A Reformation Day Summary

Luther's Reformation Breakthrough (by Church History, Historical Theology Professor Ryan Reeves, Gordon-Conwell Seminary)

Dr. Reeves summarizes Luther's Breakthrough on Justification by Faith Alone:

Dr. Reeves then goes back to explain the 95 Theses:

I confess I have not had time to post much over the past year, but I wanted to have a link of some of the best that I consider that James Swan has put together in the apologetic issues of Roman Catholic claims against Luther.

Summary of some links that I have found the most helpful articles of James Swan on Luther and the Reformation and apologetics of answering some of the main Roman Catholic common claims against Luther.

Luther Added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 ?

Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification in Latin

More on McGrath and the "theological novum" comment & Roman Catholic claims

Luther's comment on James as "an Epistle of Straw" (Part 2)  (links back to Part 1, see below)

Luther's comment on James (Part 1) 



An Excerpt from James Swan's excellent research on Martin Luther's "Epistle of Straw" comment:

4: Martin Luther Called The Book Of James “An Epistle Of Straw”

The most frequent charge against Luther’s view on the canon is his opinion on the book of James.[50]  Luther wrote this statement in his original Preface To The New Testament in 1522:

“In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw,  compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.”[51]

Rarely is Luther accurately quoted on this topic. Luther says James “is really an epistle of straw” compared to “St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle.” Luther wants his readers to see a comparison.

An interesting fact about this quote (hardly ever mentioned by Luther-detractors!) is that it only appears in the original 1522 Preface To The New Testament. John Warwick Montgomery points out: “Few people realize — and liberal Luther interpreters do not particularly advertise the fact — that in all the editions of Luther’s Bible translation after 1522 the—Reformer dropped the paragraphs at the end, of his general Preface to the New Testament which made value judgments among the various biblical books and which included the famous reference to James as an “Epistle of straw.”[52] Montgomery finds that Luther showed a “considerable reduction in negative tone in the revised Prefaces to the biblical books later in the Reformer’s career.”[53]  For anyone to continue to cite Luther’s “epistle of straw” comment against him is to do Luther an injustice. He saw fit to retract the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should bear this in mind.[54]

An Article I put together on Historical Theological Developments that Eclipsed the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone

On the Bondage of the Will and Luther's response to Erasmus

Resources on Justification by Faith Alone

Addendum:
Another excellent one by James Swan that should be mentioned:
Who Owns Church History?

A Serious Challenge to the New Perspective on Paul

Michael Kruger at "Canon Fodder" reviews Lee Irons book on the righteousness of God and his response to the "New Perspective on Paul" (N.T. Wright, James D. G. Dunn, etc.)  challenges.

Timothy Kauffman on James 2:14-26

 Timothy Kauffman on James 2, justification, works

Please read the whole article.  Kauffman does a great job of demonstrating the whole book of James and it's relationship to the parable of the soils that Jesus told in the synoptic gospels.  (Matthew 13, Mark 4, Luke 8)  

These 2 paragraphs are especially good, as he points out that dikaow (δικαοω, to justify), can have different meanings according to context.  Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:35, Romans 3:4, and 1 Timothy 3:16 mean "to vindicate", "to prove", "to demonstrate to be true", "to prove right", "to show".  This is what James 2:14-26 means, " a man is proved to be justified by faith, by works" or "a man demonstrates he is justified by faith, by works.  (James 2:21, 2:24)

"We emphasize this connection between the saying and the doing, first because this is so plainly, explicitly and emphatically James’ emphasis in the epistle; and second because there is in biblical parlance a “justification” that has nothing to do with the ground of a man’s acquittal in a legal sense, but has to do with consistency between what a person says and what he does. In this sense, a man is justified when what he says is found to be true. Paul used it in this sense when he wrote that God will be shown to be faithful to His promise: “That Thou mightest be justified in thy sayings” (Romans 3:4). Jesus used it in this sense when He said “Wisdom is justified of her children” in response to His critics (Matthew 11:18-19; c.f. Luke 7:33-35). When Jesus was “justified in the Spirit” (1 Timothy 3:16), it means that His claims were proven true."

