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?

Some interesting videos and lectures about Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation

Nothing like the scholarly articles of James Swan, . . . but

A Montage of scenes from the 2003 Movie, Luther, starring Joseph Fiennes as Martin Luther.  The Montage begins with the 95 theses in 1517, and goes to the famous speech at the trial of the Diet of Worms in 1521, and ends with text about Luther's life after the Augsburg Confession of 1530.



"Luther's Reformation Breakthrough" - lecture by Dr. Ryan Reeves of Gordon-Conwell Seminary.
Professor Reeves calls it a "compression of years" as Luther looks back to recall and recounts the process of working through the "pinching", struggle/anxiety/depression/fear/anger/guilt in his soul (The "Anfechtungen") , to the "tower experience" and prayerful study of the books of Romans and Galatians.



Analysis of the 95 theses.  It was very interesting to me that he had already written earlier (just one month earlier in Sept. of 1517) another document of 97 theses on theological issues ("The Disputation Against Scholasticism").  I didn't know that before.



Dr. Ryan Reeves has a lot of lectures on church history and historical theology, including early church, Medieval, Reformation, and Modern church history.    (at his YouTube channel)

Everyday is Reformation Day here on this blog!

As James Swan mentioned in a recent post, "But everyday is Reformation Day here on this blog" !; and as how I had never seen this debate before, it was very encouraging to watch and listen to this with it's spiritual truth.  For it reminds of Luther's famous statement at the end of his work, The bondage of the Will, in answering Erasmus' The Freedom of the Will. (cited below)

Debate on the Bondage of the Will - James White vs. Steven Blakemore (Professor at Wesley Biblical Seminary)



Several Old Testament passages were cited by Dr. White that point to the enslaved will of man:

Genesis 6:5 "And the LORD saw that the wickedness of man upon the earth was great; and that every intention of the imagination of his heart was only evil continuously." 

The Hebrew of Genesis 6:5 is very graphic and emphatic.

וַיַּרְא יְהוָה כִּי רַבָּה רָעַת הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ וְכָל־יֵצֶר מַחְשְׁבֹת לִבֹּו רַק רַע כָּל־הַיֹּֽום׃

The Farsi translation of Genesis 6:5 is also very graphic and emphatic and captures the depth of depravity of the human heart  - 
و خداوند دید که شرارت انسان بر روی زمین بسیار است، و هر تصور از خیال های دل وی دائماً محض شرارت است

As I teach Iranians (all former Muslims, been doing this in evangelism, discipleship, church ministry, since 1993) the Old Testament, I require them to memorize this key verse on the depravity of man.  It is powerful in its teaching in pointing to the enslaved will of man in sin, as seen by even after the flood, Noah gets drunk and sins (Genesis chapter 9) and even after the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot and his daughters commit serious ugly sins. (Genesis 19) The OT teaches man's depravity in the historical narrative.

It seems Jesus is drawing upon this verse (Genesis 6:5) when He emphasizes the roots of sinful actions come from the heart and the thoughts and imaginations and intentions/motives within the heart - Matthew 5:21-26 (anger and hatred); Matthew 5:27-30 (sexual lustful thoughts and fantasies); Mark 7:20-23 (pride, arrogance, and foolishness are among the sinful attitudes deep in the heart that Mark describes in a much larger list than what Matthew gives us in Matthew 15:19).  The list in Matthew 15:19 is only seven sins, whereas in Mark 7:20-23 there are 13 sins listed.  Don't neglect the gospel according to Mark!  Mark has some very important nuggets of truth that are not in the other 3 more popular gospels.  (For example Mark 1:15 (combining repentance and faith); Mark 9:48 (graphic description of hell) and Mark 11:17 (the emphasis on "the nations"), to cite a few more.)

Jeremiah 13:23  “Can the Ethiopian change his skin
Or the leopard his spots?
Then you also can do good
Who are accustomed to doing evil.

