Luther: Have "Ineffable Joy" if You're Predestination to Hell (Part Two)

Previously I looked at a quotation from Luther's Lectures on the Epistle to the Romans concerning his alleged teaching of "ineffable joy" in discovering one is predestined to Hell. Typical of Rome's defenders, when a context was presented, their analysis doesn't equal what was originally said. Sometimes in cyberspace another Luther quote is presented along with the "ineffable joy" comment:

It gets even more bizarre than that, for those who are interested in the history of doctrine and theology. Luther thought that men should have an "ineffable joy" if they discovered that they were damned, because they were resigned to God's will: "If men willed what God wills, even though He should will to damn and reject them, they would see no evil in that [in the predestination to hell which he teaches]; for, as they will what God wills, they have, owing to their resignation, the will of God in them." [source]

Documentation
The "ineffable joy" phrase is linked with this additional Luther quote in italics. I would posit again this additional quote is taken from Hartmann Grisar's Luther Vol. 1 (St. Louis: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., LTD, 1913) rather than any actual reading of Luther's Lectures on Romans. I base this on the phrase "in the predestination to hell which he teaches" which is an addition by Grisar, rather than a phrase in Luther's actual text. Note Grisar's statement:

"If men willed what God wills," he writes, "even though He should will to damn and reject them, they would see no evil in that [in the predestination to hell which he teaches]; for, as they will what God wills, they have, owing to their resignation, the will of God in them." Does he mean by this that they should resign themselves to hating God for all eternity ? Luther does not seem to notice that hatred of God is an essential part of the condition of those who are damned ("damnari et reprobari ad infernum"). Has he perhaps come to conceive of a hatred of God proceeding from love? He seems almost to credit those who think of hell, with a resolve to bear everything, even hatred of God, with loving submission to the will of Him Who by His predestination has willed it. He even dares to say to those who are affrighted by predestination to hell, that resignation to eternal punishment is, for the truly wise, a source of "ineffable joy" ("ineffdbili iucunditate in ista materia delectantur"); for the perfect this is "the best purgation from their own will," i.e. the way of the greatest bitterness," because under charity the cross and suffering is always understood" (p.238).

Grisar cites "'Schol. Rom.,' pp. 213, 223" as the source for this quote. This appears to be
Luthers Vorlesung über den Römerbrief, 1515/1516. Grisar has cited the text backwards. The quote appears to be on page 223, while the "ineffable joy" comment he cites afterward actually precedes this quote on page 213.

The lines in question are 14-6: "Si enim vellent, quod vult Deus, etiamsi damnatos et reprobatos vellet, non haberent malum. Quia vellent, quod vult Deus, et haberent in se voluntatem Dei per patientiam." This text can also be found in WA 56:396-397 (lines 2-5 on page 397).

One of the ironies of Luther's Lectures on Romans was that we have the Vatican to partially thank for it. By the late sixteenth century, the manuscript was thought to be lost, then found, then lost again. A copy of it was eventually found, in of all places, the Vatican Library. Prompted by this discovery, Johannes Ficker went on to locate the original. Grisar therefore, was citing Ficker's publication of this newly rediscovered lost Luther writing.

This has been translated into English LW 25.386. The "ineffable joy" statement is from Luther's comment on Romans 8:28. This additional quote is from Luther's comment on Romans 9:14 which appears many pages later. By linking the two quotes together (and backwards by Grisar!), the caricature is created. We saw previously that rather than Luther teaching the damned should have "ineffable joy" about going to Hell, Luther actually meant that God's eternal election serves as a comfort to his chosen people: "Those who have the wisdom of the Spirit become ineffably happy through the doctrine." With this caricatured Roman Catholic presentation, we see the first citation combined with the additional quote meant to accentuate Luther's alleged teaching that the ineffably joyful damned won't have any problem or anger about being damned, but have happily resigned themselves to the will of God. At least Grisar asks questions of what exactly Luther is saying, and interprets in the form of speculation.

Context
What does Luther's Romans Lectures actually say? Here is a bit of the context From Luther's comments on Romans 9:

9:11. Though they had done nothing either good or bad. [Paul] very nicely uses the term “they had done” rather than “they were.” For there is no doubt that both of them were evil because of the disease of original sin, although regarding Jacob some feel that he had been sanctified in the womb. But by their own merit they were the same and equal and belonged to the same mass of perdition.