"This is not the justification Paul speaks of when he says we are “justified by faith” or “justified by His blood” or “justified by Christ” (Romans 5:1,9; Galatians 2:17). Rather, it is a justification that occurs when a man claims to be religious, and his works show that he truly is. It is a justification that occurs when a man says he has wisdom, and the fruits show that he is truly wise. It is the justification that occurs when a man says he has faith, and he loves his neighbor, showing that his profession of faith is genuine. James could as well teach—and we know it is true—that a man is not proven to be wise by saying he has wisdom, and a man is not proven to be religious by saying he is religious. Nor is a man proven to believe by saying he has faith. He is justified “in his sayings” when there are fruits to show for wisdom, when fruits show that he is truly religious, and when a profession of faith is proven through trial. That this is James’ use of justification is evident from the two examples he gives from Scripture—Abraham and Rahab. In both cases, faith was tested and proven. "  Timothy Kauffman

Piper's Intro to new book on Sola Fide by Tom Schreiner

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2015/09/15/john-pipers-foreword-to-tom-schreiners-new-book-on-justification-by-faith-alone/

Discussion about Sola Fide at Called to Communion

Discussion with Bryan Cross and another Roman Catholic about Sola Fide at Called to Communion:
Comments # 353 to 362
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/does-the-bible-teach-sola-fide/#comment-180690

Addendum:  there is more after # 362 and more after this one below.

As I wrote before at Beggar’s All, and quoted Anthony Lane, the problem with infant baptism that is ex opere operato in Roman Catholicism: “the teaching on grace is pushed back to a forgotten infancy” Anthony Lane, see below. Psychologically, infant baptism, especially the ex opere operato type of Roman Catholicism, tends to lead to a kind of semi-pelagianism in history from the council of Orange in 529 AD to the time of Luther and then dogmatized in the Council of Trent. Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, Calvin, etc. were recognizing the eclipsing of the doctrine of justification by faith alone in accordance with grace alone. In RC circles, if a baby was already baptized, then their whole life teaching that they are getting is assuming they are already in a state of grace (because they were baptized and it regenerated them), and that tends to short-circuit the need for teaching on the essense of the gospel in evangelism. (that they are sinners, condemned to hell, and need to repent and trust Christ, and that justification is by faith alone in Christ alone – not prayers to Mary or good deeds, etc.)

“Another problem with the Council of Orange was that it said that grace comes to the soul in water baptism and begins regeneration and heals the will so that one can choose. (ex opere operato) And most everyone by that time in the western culture was baptized as a baby, so, the need to understand sin, repentance and faith for the first time in one’s life was hidden and non-discernable; and people began to trust in their water baptism as a baby – that it saved them. Sad. 

As Tony Lane wrote in his analysis of Orange in the section on the Council of Orange of 529 AD:

“The canons affirm our need for grace, but this grace is tied to the sacraments. Free-will is healed by the grace of baptism. With the grace of baptism and the aid and co-operation of Jesus Christ, we have the power to do all that is necessary for salvation, if we so desire. By this time infant baptism was universal, so the teaching on grace is pushed back to a forgotten infancy.” (Exploring Christian Thought, page 81)”

Earlier comment on Semi-Pelagianism and the quote from Anthony Lane.

Augustine: Scripture over icons and statues and sacraments; and the Bondage of the will

1.  A Quote from Augustine that emphasizes Scripture.  (seeing Scripture as the way to connect personally with the face of God, instead of through icons or the Lord's supper, seems to point more toward Sola Scriptura.)

I came across this quote by Augustine years ago when I checked out from a local library a book by Robert L. Wilken, The Spirit of Early Christian Thought:  Seeking the Face of God   Robert L. Wilken is a convert to Roman Catholicism (from Lutheranism), and I had the privilege of meeting him at an ETS meeting in Atlanta several years ago. He was an invited guest of the Patristics group at ETS. I think it was in 2003.  (As I recall, N. T. Wright also had a big speaking role that year, and I think the voting members were still hashing things out over the "Open Theism" controversy with John Sanders, Gregory Boyd and Clark Pinnock.  I am only an associate member, so I am not even able to vote.)    Robert Wilken doesn't see this quote the way it strikes me, obviously.  It seemed to me, in all honesty, that he appeared irritated at me when I asked him some questions about the early church and Mary.  (after his lecture)  Oh well; I decided not to push the issue, and let others also greet him and ask questions.  A lot of his material is very good and useful.  Another book of his, The Land Called Holy,  gave me useful information about the early church and Islam.  It is hard to understand why a person would convert to Rome.  

Augustine:  “For now, treat the Scriptures of God as the face of God; melt in its presence” (Sermones 22, 7). 

 I cannot find these sermons on line.  Apparently they are not part of the ccel.org or "new advent" collections.  

That kind of emphasis on the Scriptures seems to put them above the sacraments, and the external church, and rituals, and statues and icons.  Did they even start to have statues in church settings yet then, in Augustine's day?  I consider it a good emphasis toward Sola Scriptura.


2.  A Quote from Augustine that shows his change in 396 AD from libertarian free will, to his belief in the bondage of the will after that point. 

In reading the Five Views book on Justification, I came across an interesting quote by Augustine.

( Note: As of today, April 11, 2014, I have almost read all of the first 3 chapters on "Justification in Historical Perspective", the New Perspective overview, the traditional Reformed View (by Michael Horton) and chapter 7, the Roman Catholic view (by Gerald O'Collins and Oliver Rafferty.   Chapter 4 is called the Progressive Reformed view by Michael Bird, chapter 5 is the New Perspective view by James D. G. Dunn, and chapter 6 is the Deification - eastern Orthodox view. 

