "and as He saves us without any merit on our part, He also damns us through no fault of ours. . . . All that we do is done, not freely, but through pure necessity.”  
This seems to be similar to the lines, "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." Notice in context, Luther says that humans have a limited freedom in regard to the daily things of life (but even that is subject to God's pure freedom) "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." This appears to have been presented as "All that we do is done, not freely, but through pure necessity"! That's certainly an abuse of Luther's words.

The main disconnect for Rome's defenders is Luther's insistence that human ability does not contribute in any meritorious way to salvation. For Luther, if the will is enslaved, it has no ability to do works pleasing to God unto salvation. Humanity, therefore is in total reliance on God's grace. Here is "ground zero" of the debate which requires one to simply read Luther's full argumentation.

Luther: "If any man ascribes anything of salvation, even the very least thing, to the free will of man, he knows nothing of grace, and he has not learned Jesus Christ rightly"

I was asked about the authenticity of this quote:

This image above is typical of the many presentations of this quote. A simple Google search demonstrates its popularity; it's been cut-and-pasted endlessly. What I found interesting is that I didn't come across a lot of Lutheran websites using the quote. Rather, it appears to be most popular with those of a Calvinistic bent. Similarly, many of Luther's comments about free-will are more popular with Calvinists than Lutherans, at least that's been my experience... that's a topic though for another day. However pithy, witty, or heartwarming (particularly to Calvinists) this quote may be,  I'm not convinced Luther penned it.

Documentation
The English form of the quote is easy enough to track down. It comes from the sermon, Free Will a Slave by C.H. Spurgeon.  Commenting on John 5:40, Spurgeon states:

This is one of the great guns of the Arminians, mounted upon the top of their walls, and often discharged with terrible noise against the poor Christians called Calvinists. I intend to spike the gun this morning, or, rather, to turn it on the enemy, for it was never theirs; it was never cast at their foundry at all, but was intended to teach the very opposite doctrine to that which they assert. Usually, when the text is taken, the divisions are: First, that man has a will. Secondly, that he is entirely free. Thirdly, that men must make themselves willing to come to Christ, otherwise they will not be saved. Now, we shall have no such divisions; but we will endeavour to take a more calm look at the text; and not, because there happen to be the words "will," or "will not" in it, run away with the conclusion that it teaches the doctrine of free-will. It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free-will is nonsense. Freedom cannot belong to will any more than ponderability can belong to electricity. They are altogether different things. Free agency we may believe in, but free-will is simply ridiculous. The will is well known by all to be directed by the understanding, to be moved by motives, to be guided by other parts of the soul, and to be a secondary thing. Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free-will; and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, "If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free-will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright." It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free-will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that he gives both; that he is "Alpha and Omega" in the salvation of men.

The Spurgeon Center cites the date of the sermon as December 2, 1855. The date is relevant in trying to determine where Spurgeon took the quote from. Spurgeon's primary language was English. During this time period, there was only a limited pool of Luther's writings available in English. I think it's safe to rule out Spurgeon reading Luther in German; Spurgeon's education was limited, and I don't think he knew German. This is not to imply that Spurgeon was not intelligent or intellectual. I've read that he may have had a photographic memory. This website states, "Spurgeon had no formal education beyond Newmarket Academy, which he attended from August 1849 to June 1850, but he was very well-read in Puritan theology, natural history, and Latin and Victorian literature." Christian History says he was tutored in Greek and "his personal library eventually exceeded 12,000 volumes." Spurgeon's autobiography states his study of Latin began in 1845. So, it's possible Spurgeon could have read Luther in Latin. 

The pool, therefore, of  where Spurgeon could have taken the quote, even excluding German texts, is rather large: Luther's Latin writings, or perhaps a secondary source which simply cited it. It could have easily been something he picked up from a secondary Puritan source.  Despite this mountain of possible texts, in English, there are two specific books from Luther that discuss "free will" both very popular, and available to Spurgeon in 1855. 