9:14. Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! The apostle gives no other reason as to why there is not injustice with God than to say: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy” (v. 15), which is the same as saying: “I will have mercy on whom I wish,” or to him who is predestined to receive mercy. This is a harsh answer for the proud and those who think they know everything, but for the meek and the humble it is sweet and pleasing, because they despair of themselves; and thus God takes them up. For the fact is that there neither is nor can be any other reason for His righteousness than His will. So why should man murmur that God does not act according to the Law, since this is impossible? Or will it be possible for God not to be God? Furthermore, since His will is the highest good, why are we not glad and willing and eager to see it be done, since it cannot possibly be evil? But do I hear you say: “It is evil for me”? Perish the thought! It is evil for no one. But because we cannot affect His will nor cause it to be done, this becomes an evil thing for men. For if they were willing to do what God wills, even if He should will that they be damned and reprobated, they would have no evil. For they would will what God wills, and they would have in themselves the will of God in patience. [LW 25: 386]

Conclusion
Luther explains God's sovereign will is absolutely good. It cannot be otherwise. Men have no right to complain that God's will is not good. Luther then presents an imaginary detractor/complainer who states, "Is God's sovereign will evil for me personally?" Luther responds: No! God's will is evil for no one. But men do not like that they are powerless against God's will, so for these people, God's good will is seen as an evil thing in their minds. Now, contrarily, if they saw God's will as a good thing, they would want what God wills to come to pass, even if it meant their damnation. They would actually patiently bear what God wills. But they are the wicked, and do not want God's will to be done.

I grant this is a difficult Biblical text, both to understand and to actually digest theologically for those used to ascribing power to the human will. As I read Luther's text, it is a hypothetical in which the point is about God's eternal goodness rather than about the ineffably joyful damned happily resigning themselves to the will of God. Why would the wicked patiently bear what God wills? It is an attribute of their hatred of God that they do no such thing. But even if they hypothetically could patiently bear what God wills, God would still not be doing them any evil. Of course, allowing God to save whom he wants is offensive to the human mind. God's free will not being subject to human will seems absolutely wrong to the sinful mind. Luther himself realizes this, and goes on to state:

I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion (9:15).That means: I will give grace, in time and life, to him concerning whom I purposed from eternity to show mercy. On him will I have compassion and forgive his sin in time and life whom I forgave and pardoned from all eternity. In doing this. God is not unjust, for so He willed and was pleased to do from eternity, and His will is not bound by any law or obligation. (God's) free will, which is subject to no one, cannot be unjust. Indeed, it is impossible that it should be unjust. God's will would be unjust only if it would transgress some law, (and that means that God would go counter to Himself).

This statement seems hard and cruel, but it is full of sweet comfort, because God has taken upon Himself all our help and salvation, in order that He alone might wholly be the Author of our salvation. So also we read in 11:32: "God hath concluded them all in unbelief, (not with cruel intention, but) that he might have mercy upon all"; that is, in order that He might show mercy to all, which otherwise He neither would nor could do, if we would oppose Him with the arrogant pride of our own righteousness.

So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy (9:16). This does not mean that God's mercy altogether excludes our willing or running. But the words mean: The fact that a person wills and runs, he owes not to his own strength, but to the mercy of God; for it is He who gives us the power to will and to do. Without this (power) man of his own accord is unable both to will and to do. This truth the Apostle expresses in Philippians 2:13 thus: "It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." Just that the Apostle says in our text in different words: It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, that is, who (of himself) accomplishes (his salvation), but of God that showeth mercy, that is, who grants to men the gift of His grace.

Here let me add an admonition: Let no one lose himself in speculation (on this point) whose mind is not yet sanctified, in order that he may not fall into abyss of terror and despair. Let him rather first purify (enlighten) the understanding of his mind by considering the wounds of Jesus Christ (whose blood flows with salvation for all sinners). This is theology in the most excellent sense of the term. Of this the Apostle writes in I Corinthians 2:6: "We speak wisdom among them that are perfect." I myself am still a babe that requires milk and not meat (I Cor. 3:2); and so let everyone do who is a babe in Christ, as I am. The wounds of Jesus Christ, the "clefts of the rock" (Ex. 33:22), give us sufficient assurance (of our salvation'). [This is an edited version of the text from LW 25- Luther's Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1976, pp. 139-140 ].

Addendum
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2008. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.

Luther:Philosophy Should Be Learned To Be Refuted

The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "On Reason":

“One should learn Philosophy only as one learns witchcraft, that is to destroy it; as one finds out about errors, in order to refute them” [Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Fol. (1516). Ficker, II, 198. Cf. Three Reformers, By Jacques Maritan, Pg. 31].

Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." This is a quote highlighting Luther's alleged denigration of human "reason". They attempt to show Christ exhorted his hearers to use reason and be wise, while Luther says philosophy (where "reason" plays a crucial role) is basically evil and should only be learned as a subject to be refuted.

Documentation
Luther Exposing the Myth cites "Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Fol. (1516). Ficker, II, 198. Cf. Three Reformers, By Jacques Maritan, Pg. 31."  "Three Reformers" is the work of Roman Catholic scholar Jacques Maritain. Page 31 states:

Has [Luther] a grudge against particular system? No. He is attacking philosophy itself. "Barking against philosophy is a homage he thinks to give to God... One should learn philosophy only as one learns witchcraft, that is to destroy it; as one finds out about errors, in order to refute them" [Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, fol. (1516). Ficker, II, 198].