Augustine had a "significant theological shift" in 396 AD in a letter to Simplicianus.  Before that time, Augustine held to a view of human freedom and God's predestination as "predicated upon divine foreknowledge of future human choices, as opposed to divine predetermination.  However, with his 396 response to Simplicanus' questions on these matters, Augustine essentially rejects his earlier approach - and with it the patristic consensus - and instead locates the reason for the divide between the elect and the reprobate as, ultimately, residing in God's mysterious will.  Decades later, Augustine would explain this 396 reversal:  "I indeed, labored in defense of the free choice of the human will; but the grace of God conquered, and finally I was able to understand, with full clarity, the meaning of the apostle . . . "what hast thou that thou has not received?" (citing Augustine, Retractions 2:1:3, in Justification:  Five Views.  Edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy. Inter-Varsity Press, 2011, p. 19. ) 

There are many quotes of Augustine that confirm he believed in the bondage of the will after this point.  Nick Needham has compiled many in this book, The Triumph of Grace:  Augustine's Writings on Salvation.  

Helpful chart that compares the Judaizers with Roman Catholic system of salvation

William Webster on Roman Catholicism's teaching on Salvation and Justification.

The entire article by Webster is very good; I just wanted to highlight this helpful chart, which shows the similarity between the Roman Catholic system of salvation and justification with the Judaizers of the book of Galatians, that Paul says twice are accursed for teaching a false gospel (Galatians 1:6-9; 2:4; 2:21), because they added the merit of good works to Christ's final work of redemption on the cross, as more conditions for justification.   Man's responsibility is faith alone in Christ alone.    Good works are the necessary result of true faith and justification, (Ephesians 2:10; James 2:14-26), but good works are not conditions that one must fulfill in order to earn one's final justification.  Judaizers 1. Belief in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God 2. Circumcision 3. Become a Jew 4. Sacrificial System 5. Priests 6. High Priests 7. Altars 8. Feast Days 9. Laver of Water 10. Dietary Regulations 11. Candles 12. Incense 13. Shew Bread 14. Keep the Ten Commandments 15. Tradition of the Elders Note:  I had trouble getting the chart to come out exactly right; but I guess this is close enough.

Roman Catholicism 1. Belief in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God 2. Baptism 3. Become a Roman Catholic 4. Sacrificial System 5. Priests 6. High Priests 7. Altars 8. Feast Days 9. Font of Holy Water 10. Dietary Regulations (Until recently) 11. Candles 12. Incense 13. The Eucharist Wafer 14. Keep the Ten Commandments  15. Tradition of the Church Fathers

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.

A simple but helpful diagram

John Gertsner, in an appendix ("Rome NOT Home: A Response to Scott and Kimberly Hahn's Rome Sweet Home"),  in the excellent book, Justification by Faith Alone, edited by Don Kistler, on pages 172-173, has a very helpful but simple diagram that lets us see the issue of the doctrine of justification by faith alone clearly.

The book has good chapters by John McArthur, R. C. Sproul, Joel Beeke, John Gertsner, and John Armstrong.





1.  Biblical/Protestant View:

Faith  =  Justification + works


2.  Roman Catholic View:

Faith + works  =  Justification


3.  Antinomian / Easy Believe -ism View  (what Trent and RCC mis-understood and thought Luther and Reformers were saying)

Faith  =   Justification  - works

(Note: in the book, the diagrams have arrows, but I could not figure out how to make arrows, so I had to use the equal (=) sign.)  The arrow seems to communicate, "leads to".  So true faith in Christ alone for salvation leads to justification, resulting also in good works.  And the Roman Catholic view is that one must have faith as an adult, and that includes that one must believe in the 1854, 1870, and 1950 dogmas, since they are "de fide" (part of the doctrines of the faith that one must believe .  If one is an infant with RC parents, one must be baptized as a baby and that is called "initial justification", but that can be lost, so there must be good works of penance, indulgences, confession to the priest, giving alms, being a good Roman Catholic, going to mass, etc. and keeping it up and loosing it and gaining it back (the treadmill of sacramentalism) until, maybe, Lord willing, one dies in a "state of grace", but even then, every R.C.  has to go through Purgatory, since nobody is sinless.  No R.C. ever knows if he is justified or not or if they can have peace or assurance of his/her salvation.  According to one article I read a while back, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and other RCs since Trent have said that the greatest Protestant heresy was "assurance"!!  The Antinomian view means that faith leads to justification with no works or fruit as a necessary result. John McArthur's 2 books, The Gospel according to Jesus and  The Gospel according to the apostles  (originally it was titled, "Faith Works:  The Gospel according to the Apostles") are two excellent works that refute the antinomian or "easy believism" view.