The Hebrew word לִמֻּדֵי  (li-mmedai) that is translated "accustomed to" points to something being trained and taught into and learned over a long period of time - so that it is a ingrained habit.  

The Farsi translation of "accustomed" is very strong.  It is the word, "Mo'taad" (معتاد) which is the word that describes drug addition and unbreakable habits.  Our hearts are addicted to sinning.  This translation is very useful in bringing home the truth of the bondage of the will in teaching Iranians who have come to Christ from an Islamic background.  

Jeremiah 17:9  "The heart is deceitful above all else and desperately sick, who can understand it?"  

From the New Testament, I would add Mark 7:20-23 as another very important passage on this issue of sin deep within the heart of mankind.  

Luther to Erasmus:  “I praise and commend you highly for this also, that unlike all the rest you alone have attacked the real issue, the essence of the matter in dispute, and have not wearied me with irrelevancies about the papacy, purgatory, indulgences, and such like trifles (for trifles they are rather than basic issues), with which almost everyone hitherto has gone hunting for me without success. You and you alone have seen the question on which everything hinges, and have aimed at the vital spot; for which I sincerely thank you, since I am only too glad to give as much attention to this subject as time and leisure permit.”  (The Bondage of the Will, 1525; answer to Erasmus' The Freedom of the Will, 1524)

Source: Luther’s Works, 33:294.  See also here in a different translation.

For Luther to call the issues of the papacy, purgatory, and indulgences trifles compared to the bondage of the will and to point out not only the necessity of grace but the sufficiency of Grace in order to be saved, was really saying something major, since Luther wrote a lot of other things against the papacy and indulgences and purgatory!  This shows how important this issue is - "the vital spot".  As others have said, "the main issue of the Reformation" - the sufficiency of grace - that grace alone monergistically causes one to become born again/alive to God and that same grace carries us all the way in justification and perseverance and sanctification until death.  

We see the doctrine of election and justification combined in Romans 8:33-34, and that Christ's intecession for us at the right hand of God keeps us in Him against the accusations of Satan when we sin.  His grace keeps us and the reality of continual repentance and brokeness when we sin proves our faith was real and our justification was God's grace and we are constantly rejoicing in the finished work of Christ for us!  

"Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us."  Romans 8:33-34

Luther was very insightful. He wrote that the issue of the bondage of the will in sin, man’s inability to choose good over evil, without the grace of God, was the main root issue of the Reformation and he thanked Erasmus for focusing in on that.

Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, he who commits sin is the slave of sin.” John 8:34

The root of one act of sin shows that we are slaves to sinning, which speaks to the will within man - the will is enslaved to only do what we want to do, which is to sin.  Even good works are tainted with evil motives of selfishness and pride.  "according to it's lusts and desires"  

John 8:43  "Why do you not understand what I am saying?  It is because you cannot hear My word."    This "cannot" speaks of the inability of the human mind to understand apart from regeneration, which causes the will to be able to then respond in repentance and faith. 

John 8:47  "He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God."    One must be "of God" first, before they are able to hear spiritually in the heart.

Romans 6:22 – “but now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God . . . ”  The will is only freed up to be able to choose rightly after regeneration.  See Romans 6:6-7 - "that we should no longer be slaves to sin"

We do not have free will ability to choose or do good without the grace of God. We do have natural human freedom of choice in that we are free to choose as we want to choose; but the question that gets to the root of that issue even deeper is “what does man naturally want, without the grace of God in regeneration?"

James White's book, The Potter's Freedom, in answering Norman Geisler, and which Geisler has never answered; also shows the relationship of the bondage of man's will with the doctrine of God's total free will. 

Sam Storms' book, Chosen for Life, is probably the best one book I have read on this issue.

See also John Piper's web-site and many books.  search around and there are many sermons and articles on these issues.

