Luther on Repentance and the importance of the study of the original languages of Scripture

I missed this video by Dr. Rob Plummer (Professor of Greek and New Testament at Southern Seminary) on Oct. 31, 2015, but just saw it yesterday, and thought it worth posting.  It is a good reminder of the importance of the Greek word for repentance instead of the Latin, which was wrongly translated and contributed to the wrong understanding of repentance in the middle ages as "do penance", which grew into an emphasis and a focus on the external outward act or ritual that one had to do that the priest would assign, in order to gain satisfaction for full forgiveness.

Dr. Plummer goes over the first three of the 95 theses and how important that is, regarding true repentance.  True inward repentance results in fruit and good works and, as Luther says,  results in "various mortifications of the flesh".  (see Acts 26:20; Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10)

The "mortifications of the flesh" was a convicting comment, in light of the ongoing battles against "remaining sin" (James 1:19-21) like sinful anger, lust, gluttony, laziness, pride, complaining, worry, sinful fears, etc. (see Colossians 3:5; Romans 8:13; and 1 Corinthians 9:27)



Dr. Plummer's videos of "The Daily Dose of Greek" are very good for reminders; and helping those of us who had NT Greek in seminary, but have become rusty by not being in it so much every day.  I was keeping up with this in 1 John and Mark off and on pretty good until the last 3 months.  Life is like that; the Lord is good to give opportunities and grace, so we can start back again in our desires for good disciplines.

The quote that Dr. Plummer cites from Luther about the importance of the original languages - I remember reading that somewhere.  Dr. Plummer does not cite the source, but I found some references to it in John Piper's book, The Legacy of Sovereign Joy, (about Augustine, Luther, and Calvin), on page 97, (which I highly recommend), and he cites that as coming from W. Carlos Martyn, The Life and Times of Martin Luther, 1866, pp. 474-475.  (It is a slightly different translation from the one that Dr. Plummer cites.)  Maybe James Swan has cited this before or done an article on this before; I did not search a lot, but some, and could not find it here.

I found the 1866 W. Carlos Martyn book The Life and Times of Martin Luther, here.

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)

The Books Luther Recommended

I came across an interesting blog post about which books Martin Luther recommended.  The post gave some helpful secondary source information. Here's what Luther said (or is purported to have said) based on the secondary references given in the blog entry:

Regarding [the plan] to collect my writings in volumes, I am quite cool and not at all eager about it because, roused by a Saturnian hunger, I would rather see them all devoured. For I acknowledge none of them to be really a book of mine, except perhaps the one On the Bound Will and the Catechism. (LW 50:172-173)

If anybody wishes to become a theologian, he has a great advantage, first of all, in having the Bible. This is now so clear that he can read it without any trouble. Afterward he should read Philip’s Loci Communes. This he should read diligently and well, until he has its contents fixed in his head. If he has these two he is a theologian, and neither the devil nor a heretic can shake him. The whole of theology is open to him, and afterward he can read whatever he wishes for edification. If he wishes, he can read, in addition, Melanchthon’s Romans71 and my Galatians and Deuteronomy. These will give him the art of speaking and a copious vocabulary. “There’s no book under the sun in which the whole of theology is so compactly presented as in the Loci Communes. If you read all the fathers and sententiaries you have nothing. No better book has been written after the Holy Scriptures than Philip’s. He expresses himself more concisely than I do when he argues and instructs. I’m garrulous and more rhetorical. “If my advice were taken, only the books of mine that contain doctrine would be printed, such as my Galatians, Deuteronomy, and John. The rest [of my books] should be read merely for the history, in order to see how it all began, for it was not so easy at first as it is now.” (LW 54:439-440 Tabletalk) 

Indeed, you say so much less, and attribute so much more to free choice than the Sophists have hitherto done (a point on which I shall have more to say later) that it really seemed superfluous to answer the arguments you use. They have been refuted already so often by me, and beaten down and completely pulverized in Philip Melanchthon’s Commonplaces—an unanswerable little book which in my judgment deserves not only to be immortalized but even canonized. Compared with it, your book struck me as so cheap and paltry that I felt profoundly sorry for you, defiling as you were your very elegant and ingenious style with such trash, and quite disgusted at the utterly unworthy matter that was being conveyed in such rich ornaments of eloquence, like refuse or ordure being carried in gold and silver vases. (LW 33:16)