Luther Added the word "only" to Romans 3:20 and 4:15?

I was sent this link from Catholic Answers (ht: Algo)- Was Martin Luther's revision of the Bible a return to the "true Bible" of the early Church? This link comes from their "Quick Questions" section:

Was Martin Luther's revision of the Bible a return to the "true Bible" of the early Church?

---

Share on twitterShare on emailShare on printShare on gmailShare on stumbleuponMore Sharing Services

Full Question

A non-Catholic co-worker claims there were early Christian councils that upheld the 66 books of the Old Testament, but the Catholic Church suppressed them, and it was Martin Luther who finally stood up to the Church and reclaimed the true Bible for Christians. Is there any truth to his statement?

Answer

No. There were no early councils that endorsed the 66 books Protestants honor (check the facts in your local library). The current canon of Scripture was affirmed at the Council of Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus, which included all and only the seventy-three books Catholics honor today. This canon was repeated at Hippo and at Carthage (A.D. 393 and 397, respectively) and has been repeated ever since.

It was Martin Luther who tossed out the seven books considered canonical since the beginning of Church history. He also rejected the epistle to the Hebrews and the book of Revelation. He also called the epistle of James "an epistle of straw" because James 2:14–26 conflicted with his personal theology on good works. He also added the word (in his German translation) only in Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15, and he inserted the word alone in Romans 3:28.

Answered by:  Peggy Frye

__________________________________________________________

Almost all of the assertions in Peggy Frye's answer have been responded to before. For instance, on the Council of Rome, see this link, this link or this link. On Hippo and Carthage, see this interesting tidbit here and here. As to Luther "tossing" out books from the Bible. see this link. As to the "epistle of straw" see this link. As to Romans 3:28, see this link.

What interested me was Peggy's assertion,"He also added the word (in his German translation) only in Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15." This sentence appears to be a version of another sentence.

Romans 3:20
I certainly didn't find the word "only" in Luther's rendering of Romans 3:20 from online sources. Luther's German Bible reads, "darum daß kein Fleisch durch des Gesetzes Werke vor ihm gerecht sein kann; denn durch das Gesetz kommt Erkenntnis der Sünde." This other online Luther Bible reads similarly. I'd like to offer Peggy the benefit of the doubt that perhaps an earlier version of Luther's translation contained the word "only" in Romans 3:20, but I didn't come across sources (yet) confirming it.

In The Bondage of the Will, Luther states, "For this also must be observed, that just as the voice of the law is not raised except over those who do not feel or acknowledge their sin, as Paul says in Romans 3[:20]: “Through the law comes knowledge of sin,” so the word of grace does not come except to those who feel their sin and are troubled and tempted to despair" [LW 33:137] (cf. LW 35:241, "By works of the law no one becomes righteous before God"). My gut tells me Peggy simply mis-remembered something she read previously. But, I'm certainly open to correction from either Peggy or Catholic Answers. Maybe she found it here, or here, or here.

Romans 4:15
That something she read previously may have been Patrick O'Hare's Facts About Luther. Father O'Hare states, "Romans IV, 15; 'the law worketh wrath,'' he translates, 'the law worketh only wrath,' thus adding a word to the text and changing its sense." Luther's translation reads, "Sintemal das Gesetz nur Zorn anrichtet; denn wo das Gesetz nicht ist, da ist auch keine Übertretung." Father O'Hare is certainly correct as to the way Luther translated the verse.

On the other hand, is the sense of the meaning changed by using the word "only"? Luther states in The Bondage of the Will, "Again, since the law is the power of sin [I Cor. 15:56] in that it serves only to reveal and not to remove sin, it makes the conscience guilty before God, and threatens it with wrath. That is what Paul means when he says: “The law brings wrath” [Rom. 4:15]. How, then, could there be any possibility of attaining righteousness through the law?" [LW 33:271]. Or as he states elsewhere,

The Law cannot restore the soul, for it is a Word that makes demands on us and commands us that we shall love God with all our hearts, etc., and our neighbors as ourselves (Matt. 22:37, 39). It damns him that does otherwise and pronounces this sentence upon him (Gal. 3:10; Deut. 27:26): “Cursed be everyone who does not do all the things written in the Book of the Law.” Now, it is certain that nobody on earth does that; therefore the Law comes in due time with its sentence and only grieves and frightens the souls. Where no help is provided, it presses them so that they must despair and be lost forever. St. Paul therefore says (Rom. 3:20): “By the Law comes only knowledge of sin,” and (Rom. 4:15): “The Law brings only wrath” [LW 12:164].