The first is Henry Cole's 1823 English translation of Luther's De Servo Arbitrio (On The Bondage of the Will). There's nothing exactly matching the quote in question, but Luther does say to Erasmus, "While you establish Free-will, you make Christ void, and bring the whole scripture to destruction" (p. 360), and also that the advocates for free-will deny Christ (p.357).  He states also,

First, God has promised certainly His grace to the humbled: that is, to the self-deploring and despairing. But 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.56-57).

The second book is Luther's Table Talk. This anthology of second-hand statements from Luther was widely available in English during Spurgeon's lifetime. One of the chapters is specifically dedicated to Luther's comments on Free will. If Luther actually said what's attributed to him by Spurgeon, I believe Spurgeon may have been summarizing the following Table Talk passage. Note the sentence in bold lettering below.

Context

Another Discourse of Free-will.

 Ah, Lord God ! (saith Luther) why should we boast of our free-will, as if it were able to do any thing in divine and spiritual matters, were they never so small? For when we consider what horrible miseries the devil hath brought upon us through sin (which are innumerable and monstrous), then we might shame ourselves to death. 

For, first, free-will did lead us into original sin, and brought death upon us: afterwards, upon sin followed not only death, but all manner of mischiefs, as we daily find in the world; such as murder, lying, deceiving, stealing, and other evils, insomuch that no man is in safety the twinkling of an eye, neither in body nor goods, which always do hover and stand in danger. 

And, besides these evils, there is yet a greater (as is noted in the gospel), namely, that people are possessed of the devil, who maketh them mad and raging, so that, by reason of sin, the generation of mankind is nothing else but a stinking and filthy privy and habitation of devils. For there lieth on our necks everlasting death and God's wrath. Moreover, we are never in quiet but are plagued here on earth, both in body and soul. Now (said Luther) what goodness can such a spoiled and poisoned creature think, much less perform, that might be pleasing to God, in divine and spiritual matters which concern the salvation of our souls? 

In temporal things which pertain to body and wealth, and to this life, as to govern land and people, to rule in house-keeping, &c., free-will may do something that hath a shew and respect before men; but every thing that proccedeth not out of faith is sin, saith St. Paul. 

We know not rightly what we became after the fall of our first parents; what from our mothers we have brought with us. For we have brought altogether a confounded, a spoiled, and a poisoned nature, both in body and soul: and throughout the whole of man is nothing that is good, as the Scripture saith.

And this is my absolute opinion: (said Luther) he that will maintain and defend man's free-will, that it is able to do or work any thing in spiritual causes, (be they never so small) the same hath denied Christ. This I have always maintained in my writings, especially in those which I wrote against Erasmus Roterodamus; (one of the principal learned men in the whole world) and thereby will I remain, for I know it to be the truth: and though all the world should be against it, and otherwise conclude, yet the decree of the Divine Majesty must stand fast against the gates of hell. 

Touching this point, I find myself much wronged by some, (especially by the Synergists) who prate and allege, that I had altered my harsh opinion concerning free-will, and had mollified the same, (as they term it) seeing it is directly against their errors, and they falsely give out that they are my disciples. 

I confess that mankind hath a free will, but it is to milk kine, to build houses, &c., and no further: for so long as a man is at ease and in safety, and is in no want, so long he thinketh he hath a free will which is able to do something; but when want and need appeareth, so that there is neither meat, drink, nor money, where is then free-will? It is utterly lost, and cannot stand when it cometh to the pinch. But faith only standeth fast and sure, and seeketh Christ. 

Therefore faith is far another thing than free-will ; nay, free- will is nothing at all, but faith is all in all. 

I pray (said Luther) put it to the trial; art thou thou bold and stout, and canst thou carry it lustily with thy free-will when plague, wars, and times of dearth and famine are at hand? In the time of plague thou knowest not what to do for fear; then thou wishest thyself a hundred miles off. In time of dearth thou thinkest, Where shall I have to eat? Thy will cannot so much as give thy heart the smallest comfort in these times of need, but the longer thou strivest, the more it maketh thy heart faint and feeble, insomuch as it is affrighted even at the rushing and shaking of a leaf. These are the valiant acts which our free-will can do and achieve. 