Luther praised the fables of Aesop highly: “They are worthy of translation and of being put into a proper order and arrangement. It is not a book that was written by one man only, but it was diligently assembled by many men in different centuries. It would be very useful therefore if somebody would translate the book well and put it into proper order. The important fables that are pithy, smack of antiquity, and are useful to the commonwealth ought to be gathered into a first book; then those that are more elegant ought to be placed apart in a second book, and the rest ought to be reserved for a third. “It is a result of God’s providence that the writings of Cato and Aesop have remained in the schools, for both are significant books. Cato contains the most useful sayings and precepts. Aesop contains the most delightful stories and descriptions. Moral teachings, if offered to young people, will contribute much to their edification. In short, next to the Bible the writings of Cato and Aesop are in my opinion the best, better than the mangled utterances of all the philosophers and jurists, just as Donatus is the best grammarian.” (LW 54:210-211, Tabletalk)

While all these are interesting to see what Luther valued (there are probably more comments like this), this comment was not referenced by the blog post, and I think it's the most telling. Looking over his life's work, Luther said:

“I would have been quite content to see my books, one and all, remain in obscurity and go by the board. Among other reasons, I shudder to think of the example I am giving, for I am well aware how little the church has been profited since they have begun to collect many books and large libraries, in addition to and besides the Holy Scriptures, and especially since they have stored up, without discrimination, all sorts of writings by the church fathers, the councils, and teachers. Through this practice not only is precious time lost, which could be used for studying the Scriptures, but in the end the pure knowledge of the divine Word is also lost, so that the Bible lies forgotten in the dust under the bench (as happened to the book of Deuteronomy, in the time of the kings of Judah)…

I cannot, however, prevent them from wanting to collect and publish my works through the press (small honor to me), although it is not my will. I have no choice but to let them risk the labor and the expense of this project. My consolation is that, in time, my books will lie forgotten in the dust anyhow, especially if I (by God’s grace) have written anything good. Non ere melior Patribus meis.  He who comes second should indeed be the first one forgotten. Inasmuch as they have been capable of leaving the Bible itself lying under the bench, and have also forgotten the fathers and the councils—the better ones all the faster—accordingly there is a good hope, once the overzealousness of this time has abeted, that my books also will not last long. There is especially good hope of this, since it has begun to rain and snow books and teachers, many of which already lie there forgotten and moldering. Even their names are not remembered any more, despite their confident hope that they would eternally be on sale in the market and rule churches.” (LW 34:283-284).

Where Are Luther's Miracles?

To the left: "The "Incombustible Luther" of 1689. A number of printed images of Luther were thought to be impervious to destruction by fire. This one was found in the house where Luther had been born after it was badly damaged by fire in 1689. The earliest examples of the belief in incombustible Luther images date back to the earliest years of the Reformation. They are testimony both to the profound influence of the Reformation on the image culture of the late Middle Ages and to the persistence of pre-Reformation beliefs and religious practices in Protestant lands (source)."

Where are the Miracles of Luther?
Over on the Catholic Answers forums someone asked this about Luther, "Where are his miracles? Where are the miracles of any person who set up a Church against the True Church?”

This is an argument that has been used by the defenders of Rome for quite a long time (I've tackled it before: Hey Reformers: Got Miracles? If Not, You Were Not Called By God). The argument is old. For example, Francis de Sales made the argument in The Catholic Controversy. A 1622 pamphlet Lutheri Manes, das ist D. Martin Luthers abgeleibter Geist Amno raised the issue to confront the 1617 celebration of Luther. Here's an interesting excerpt from the late 1800's:

At the time of Martin Luther, a certain man, named William, was drowned. Luther was requested to raise him again to life as a proof of the truth of his doctrine. He commanded him repeatedly to rise from the dead. It was all in vain. (Bredenbach, L. vii., c. 1.) Calvin wished to prove the truth of his doctrine by a miracle. So he begged a man to feign death and have himself carried as a corpse to the church, and then rise at his bidding, so that the people might believe he had been raised again to life by the prayer of Calvin, as a proof of the truth of his doctrine. That man complied with Calvin's request. He was carried to the church, apparently dead. Calvin approached the coffin and said in a loud voice: I command you to rise in the name of Christ, whose Gospel I preach. But alas! the man never arose again. He was dead. God had punished him, and by the sudden death of this deceiver God manifested his detestation of Calvin's heresies, and the truth of the Catholic religion. (Franc-Torrianus, L. i. De Dogmatibus.) Thus Almighty God has never permitted, and will never permit, a real miracle in confirmation of an heretical doctrine; should he bestow the gift of miracles even on an impious man, yet he will never permit him to use this gift in confirmation of a false doctrine. Were god to perform a real miracle in support of an heretical doctrine he would thereby lead the people into error, and become guilty of the sin of wilful lying and deception.