I would certainly be interested in any Roman Catholic explaining why the way Luther rendered the verse changes its sense (as Father O'Hare argues).  In the context of Romans 4, the Law certainly is bringing only wrath. Perhaps it's because Father O'Hare believed the works of the law aid justification. If that's the case, Luther responds:

Paul excludes all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God's law and word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in justification. Rather, Abraham was justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in Chapter 4: "If Abraham were justified by works, he may boast, but not before God." So, when all works are so completely rejected — which must mean faith alone justifies — whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works will have to say "Faith alone justifies and not works." The matter itself and the nature of language requires it.

"But," they say, "it has an objectionable tone, and people infer from it that they need not do any good works." Dear me, what are we to say? Is it not much more offensive when Paul himself, while not using the term "faith alone," spells it out even more bluntly, putting the finishing touches on it by saying "Without the works of the Law?" And in Galatians 1 (as well as in many other places) he says "not by works of the law." The expression "faith alone" may perhaps be glossed over somehow, but the phrase "without the works of the law" is so blunt, offensive, and scandalous that no amount of interpretation can help it. How much more might people learn from this that "they need not do any good works," when they hear this teaching about the works themselves stated in such a clear strong way: "No works", "without works", "not by works"! If it is not offensive to preach "without works," "not by works," "no works," why is it offensive to preach "by faith alone"?

Still more offensive is that Paul does not reject just ordinary works, but works of the law! One could easily take offense at that all the more and say that the law is condemned and cursed before God, and so we should be doing nothing but what is against the law, as it is said in Romans 3: "Why not do evil so that there might be more good?" This is what one Rottengeist of our time began to do. Should we reject Paul's word because of such "offense" or refrain from speaking freely about faith? Dear me, Saint Paul and I want to offend like this, for we preach so strongly against works and insist upon faith alone just so that people will be offended, stumble and fall, that they may learn that they are not saved by good works but only by Christ's death and resurrection. Knowing that they cannot be saved by their good works of the law, how much more will they realize that they shall not be saved by bad works, or without the law! Therefore, it does not follow that because good works do not help, bad works will; just as it does not follow that because the sun cannot help a blind man to see, the night and darkness must help him to see.

I am amazed that anyone can object to something as evident as this. Just tell me: Is Christ's death and resurrection our work, that we do, or not? Of course it is not our work, nor is it the work of any law. Now it is Christ's death and resurrection alone which saves and frees us from sin, as Paul writes in Romans 4: "He died for our sins and rose for our justification." Tell me, further: What is the work by which we take hold of Christ's death and resurrection? It cannot be any external work, but only the eternal faith that is in the heart. Faith alone, indeed all alone, wihtout any works, takes hold of this death and resurrection when it is preached through the gospel. Then why all this ranting and raving, this making of heretics and burning them at the stake, when it is clear at its very core that faith alone takes hold of Christ's death and resurrection, without any works, and that his death and resurrection are our life and righteousness? As this fact is so obvious, that faith alone conveys, grasps, and imparts this life and righteousness — why should we not say so? It is not heretical to believe that faith alone lays hold on Christ and gives life; and yet it seems to be heresy if someone mentions it. Are they not insane, foolish and absurd? They will admit that it is right but they brand the telling of it as wrong, though nothing can be simultaneously right and wrong.

Historical Developments that led to the eclipsing of the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone

James Swan had linked to this book on Purgatory and I recently received it in the mail and it is really interesting and helpful in getting a handle on how this unbiblical doctrine developed in church history.
(see under point 5)

The biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone was eventually neglected, over-shadowed, and eclipsed by the slow development of other unbiblical doctrines and doctrines.

It (Justification by grace through faith alone) appears at times in the writings of early Christians and early church fathers; but because some of these others things (listed below) were also developing at the same time, and sometimes some early church writers were inconsistent in seeming to affirm the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and also some of the other things listed below; this is one of the great reasons for why it is so hard and complicated to figure out what the early church believed about the doctrine after the Biblical era, and until Wycliffe, Hus, and Luther questioned these things.

1.  The Mono-Episcopate:  Biblical elders of a plurality of leaders was changed into taking one of the gifted elders out of the college and making him the sole bishop over the other elders in a church; then, later, in an entire area/city.  We can see that elders and bishops were interchangeable in the NT and in the earliest extra-canonical writing 1 Clement (96 AD), the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas.  Then, later we see a change in Ignatius (107-117 AD) and then Cyprian (around 250 AD) takes it further, and beyond in history.  see here for an Evangelical Introduction to church history part 1; and then, Part 2 here, that fleshes it all out.   But even Ignatius knows he does not have authority like an apostle.  (see his epistle to the Magnesians, epistle to the Trallians paragraph 3, verse 3, Ignatius to the Romans, paragraph 4, verse 3, and Ignatius to the Ephesians, paragraph 3, verse 1.  See also here, John Bugay has many excellent articles on this issue here and at Triablogue.   Even Cyprian, though he championed the ideas of the mono-episcopate of a local area, and that "the bishop is the church"; even he, did not agree that the bishop in Rome was the bishop of bishops.  He and 86 other bishops from all over the Christian world at the time, clearly stood against Stephen, the bishop of Rome at the time, in 258 AD.   Much later, the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome seems to have taken off some by Leo 1 in 440 AD, and then even more from Gregory the Great in 601 AD onward.  After Gregory the Great the power of the bishop of Rome kept developing, reaching a high mark of arrogance and false doctrine in Boniface VIII's statement in 1302 in the document, Unam Sanctum, ("It is necessary for every human creature to be in submission to the Roman Pontiff for salvation."); to the arrogance of Pius IX with "I am the tradition"; thus eventually developed into the Papal doctrines and dogma of infallibility in 1870.