But, on the contrary, faith is the Domina and empress: and although it be but small and weak, yet it standeth, and suffereth not itself to be utterly dejected. Faith hath great and mighty parts, as we see in holy Scripture, and on the loving disciples; waves, winds, seas, and all manner of misfortune do appear even unto death: who in such a case would not be affrighted? But faith (how weak soever) standeth like a wall, and little David- like assaulteth Goliah; that is, it fighteth against sin, death, and all danger, especially it fighteth valiantly when it is a strong and complete faith: a weak faith striveth well, but it is not so bold as strong faith.

Conclusion

Spurgeon's sermons were taken down by "loyal transcriptionists" and then "personally edited" by Spurgeon himself (source). Of the versions of Spurgeon's sermon I checked, the words attributed to Luther are always placed in quotes. It is possible though that Spurgeon may have been summarizing Luther rather than directly quoting Luther.

While I couldn't find anything that exactly matched this quote, it does reflect something Luther would have believed or stated. It surprises me though that such a clever quote, if it's really Luther's, would be so difficult to locate. I do not think Rev. Spurgeon concocted a Luther quote; rather he either was summarizing Luther, quoting someone quoting Luther, or perhaps he simply was mistaken that Luther said it (it was one of the Puritans, for instance). I'm open to correction. If someone has a better passage from Luther that fits what Spurgeon cited, please leave a comment.

Tim Staples, Luther, and "Error Begets Error," a Review

I was sent a link over to a recent Catholic Answers article by Tim Staples: Error Begets Error. The "errors" Mr. Staples has in mind are Luther's understanding of justification without the contribution of human works, Luther's error of claiming Roman Catholics deny the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice,  the error of denying free will,  the error of "simul justus et peccator," and finally the ultimate error of double predestination.


1. Justification
In regard to the first "error," Staples cites the Packer / Johnston translation of Luther's The Bondage of the Will, (he doesn't cite the page number, 294):

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.

Staples says Luther misinterpreted Paul because,

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.

What Staples appears to mean by "the law of the Old Covenant" is the Mosaic law. The actual debate then Staples should have with Luther is over this very issue: what constitutes the Law, according to Paul? Had Staples backed up a few pages in The Bondage of the Will, he would have found Luther specifically addressing this issue. Luther states the moral law (the Decalogue) was indeed important to Paul as being commanded by God, as were the other aspects of the Mosaic law:

Ceremonial works were as much commanded and made obligatory in the old law as was the Decalogue; therefore, the latter had neither more nor less force than the former. Paul speaks to the Jews first, as he says in Rom. x (v. 16); so none need doubt that by 'the works of the law' all the works of the entire law are meant. Indeed, they could not be called 'the works of the law' if the law was abrogated and death-dealing, for an abrogated law is law no more, as Paul well knew. When he speaks of 'the works of the law', therefore, he is speaking, not of a law that is abrogated, but of a law that is in force and authoritative. Otherwise, how easily he might have said: 'The law itself is now abrogated!'—which would have been a plain, clear statement of the case. But let us appeal to Paul himself, his own best interpreter. In Gal. 3, he says: 'As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them' (v. 10). Paul is here urging the same point as in Romans, and in the same words; and you see that when he makes mention of the works of the law he speaks of all the laws that are written in the book of the law. Moreover—what is still more remarkable —Paul cites Moses as cursing those who continue not in the law, whereas he himself pronounces accursed those who are of the works of the law; thus adducing a passage with a different scope from his own expressed view, the former being negative and the latter affirmative. This he does, however, because the real position in the sight of God is that those who are most zealous in the works of the law are furthest from fulfilling the law; for they are without the Spirit, Who alone fulfills the law. Men may try to keep it in their own strength, but they can accomplish nothing. Thus, both statements are true—that of Moses, that they are accursed who 'continue not', and that of Paul, that they are accursed who 'are of the works of the law'. Both speakers require that men should have the Spirit, without Whom works of law, however many are done, do not justify, as Paul says; so that men do not continue in all things that are written, as Moses says. In a word: Paul fully confirms what I say by his division. He divides workers at the law into two classes, those who work after the Spirit and those who work after the flesh, leaving no middle state. He says: 'By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified.' What is this, but to say that when men work at the law without the Spirit, being themselves flesh, that is, ungodly and ignorant of God, their works profit them nothing? In Gal. 3, he makes use of the same division when he says: 'Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?' (v. 2). Again, in Rom. 3 he says: 'But now the righteousness of God has been revealed without the law'; and again: 'We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law' (VV. 21, 28). From all these passages it is clear and plain that in Paul the Spirit is set in opposition to the works of the law, as He is to all other things that are not spiritual, and to all the powers and qualities of the flesh. So it is certain that Paul's view here accords with Christ's teaching in John 3 (v. 6), that everything which is not of the Spirit is flesh, however specious, holy and excellent it may be, even the most - glorious works of God's law, by whatever powers wrought. For the Spirit of Christ is needed, and without Him all is nothing but a matter for condemnation. Let it be settled, then, that Paul by 'the works of the law' means, not ceremonial works, but all the works of all the law. Then it will also be settled that all works of law that are wrought without the Spirit are condemned. But the power of 'free-will' (which is the matter in dispute), though no doubt the most excellent thing in man, is without the Spirit. That he is 'of the works of the law' is the finest thing that can be said of a man. But Paul does not say, 'who are of sins, and of ungodliness, contrary to the law'; he says, 'who are of the works of the law'—. that is, the best devotees of the law, who, over and above the power of 'free-will', are also aided—that is, instructed and encouraged—by the law itself. If, now, 'free-will,' when aided by the law, and occupied in the law with all its powers, profits nothing and fails to justify, but is left in ungodliness in the flesh, what must we think it could do on its own, without the law? 'By the law is the knowledge of sin,' says Paul (Rom. 3.20). Here he shows how much and how far the law profits, teaching that 'free-will' is of itself so blind that it does not even know what sin is, but needs the law to teach it! And what can a man essay to do in order to take away sin, when he does not know what sin is? Surely this: mistake what is sin for what is not sin, and what is not sin for what is sin! Experience informs us clearly enough how the world, in the persons of those whom it accounts its best and most zealous devotees of righteousness and godliness, hates and hounds down the righteousness of God preached in the gospel, and brands it heresy, error, and other opprobrious names, while flaunting and hawking its own works and devices (which are really sin and error) as righteousness and wisdom. By these words, therefore, Paul stops the mouth of 'free-will', teaching tat by the law it is shown sin, as being ignorant of its sin; so far is he from allowing it any power to make endeavors towards good. (pp. 285-287)

2. The Sufficiency of Christ's Work 
In  regard to the second "error" Staples cites an undocumented sermon from Luther:

[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.

The sermon being cited is Luther's Sunday After Christ's Ascension (1522). The error this is supposed to represent is that Luther "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 context, Luther is speaking about those who claim to "know" God broadly, not simply "Catholics" (a word that was added to Luther's quote by Mr. Staples). In fact, if one were to look at that which immediately precedes what Mr. Staples quotes, Luther refers to the Turks and a little earlier mentions the pope, not "Catholics" generally, but I grant that Luther certainly has the "papists" of his day in mind as well.

Staples argues,

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."