In more recent times, one can find things like this traditionalist website that goes into great detail with this argument (using deSales): ProtestantErrors.com.  And finally, here's a modern example from pop-Roman defender Taylor Marshall:

You can start with Martin Luther. Did Luther perform any miracles? Did he make prophecies that came to pass. No, not at all. Yet at the same time period, the miracle of Our Lady of Guadalupe (a public miracle) did occur to St Juan Diego and millions of Aztecs. Also during this time period, the Catholic missionary Saint Francis Xavier was miraculously preaching to the people of India, Indonesia, etc. in their native tongues without study.


The Miracles of Luther?
Interestingly, there is actually a tradition of alleged miracles and prophecies attributed to Luther. For an intriguing study of this, see: R.W. Scribner, Popular Culture and Popular Movements in Reformation Germany (London: The Hambledon Press, 1987). Chapter 15 is entitled, "Incombustible Luther: the Image of the Reformer in Early Modern Germany" (Much of this chapter is available via a free preview, but reading the chapter in its entirety is well worth it).

Scribner points out that the quality of incombustibility is rooted in the Roman cult of the saints myths (Scribner, 328). The notion of the incombustible Luther comes from 18th century stories of multiple fires in the 17th Century in which paintings of Luther were found in the ashes intact and unharmed. The actual genesis of Luther and fire appears to go back to a pamphlet from 1521 (Scribner, 324), and it picked up various other Luther miracles as the years progressed.  Scribner mentions that in 1583 Antonius Probus made the very argument our friend from Catholic Answers is making, that "God did not send great prophets and doctors of the church unless miracles accompanied them" (Scribner, 336), and then Scribner documents a number of 17th Century miraculous Luther stories (Scribner, 336-338).  Scribner also mentions that seven years before Probus, Johann Lapaeus produced a list of Luther's prophecies and miracles (Scribner, 349).

No, I don't believe the miracles attributed to Luther are true, but it is a fascinating, if not funny study. There are guidelines set up as to how to become a saint in Romanism, so perhaps if someone wanted to play with Rome's rules, you could make a case for Luther. Rome's defenders have a seemingly countless number of official and unofficial miracles, so someone with creativity could argue for the beatification of Saint Luther. The flaw though in going in this direction is that it assumes Rome's worldview is true.

I'm always a bit surprised when this argument is raised because based on the criteria of miracle = "sent by God", there are a fair amount of Pentecostal folks that are more than willing to claim they have the credentials required. Then also there's the problem that those who substantiate their message with an alleged miracle include non-Christian religions. Let us never forget the sobering words of  Matthew 7:21-23:

21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.

But if someone really wanted to turn the tables on Rome's argument, place the argument in a Protestant, Biblical, and sola scriptura worldview. Yes, miracles certainly proved the divine message of the Biblical authors. Keep in mind though, the magisterial reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.), did not believe they were receiving new revelation from God. Rather, they believed they were testifying to what was in the Bible. If you were to ask them "where are your miracles to prove your message?" A good way for them to respond would be to say: "Between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21."

Luther's Test
What's interesting to me about all this is Luther and the early magisterial Reformers faced a very similar problem with a dissident group of people they called the Schwärmer. These were the radicals that were made up of the peasants, Anabaptists, spiritualists, and all the others that couldn't be classified as papists or Lutherans. Early in the 1520's, Luther and the Wittenbergers came into conflict with some men claiming to be modern-day prophets, known as the Zwickau Prophets. What characterized these men was that the authority of Scripture was second to their private revelations from the Holy Spirit. Their subjective experience trumped the testimony of the scriptures, and it was no wonder to Luther that their ideas led to societal and political unrest and rebellion.