2.  Baptismal Regeneration:  NT baptism as an outward evidence and sign/symbol of repentance and faith, an inward reality of regeneration/being born again/union with Christ by faith and repentance was changed into having power to actually cause one to be born again and regenerated. (baptismal regeneration)  The debate and discussion on that issue is still going strong in the com boxes here. 

3.  Penance:  Internal Repentance in the NT was changed into an outward penance, the work of satisfaction that one was assigned to do by a priest after confession.  William Webster has an excellent article on this the combines a lot of the other points also.    This was the first point of protest by Martin Luther in his 95 theses.  Later penance was developed along with private confession to a priest along with purgatory and then, with the treasury of merit of the saints into indulgences which really "took off" during the Crusades and was the spark that started Martin Luther questioning the Roman Catholic Church in 1517.

Addendum:  (January 3, 2014) - John Bugay made an excellent addition in the com box (on Aug. 15, 2012) to this issue on how the Latin mis-translation of the Greek word for repentance affected subsequent theology and church history. 

4.  Private Confession of sins to the priest for forgiveness:  Biblical confession of sin (1 John 1:9; James 5:16), and public confession of serious sin, developed into private confession of sins to a priest.  See also William Webster's article under point # 3.  Later, ex opere operato powers were given to the priests after the Donatist controversy.

5.  Purgatory - The idea of some kind of after death purging and cleansing was developed into Purgatory, starting with Clement of Alexandria and Origen and developing more after Augustine, especially by Gregory the bishop of Rome in 601 AD. See -
The Birth of Purgatory, by Jacques Le Goff. 

 James Swan has earlier linked to an excellent book called The Birth of Purgatory by Jacques Le Goff.   (Scroll down in this "Resources on Roman Catholicism" blog article)

6.  A NT office of priests.  This was wrong, as there is no NT office of "priest" in the local church.  None.  Jesus is our high priest.  For the NT church, there are
a. elders/overseers (same as bishops)/pastors and b.  deacons.  Every believer/saint is a priest to God.  (1 Peter 2:5-10; Revelation 1:6; 5:9-10.)   The word "priest" seems to be first applied to elders and ministers after they started applying OT language of sacrifice in worship to the thanksgiving and worship in the church and at the celebration of the eucharist.  (see # 13)

7.  Categories of mortal sins and venial sins and distinguishing between them. That seems to have started with Tertullian.

8.  Ideas of merit for good works, which is a contradiction to the Biblical teachings on grace.

9.  Gaining merit through Pilgrimages to graves and holy sites.  Simple remembering of martyrs' day of death as a "birthday" (going to heaven) and then venerating their bones (Would Polycarp have approved of such a practice?) , then to pilgrimages and visiting graves of dead saints and praying to them at their graves.

10.  Prayers to dead saints.  Whether at their graves or later, in front of pictures, later the icons, or statues.

11.  Prayers to Mary and the over-exalting of Mary as the greatest mediator, and then later other false dogmas such as Mary's Perpetual Virginity, her sinlessness, her Immaculate Conception(1854), and the Bodily Assumption (1950).  She is called, "co-mediatrix" - a clear contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:5.

12.  Almsgiving as a way of satisfaction for sins, often part of the penance assigned by a priest.

13.  Sacrificial language of the mass.  From using NT language of the sacrifices at the temple (Matthew 5:23-26), combining it with the need to reconcile with brothers before worship (Matthew 18:15-20) and taking the sacrificial language of the prophesy of Malachi 1:11 and applying all of that to the eucharist/Lord's supper in 1 Corinthians 11/Luke 22/Matthew 26. The sacrificial language of the OT (Malachi) and NT (Matthew 5:23-26) was not meant to say that the eucharist would be a sacrifice, but rather an application of OT language to worship/thanksgiving/memorial of Christ's death/celebration in the NT church.