Notice what Luther immediately goes on to say from the same context:

But to know Christ in the other and true sense is to know that he died for me and transferred the load of my sin upon himself; to so know this that I realize that all my doings amount to nothing. To let go all that is mine, and value only this, that Christ is given to me as a present; his sufferings, his righteousness and all his virtues are at once mine. When I become conscious of this, I must in return love him; my affections must go out to such a being. After this I climb upon the Son higher, to the Father, and see that Christ is God, and that he placed himself in my death, in my sin, in my misery, and bestows upon me his grace. Then I know also his gracious will and the highest love of the Father, which no heart of itself can discover or experience. Thus I lay hold of God at the point where he is the tenderest, and think: Aye, that is God; that is God's will and pleasure, that Christ did this for me. And with this experience I perceive the high, inexpressible mercy and the love in him because of which he offered his beloved child for me in ignominy, shame and death. That friendly look and lovely sight then sustain me. Thus must God become known, only in Christ. Therefore, Christ himself says to his disciples: "No one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him." Mt 11, 27.

The issue in the actual debate between Luther and Romanism is that for Luther, one who is saved by faith alone goes on to live a life in gratitude to what Christ has done, but this life of gratitude is not a salvific contribution. As was stated of Luther's sermons long ago, "[Luther’s] leading thoughts were always faith and charity, justification and sanctification, giving to each its proper place and its due importance. He did not preach sanctification at the expense of justification, a sin which many sectarian preachers are guilty; but he did not fail to emphasize the necessity of the Christian life. His sermons were immensely practical, as all preaching, in order to serve its purpose should be” [Rev. John H.C. Fritz, “Luther as a Preacher,” found in W.H.T. Dau (editor), Four Hundred Years: Commemorative Essays on the Reformation of Dr. Martin Luther and its Blessed Results [St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1917), 204].


3. Free Will
Mr. Staples then refers to another "error of Luther:

The errors continue in The Bondage of the Will when Luther takes the next logical step 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. This again follows logically from the principle of "no works," meaning there is nothing we can do, leading to two-for-one errors.

He cites The Bondage of the Will (he doesn't cite the page number, 103-104):

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.

Certainly Mr. Staples is correct that Luther denies "free will." As to whether it's a denial of "the truth of man’s free will" is more an example of Mr. Staples preaching to his own choir rather than a detailed argument against Luther's book (and, I realize the article by Staples was not meant to be a detailed refutation of Luther).


4. Simul justus et peccator
Mr. Staples then cites another error:

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).

Once again this is another snippet of preaching to the choir rather than an interaction with any of Luther's argumentation, nor does Mr. Staples offer any particular Luther quote. What Mr. Staples should have done, to be fair to Luther, is to explain what Luther actually believed the role of works were in the life of a Christian.


5. Predestination
Mr Staples then goes on to state what he believes was Luther's worst error:

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.

Well, I'm Reformed, so I don't particularly have a problem with Luther if his view was "God does not will all to be saved." However, as far as I've been able to understand Luther, he did not limit the extent of the atonement. He rather argued Christ died for "all", as in, every single person.  Mr Staples then provides actual argumentation from Luther on this issue from The Bondage of the Will (he doesn't cite the page number, p. 176),

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.

Mr. Staples interprets Luther as follows:

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.

Exactly where is Luther saying this about Christ's human knowledge? Luther certainly isn't saying this in the quote cited by Mr. Staples. What's interesting is this very section is quoted in Packer's introduction along with an explanation of Luther's Deus absconditus (pp. 55-57), and that appears to be the actual text Mr. Staples is citing (based on the fact that both Mr. Staples and Packer leave out the same sentences). Luther describes God in his bare majesty as the hidden God (deus absconditus). This God has absolute control over everything. Of the agenda of the hidden God, a finite creature can know nothing. He is the God who enforces his “hidden and awful will” which includes the predestinating punishment for sinners. Of this hidden will, no creature is to speculate on or inquire. Rather, as Packer explains, "...we must listen to, and deal with, God as He speaks to us in Christ." Packer, as far I could see from the immediate context, does not say anything about Luther's solution being to limit the knowledge of Christ. In fact, I would refer Mr. Staples to one of the standard works on Luther's theology for his review.