The quote was most likely taken from Maritain's book rather than any study of  Johannes Ficker's two-volume publication of Luther's Romans material (Die Glosse; Die Scholien) published in 1908.  Ficker was part of recovering this long lost writing of Luther's. The section Maritan appears to be citing is actually on page 199 of Ficker II,

The text can also be found in WA 56:371. There are a few different English translations of this quote: "one should learn philosophy only as one learns bad arts, that is to destroy them" [source], and also, "Do not seek to establish and defend philosophy, but rather study her as we do evil arts and errors, to destroy and to refute" [Plass, What Luther Says, II:1053 (entry 3350)]. The most complete English context has been provided in LW 25:361-362.

This quote comes from Luther expounding on Romans 8:19. "For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God." The exposition on this verse from Luther is pre-Reformation writings (1515-1516).

Context

19. For the creation waits. The apostle philosophizes and thinks about things in a different way than the philosophers and metaphysicians do. For the philosophers so direct their gaze at the present state of things that they speculate only about what things are and what quality they have, but the apostle calls our attention away from a consideration of the present and from the essence and accidents of things and directs us to their future state. For he does not use the term “essence” or “activity” of the creature, or its “action,” “inaction,” and “motion,” but in an entirely new and marvelous theological word he speaks of the “expectation of the creation,” so that because his soul can hear the creation waiting, he no longer directs his attention to or inquires about the creation itself, but rather to what it is awaiting. But alas, how deeply and painfully we are ensnared in categories and questions of what a thing is; in how many foolish metaphysical questions we involve ourselves! When will we become wise and see how much precious time we waste on vain questions, while we neglect the greater ones? We are always acting this way, so that what Seneca has said is very true of us: “We do not know what we should do because we have learned unimportant things. Indeed we do not know what is salutary because we have learned only the things that destroy us.”

Indeed I for my part believe that I owe to the Lord this duty of speaking out against philosophy and of persuading men to heed Holy Scripture. For perhaps if another man who has not seen these things, did this, he might be afraid or he might not be believed. But I have been worn out by these studies for many years now, and having experienced and heard many things over and over again, I have come to see that it is the study of vanity and perdition.

Therefore I warn you all as earnestly as I can that you finish these studies quickly and let it be your only concern not to establish and defend them but treat them as we do when we learn worthless skills to destroy them and study errors to refute them. Thus we study also these things to get rid of them, or at least, just to learn the method of speaking of those people with whom we must carry on some discourse. For it is high time that we undertake new studies and learn Jesus Christ, “and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2).

Therefore you will be the best philosophers and the best explorers of the nature of things if you will learn from the apostle to consider the creation as it waits, groans, and travails, that is, as it turns away in disgust from what now is and desires that which is still in the future. For then the study of the nature of things, their accidents and their differences, will quickly grow worthless. As a result the foolishness of the philosophers is like a man who, joining himself to a builder and marveling at the cutting and hewing and measuring of the wood and the beams, is foolishly content and quiet among these things, without concern as to what the builder finally intends to make by all of these exertions. This man is empty-headed, and the work of such an assistant is meaningless. So also the creation of God, which is skillfully prepared for the future glory, is gazed upon by stupid people who look only at its mechanics but never see its final goal. Thus are we not completely off the track when we turn our thoughts to the praises and glories of philosophy? Look how we esteem the study of the essences and actions and inactions of things, and the things themselves reject and groan over their own essences and actions and inactions! We praise and glorify the knowledge of that very thing which is sad about itself and is displeased with itself! And, I ask you, is he not a mad man who laughs at someone who is crying and lamenting and then boasts that he sees him as happy and laughing? Certainly such a person is rightly called a madman and a maniac. Indeed, if only the rude common people foolishly thought philosophy was of some importance and did not know how to interpret the sighing of the natural order, it would be tolerable. But now it is wise men and theologians, infected by this same “prudence of the flesh,” who derive a happy science out of a sad creation, and from the sighings they laughingly gather their knowledge with marvelous display of power.

Thus the apostle is right in Col. 2:8 when he speaks against philosophy, saying: “See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition.” Clearly if the apostle had wanted any philosophy to be understood as useful and good, he would not have condemned it so absolutely. Therefore we conclude that whoever searches into the essences and actions of creation rather than its groanings and expectations is without doubt a fool and a blind man, for he does not know that creatures are also a creation of God. This is clear from the text [LW 25:361-362].

Conclusion
Contexts are helpful! Luther's contrast between philosophy and theology is an exhortation to study the Scriptures as divine revelation. He passionately appeals to his students that no one makes a prey of them by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition. Luther says elsewhere, Philosophy does not understand sacred things, and argues against mixing it with theology. Rather than pursuing philosophical speculation, Luther exhorts his pupils to "undertake new studies and learn Jesus Christ, 'and Him crucified' (1 Cor. 2:2)." Rather than "abandoning the faith and leading many into apostasy" as Luther Exposing the Myth states, the context of this quote shows quite the opposite.

Addendum (2016)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2010. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.