14.   Transubstantiation:  From memorial/spiritual presence of Christ in communion/ eucharist (Biblical) to actual physical presence (Justin Martyr to Radbertus in the 800s) to transubstantiation (developed from the 800s into 1215 AD)

Sometimes the doctrine of justification by faith alone can be discerned in the early church, in the writings of Clement, The Epistle to Diognetes, and Ambrosiaster seem to be really clear references.  Also, later, in the writings of John Chrysostom seems clear, and in others, but they sometimes had some elements of the above practices and doctrines also.  So they were inconsistent.  These 14 practices/doctrines together (and probably with other issues not named here, too) combined to eclipse / hide the doctrine of justification by faith alone, like the moon hiding the sun in an eclipse.   All of these things combined together to over-shadow the doctrine of justification by faith alone over the centuries until Wycliff and Hus and Luther started questioning these things.

Justification and Imputed Righteousness

"Algo" in the combox recently pointed me to some good videos by R. C. Sproul on the issues of Justification and Imputed righteousness vs. Infused righteousness. These videos are good additions to the list of resources on the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone and more resources, and John Piper's sermons below.

1. R. C. Sproul on Justification and Imputed Righteousness

2. R. C. Sproul on Imputed Righteousness vs. Infused Righteousness - Part 1

3. Imputed Righteousness vs. Infused Righteousness - Part 2

The Big Picture of God's Sovereignty, Adam's Sin, Death, and the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to Believers

John Piper demonstrates from Romans 5 and other passages - the big picture of God's Sovereignty, our sinning in Adam, and our only hope of salvation - the Righteousness of the Obedience of Christ; which God graciously imputes to those who receive Christ and all that He is and has done.

"The Fatal Disobedience of Adam and the Triumphant Obedience of Christ"

By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org

A More Detailed Expository Series by John Piper through Romans 5:12-21:

Adam, Christ, and Justification - Part 1

Adam, Christ, and Justification - Part 2

Adam, Christ, and Justification - Part 3

Adam, Christ, and Justification - Part 4

Adam, Christ, and Justification - Part 5

By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org

Other good books on Justification and Imputation

Jesus' Blood and Righteousness: Paul's Theology of Imputation., by Brian Vickers. (Brian Vickers is Assistant Professor of New Testament Interpretation at the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. )

This is an excellent book that I am working through, full of fresh exegetical insights and theological rigor.

I found a review of this book at Reformation 21.

Here is another review; this time by Denny Burk.

This is to add to the list that I put together recently.

Louis pointed out that I should have had John Owen's work on this list. Yes, I need to read that also; and I am sure there are many others, like John Murray and James Buchanan and Francis Turretin and J. V. Fesko.

Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine, by J. V. Fesko

Resources on Justification by faith alone in Christ alone

By no means exhaustive, but here is an introductory list of good books and articles on the subject of the Reformation doctrine of Justification by Faith alone, in Christ alone, apart from the merit and condition of good works. We must always also remember that, "We are justified by faith alone, but true faith never stays alone"; it grows and results in good works and fruit and deeper levels of repentance and change as we grow spiritually. These are books and articles and sermons that have been helpful to me.

The Future of Justification, by John Piper




The God Who Justifies, by James White



The Roman Catholic Controversy, by James White



Faith Alone, by R. C. Sproul



Getting the Gospel Right, by R. C. Sproul



Counted Righteous in Christ, by John Piper



Justification in Perspective, Bruce McCormack, editor

Nick Needham has a chapter in this book (above) on "Justification in the Early Church Fathers"
and
David Wright has a chapter on "Justification in Augustine"
and
Anthony Lane has a chapter on the Regensburg attempt for RCs and Protestants to solve their differences over Justification (1541) and Trent's unfortunate dogmatic response. (1546-1547) Entitled, "A Tale of Two Cities: Justification at Regensburg and Trent"
and many other helpful chapters!


Justification by Faith Alone, edited by Don Kistler, Soli Deo Gloria


Sermons on Justification by John Piper



Article with early church father quotes by Turretinfan



Article by Turretinfan Affirming the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone with Scripture passages:



Articles by William Webster



Article of quotes from early church history on Justification by C. Matthew McMahon


Articles on Justification at Monergism.com:


Important Article on Luther and "faith alone" in Romans 3:28, by James Swan


Article by James Swan on Allistar McGrath and Justification:

All the above are helpful to study and imbibe deeply; and the last two were very helpful in counteracting some of the typical Roman Catholic criticisms of the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Addendum: I just found many articles that challenge "The New Perspectives on Paul" ( mostly of E. P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N. T. Wright)

Bernard of Clairvaux and Luther on the Gospel

Who believed in "Luther's version of the Gospel" before Luther? That's the question repeatedly asked by Roman Catholics. According to Romanism, the correct answer is supposed to be "nobody." Here's a switch though, a Roman Catholic scholar is now positively answering this question. Perhaps he's motivated by ecumenical concerns, or perhaps he's actually on to something.