Mutual understanding

Scott Alt, replying to a commenter to the effect that I am willfully blind to think that the Scripture teaches both of the following facts:
1) Believers who have reached the end of their earthly lives are alive to God, and
2) God forbids us from talking to dead people,

says the following:

Scott_Alt33p· 20 hours agoI think that's right, though the concept of an obstinate refusal to see suggests the kind of freedom of the will that a Calvinist would deny. Interesting to speculate how Rhology would get himself out of that conundrum.

Thus he shows that he doesn't even have the first idea what Calvinism says about the human will. Or, say, Romans 8:

3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

It's just funny. Chalk this up to another "Protestant-to-atheist-to-Protestant-to-Catholic con­vert" who never got close to understanding Reformed theology. The problem here is that Alt thinks he does understand it. And the funny thing is that I get accused of misunderstanding Roman Catholic theology all the time but rarely does anyone attempt to demonstrate where I've mistaken its meaning. That's just projection.

Augustine on the Bondage of the will, Freedom and Free Will

Chapter 30.—Men are Not Saved by Good Works, Nor by the Free Determination of Their Own Will, But by the Grace of God Through Faith.

“But this part of the human race to which God has promised pardon and a share in His eternal kingdom, can they be restored through the merit of their own works? God forbid! For what good work can a lost man perform, except so far as he has been delivered from perdition? Can they do anything by the free determination of their own will? Again I say, God forbid. For it was by the evil use of his free-will that man destroyed both it and himself. For, as a man who kills himself must, of course, be alive when he kills himself, but after he has killed himself ceases to live, and cannot restore himself to life; so, when man by his own free-will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost. “For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.”   (2 Peter 2:19)  This is the judgment of the Apostle Peter. And as it is certainly true, what kind of liberty, I ask, can the bond-slave possess, except when it pleases him to sin? For he is freely in bondage who does with pleasure the will of his master. Accordingly, he who is the servant of sin is free to sin. And hence he will not be free to do right, until, being freed from sin, he shall begin to be the servant of righteousness. And this is true liberty, for he has pleasure in the righteous deed; and it is at the same time a holy bondage, for he is obedient to the will of God. But whence comes this liberty to do right to the man who is in bondage and sold under sin, except he be redeemed by Him who has said, “If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed?”  (John 8:36)  And before this redemption is wrought in a man, when he is not yet free to do what is right, how can he talk of the freedom of his will and his good works, except he be inflated by that foolish pride of boasting which the apostle restrains when he says, “By grace are ye saved, through faith.” (Ephesians 2:8)

Chapter 31.—Faith Itself is the Gift of God; And Good Works Will Not Be Wanting in Those Who Believe.

And lest men should arrogate to themselves the merit of their own faith at least, not understanding that this too is the gift of God, this same apostle, who says in another place that he had “obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful”, (1 Corinthians 7:25) here also adds: “and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)  And lest it should be thought that good works will be wanting in those who believe, he adds further: “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” (Ephesians 2:10)  We shall be made truly free, then, when God fashions us, that is, forms and creates us anew, not as men—for He has done that already—but as good men, which His grace is now doing, that we may be a new creation in Christ Jesus, according as it is said: “Create in me a clean heart, O God.”  (Psalm 51:10) For God had already created his heart, so far as the physical structure of the human heart is concerned; but the psalmist prays for the renewal of the life which was still lingering in his heart.”

Augustine, Enchiridion 30-31 (My own emphasis) 

John 8:34 - Jesus said, "Truly I say to you whoever commits sin is the slave of sin."

Romans 6:22 - "But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life." 

"If you abide in My word, then you are truly My disciples, and you will know the truth, and the Truth will set you free" Jesus John 8:31-32

On this Fourth of July, 2012 - we celebrate and are thankful to God for our political freedom, but even more, we believers in Jesus Christ are grateful to God and celebrate our true spiritual freedom from sin and the slavery to sin.  (Romans 6:6-7) 

Take the Free Will Challenge

1. Find an Arminian.
2. Ask him/her if they have free will.
3. Make him/her cry.
4. Ask him/her to stop crying.
5. Remind him/her about the power of free will.