Others who also explain these issues well are
John McArthur ("Grace to You") 
and 
R. C. Sproul (Ligonier Ministries). 

Other key verses:

Ephesians 2:1-3 - we were dead in our sins.  Verse 4, "But God . . . made us alive . . ." !

John 3:1-8 - The famous passage about being "born again"; by God's Holy Spirit.  See verse 8, we hear the sound of the wind, but do not see it and cannot tell where it comes from and where it is going - it is mysterious in that sense.  It is invisible, unseen.  The new birth, when God converts the soul on the inside, by His Holy Spirit, is mysterious in that we cannot see Him, and we cannot control Him or when or how that work that the Spirit does, comes about.  What we know is that when a person genuinely repents and trusts Christ, and there are results of a changed life and attitudes, that is evidence that God has worked that in their hearts on the inside.

Titus 3:3-5

Ezekiel 36:26-27 - God has to give us a new heart and new spirit.  Only God can take away our rocky and stony hard heart. 

Acts 16:14  "The Lord opened Lydia's heart to respond to the things spoken to her by Paul."  

John 6:44  "No one is able to come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him."

John 6:65  

Romans 8:7-8 - "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."  - "not able to do so" -  there is the concept of inability again.  

Dr. White did an excellent job of responding to Dr. Blakemore's seeming attempt to take the debate more away from the bondage of the will to Predestination, Election, the decrees of God, supralapsianism and infralapsarianism, and Particular Atonement. I am always impressed with his keen sharpness and readiness and ability to respond to his opponents in debate.  I appreciated how Dr. White showed the freedom of God's will, the He is sovereign and does what He pleases for His glory, based on His holiness, and that He demonstrates His holiness (Isaiah 6) and wrath against sin (Romans 9:22-24).  God demonstrates the fullness of all His attributes, not only His love.  (Romans 5:8, 1 John 4:8) 

Dr. White's answers to Dr. Blakemore show how the different aspects of Calvinism all relate to each other, and that they are intimately connected.  

The debate is also here, the 6th debate down. 

Indeed, the issue of the bondage of the sinful human will vs. the freedom of the human will is the "vital spot" of the Reformation.  This was the background behind the phrase, Sola Gratia - "by Grace alone"!

Piper on Luther (also Augustine and Calvin)

In the spirit of celebrating the upcoming Protestant Reformation -
John Piper's excellent message/lecture on Martin Luther: "Lessons from his life and labor".
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/biographies/martin-luther-lessons-from-his-life-and-labor

This became one of the chapters in his book, The Legacy of Sovereign Joy, on Augustine, Luther, and Calvin.  This is an excellent book on introducing the main issues with the lives and significance of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin.

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/books/the-legacy-of-sovereign-joy

see also Piper's lecture on Augustine: The Swan is not Silent.

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/biographies/the-swan-is-not-silent

Piper's lecture/message on John Calvin: The Divine Majesty of the Word. 
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/biographies/the-divine-majesty-of-the-word

Searching For the Real Martin Luther in the Movies

It's that time of year in which articles trickle out about the Reformation. A recent offering comes from David Steinmetz: Searching For the Real Martin Luther. The article focuses on the three major films about Luther. Most of you  are probably aware of the 1953 movie and the more recent 2003 version with Joseph Fiennes. There is though a third movie from the early 1970's. Steinmetz rightly points out that none of these movies captured the real Luther. In fact, if you were to watch all three back to back, you'd see three different Luther's.

 Of the three movies, the worst (in my opinion) is the early 70's film. For those of you with Netflix, you can stream it online. The movie is based on John Osborne's play. Osborne relied heavily on Erik Erikson's Young Man Luther, so this film (like the earlier play) attempts to capture Erikson's slant on the psychology of Luther. Osborne's play was taken apart some years earlier by Gordon Rupp: "John Osborne and the Historical Luther" (The Expository Times 1962; 73; 147). That article is worth tracking down and reviewing previous to watching the early 70's film. The last time I attempted to watch this film, I shut it off about half way through due to its interpretation of Luther.