A few months back I posted a two-part review of The Real Luther by Franz Posset (Part one, Part two). Posset is a Roman Catholic Luther scholar. It is Posset's conclusion that "the historical Luther's doctrine of justification is identical with the one of Saint Bernard" (p.127). His argumentation spans many pages. Here's a brief overview. If you're interested, I suggest buying the book. This may be one of the most interesting Luther books I've read in years.

Posset argues that in the Augustinian friary Luther became acquainted the writings of  Bernard of Clairvaux, particularly how Bernard interpreted Paul (p. 93).  Posset begins with Melanchthon's memoirs of Luther:

And [Luther] told that he was often encouraged by the conversations of a certain old man in the Augustinian College at Erphord, to whom when he set forth his worries. He heard the old man discuss much about faith, and he said that he was lead to the Creed, in which it is said, "I believe in the forgiveness of sinners." That old man had interpreted this Article so that it should be believed not only in general, i.e. forgiven by some persons or others, as they believe Demons are forgiven by David or Peter, but that is was a commandment of God that we believe that the sins of individual men are forgiven by us. And he said that this interpretation was confirmed by a saying of Bernard, and then he pointed to a place in his sermon on the Annunciation, where there are these words, But in addition that you might believe also this, that sins are given TO YOU individually, this is the testimony, which the Holy Spirit bestows in your heart, saying, Your sins are forgiven by you. For the Apostle thinks thus, that man is gratuitously justified through faith. [source]

The capitalization of "TO YOU" of the Bernard citation was actually placed there by Melanchthon. Posset notes,

Melanchthon reported that Luther told him that this quotation was Pauline teaching as it is incorporated within Saint Bernard's sermon: "For thus the apostle concludes that 'a person is justified gratis by faith." This is a contraction of Rom. 3:24 and 28. Thus it was the young Luther at Erfurt who was told that this is Saint Bernard's teaching. And, as such this teaching would become Luther's center piece of his "reception of Paul" as it is the central locus of the Apostle's entire Letter to the Romans and as Luther would say later it is the central theological point of all of Scripture. (p. 98)

Posset identifies the Bernard writings in question as Bernard's Sermons on the Annunciation, with an emphasis on  Sermo in annunitiatione domine "Saint Bernard's First Sermon on the Annunciation" (Ann 1).  He states, "Ann 1 is the one text from Bernard's biblical theology that led Luther to what we customarily call his Reformational insight of salvation by grace alone through faith alone" (p. 104). Luther went on to either quote or hint at Bernard more than 500 times (p.94). Posset states:

It remains amazing that contemporary Luther biographies are still being written without ever mentioning the name and significance of Bernard of Clairvaux, or with just a hint at him in passing as if it were a chose negligeable. From now on, Luther biographies, if they want to present the authentic, historical Luther, can be convincing only if the Bernard factor is properly figured in, because the center piece of the historical Luther's doctrine of justification is identical with the one of Saint Bernard. (p. 127).

Posset also notes Melanchthon included a conflated  Bernard quote in his Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

Therefore let pious consciences know that God commands them to believe that they are forgiven freely on account of Christ and not on account of our works. Let them sustain themselves with this command of God against despair and against the terrors of sin and death. Let them know that this position has been extant among the saints in the church since the beginning of the world. For Peter clearly cites the consensus of the prophets, and the writings of the apostles bear witness that they hold the same position. Nor do we lack testimonies from the Fathers. For Bernard says the same thing in words that are not at all obscure: "For it is necessary first to believe that you cannot have forgiveness of sins except through God's indulgence; second, that you cannot claim any good work whatever unless He himself grants it to you; finally, that you cannot merit eternal life by any works of yours, unless it too is given to you gratis [Ann 1.1]; but add to this that you also believe that through him [Christ] your sins are forgiven you [tibi]. This is the testimony that the Holy Spirit gives in your heart [Rom 8:16], saying, `your sins are forgiven you' [Mt 9:5]. For in this way the Apostle concludes that `a person is gratis justified through faith' [Rom 3:24, 281" [Ann 1.3]. Bernard's words wonderfully shed light on our position, because he not only requires that we believe in a general way that sins are remitted through mercy, but he urges that we add personal faith by which we believe that our own sins have been forgiven. Moreover, he teaches us how we may be certain about the forgiveness of sins, namely, when by faith our hearts are uplifted and find rest through the Holy Spirit. What more do our opponents need? Do they still dare to deny that we receive the forgiveness of sins by faith or that faith is a part of repentance? (p. 136-137)

Posset includes a relevant section of Ann 1 in his book, Two-Fold Knowledge: Readings on the Knowledge of Self and the Knowledge of God-Selected & Translated From The Works Of Saint Bernard Of Clairvaux (pp. 118-120):