The quintessential Luther movie is yet to be made. For those of you who plan on showing any of these movies at your church or youth group, etc. you need to keep in mind that these films are interpretations history. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. I know the 2003 film is shown in churches. I suggest at least taking a peak at these reviews.

In Catholic theological anthropology, human nature is not selfish or sinful; human nature is good

Here's an entry that was provoked by a recent Called To Communion statement: "In Catholic theological anthropology, human nature is not selfish or sinful; human nature is good." Such a statement shouldn't be taken lightly. What exactly is meant? Are the CTC folks espousing Pelagianism?  Scott Hahn's Catholic Bible Dictionary does an adequate job of fleshing out this type of Romanist statement:

The phrase "Adam lost for himself and all succeeding generations the supernatural gift of sanctifying grace" should jump out immediately. Note the explanation given by A.A. Hodge:

17. What is the Romish doctrine with respect to thedona naturalia , and thedona supernaturalia ?

1st. They hold that God endowed man at his creation with the dona naturalia, that is, with all the natural constitutional powers and faculties of body and soul without sin, in perfect innocence. There was no vice or defect in either body or soul.

2nd. God duly attempered all these powers to one another, placing the lower in due subordination to the higher. This harmony of powers was called Justicia —natural righteousness.

3rd. There was, however, in the very nature of things, a natural tendency in the lower appetites and passions to rebel against the authority of the higher powers of reason and conscience. This tendency is not sin in itself; but becomes sin only when it is consented to by the will, and passes into voluntary action. This is concupiscence(a strong desire); not sin, but the fuel and occasion of sin.

4th. To prevent this natural tendency to disorder from the rebellion of the lower elements of the human constitution against the higher, God granted man the additional gift of the dona superanaturalia, or gifts extra constitutional. This is original righteousness, which was a foreign gift superadded to his constitution, by means of which his natural powers duly attempered are kept in due subjection and order. Some of their theologians held that these supernatural gifts were bestowed upon man immediately upon his creation, at the same time with his natural powers. The more prevalent and consistent view, however, is that it was given subsequently as a reward for the proper use of his natural powers see Moehler’s “Symbolism,” pp. 117, 118.

5th. Both the “justicia,” and the “dona supernaturalia ” were accidental or superadded properties of human nature, and were lost by the fall.

18. How does this doctrine modify their view as to original sin and the moral character of that concupiscence which remains in the regenerate?

They hold that man lost at the fall only the superadded gifts of “original righteousness” ( dona supernaturalia), while the proper nature of man itself, the dona naturalia, comprising all his constitutional faculties of reason, conscience, free will (in which they include “moral ability”), remain intact. Thus they make the effect of the fall upon man’s moral nature purely negative. The Reformers defined it “the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of the whole nature.”

Hence, also, they hold that concupiscence, or the tendency to rebellion of the lower against the higher powers remaining in the regenerate, being natural and incidental to the very constitution of human nature, is not of the nature of sin.

Luther wrote on the scholastic distinction between the naturalia (which remained after the Fall), and the donum superadditum of grace (which was withdrawn and had to be restored by God):

The scholastic statement that “the natural powers are unimpaired” is a horrible blasphemy, though it is even more horrible when they say the same about demons. If the natural powers are unimpaired, what need is there of Christ? If by nature man has good will; if he has true understanding to which, as they say, the will can naturally conform itself; what is it, then, that was lost in Paradise through sin and that had to be restored through the Son of God alone? Yet in our day, men who seem to be masters of theology defend the statement that the natural powers are unimpaired, that is, that the will is good. Even though through malice it occasionally wills and thinks something besides what is right and good, they attribute this to the malice of men, not to the will as it is in itself. The mind must be fortified against these dangerous opinions, lest the knowledge of grace be obscured; this cannot remain sound and right if we believe this way about the nature of man. Nor can this scholastic teaching be tolerated in the church: that man can keep the Law according to the substance of the act, but not according to the intention of Him who commanded it, since according to His intention not only the work is required, but also a disposition in the heart which is called grace. This would be just like saying that a man who is sound in hands and feet can properly do his job, except that he is hindered by not being dressed in black or white clothes. In exactly the same way they say that God requires something beyond the Decalog and is not satisfied when someone keeps the Decalog, but requires a right disposition as well. All these monstrosities have arisen from the fact that they do not rightly know the nature of sin. I have listed them to show the great difference between our sound doctrine and the monstrous and deceptive doctrine of the pope.[LW 12:308]

The scholastics argue that original righteousness was not a part of man’s nature but, like some adornment, was added to man as a gift, as when someone places a wreath on a pretty girl. The wreath is certainly not a part of the virgin’s nature; it is something apart from her nature. It came from outside and can be removed again without any injury to her nature. Therefore they maintain about man and about demons that although they have lost their original righteousness, their natural endowments have nevertheless remained pure, just as they were created in the beginning. But this idea must be shunned like poison, for it minimizes original sin.

Let us rather maintain that righteousness was not a gift which came from without, separate from man’s nature, but that it was truly part of his nature, so that it was Adam’s nature to love God, to believe God, to know God, etc. These things were just as natural for Adam as it is natural for the eyes to receive light. But because you may correctly say that nature has been damaged if you render an eye defective by inflicting a wound, so, after man has fallen from righteousness into sin, it is correct and truthful to say that our natural endowments are not perfect but are corrupted by sin. For just as it is the nature of the eye to see, so it was the nature of reason and will in Adam to know God, to trust God, and to fear God. Since it is a fact that this has now been lost, who is so foolish as to say that our natural endowments are still perfect? And yet nothing was more common and received more general acceptance in the schools than this thesis. But how much more foolish it is to make this assertion about the demons, about whom Christ says that they did not stand in the truth (John 8:44) and whom we know to be the bitterest enemies of Christ and of the church!

Therefore the perfect natural endowments in man were the knowledge of God, faith, fear, etc. These Satan has corrupted through sin; just as leprosy poisons the flesh, so the will and reason have become depraved through sin, and man not only does not love God any longer but flees from Him, hates Him, and desires to be and live without Him. [LW 1:164-165]

Seeking a Name For Ourselves

I recently listened to a twenty minute lecture by Carl Trueman titled "What Was Luther Doing on Reformation Sunday?" The lecture is a deeply practical and critically introspective application of 1 Timothy 1:1-11 to the motivations of the heart--to the reasons we seek to study theology. Trueman utilizes the passage from 1 Timothy as a sort of lens to interpret the motivations of Tetzel for selling indulgences, applying it as well to modern televangelists, bloggers and, last of all, seminarians. Why do we study theology? Is it to advance the Kingdom of God in humility? Or is it to increase our power and influence? If it is merely to increase our power and influence, then we might very well find ourselves defending whatever arguments are most convenient to this end.

While not explicitly mentioned in the lecture, Trueman's analysis supplies a possible answer to a question regularly enough posed in the combox of this blog--why do some Protestants, with degrees, grounding in Reformed theology, etc., decide to convert to Catholicism? Some, it seems, desire power and influence more than they desire to serve the truth. A sensational conversion to Catholicism provides a kind of celebrity, authority and prominence unavailable to those who quietly and obscurely serve the Lord in a Protestant church. And certainly this temptation is both apparent and increased given the celebration of "conversion stories" in modern Catholic apologetics.

Such an application of Trueman's analysis cannot be granted in the case of each and every convert, for the circumstances vary, often greatly, from individual to individual. But it certainly explains why at least some turn from the truth of the Gospel.

The talk is available for free through iTunes U. If it is not obvious already, I highly recommend it.