There was a difference between the Reformers and those like the  Zwickau Prophets- the Reformers found their doctrines in the Scriptures, relying on exegesis and devout study. The modern-day prophets came with a message not from the Scriptures, but from the inner revelation of the Holy Spirit. In fact, when Luther discussed these prophets via correspondence with Melanchthon, he asked the same question about their miracles... did they have them to establish their new revelation? He also wanted to know that if they really were prophets in the Biblical sense, did they demonstrate the fear and suffering similar to what the Biblical prophets experienced?:

Now let me deal with the “prophets.” Before I say anything else, I do not approve of your timidity, since you are stronger in spirit and learning than I. First of all, since they bear witness to themselves, one need not immediately accept them; according to John’s counsel, the spirits are to be tested. If you cannot test them, then you have the advice of Gamaliel that you postpone judgment. Thus far I hear of nothing said or done by them that Satan could not also do or imitate. Yet find out for me whether they can prove [that they are called by God], for God has never sent anyone, not even the Son himself, unless he was called through men or attested by signs. In the old days the prophets had their authority from the Law and the prophetic order, as we now receive authority through men. I definitely do not want the “prophets” to be accepted if they state that they were called by mere revelation, since God did not even wish to speak to Samuel except through the authority and knowledge of Eli. This is the first thing that belongs to teaching in public.

In order to explore their individual spirit, too, you should inquire whether they have experienced spiritual distress and the divine birth, death, and hell. If you should hear that all [their experiences] are pleasant, quiet, devout (as they say), and spiritual, then don’t approve of them, even if they should say that they were caught up to the third heaven. The sign of the Son of Man is then missing, which is the only touchstone of Christians and a certain differentiator between the spirits. Do you want to know the place, time, and manner of [true] conversations with God? Listen: “Like a lion has he broken all my bones”; “I am cast out from before your eyes”: “My soul is filled with grief, and my life has approached hell.” The [Divine] Majesty (as they call it) does not speak in such a direct way to man that man could [actually] see it; but rather, “Man shall not see me and live.” [Our] nature cannot bear even a small glimmer of God’s [direct] speaking. As a result God speaks through men [indirectly], because not all can endure his speaking. The angel frightened even the Virgin, and also Daniel. And Jeremiah pleads, “Correct me [O Lord] but in just measure,” and, “Be not a terror to me.” Why should I say more? As if the [Divine] Majesty could speak familiarly with the Old Adam without first killing him and drying him out so that his horrible stench would not be so foul, since God is a consuming fire! The dreams and visions of the saints are horrifying, too, at least after they are understood. Therefore examine [them] and do not even listen if they speak of the glorified Jesus, unless you have first heard of the crucified Jesus. (LW 48:365-367)

A few years later writing to Duke John of Saxony Luther stated,

Now it is an especial joy that our followers did not begin this heresy, as the sectaries themselves boast that they did not learn it from us, but directly from Heaven, and that they hear God speak to them immediately as to the angels. It is a simple fact that at Wittenberg only faith, love, and the Cross of Christ are taught. God's voice, they say, you must hear yourself, and suffer and feel God's work in you to know your own weight; aye, they make nothing of the Scripture, which they call "Bible-bubble-Babel." To judge by what they say their cross and passion is greater than Christ's and more to be prized. . . .

Secondly, their boasting about the spirit counts for nothing, for we have the saying of St. John, bidding us "prove the spirits, whether they be of God." Now this spirit has not yet been proved, and goes about with turbulence and makes a disturbance according to his own sweet will. If he were a good spirit he would first humbly submit to be proved and Judged, as does the Spirit of Christ. It would be a fine fruit of the spirit, by which he could be proved, if he did not creep into the corners and flee the light, but would stand out publicly before his enemies and opponents and make his confession and give his answers. But the spirit of Allstedt shuns that sort of thing as the devil shuns the Cross, and yet in his own nest he speaks the most unterrified language, as though he were full of three Holy Ghosts, and this unseemly boasting is a fine proof of who this spirit is. For in his book he offers to make answer in the presence of a harmless assembly, and to stake life and soul upon it, but not in a corner, but in the presence of two or three persons. Tell me, who is this bold and confident Holy Spirit who sets himself such narrow limits and will not appear except before a "harmless assembly," and will not make answer in a corner before two or three persons? What kind of a spirit is that who is afraid of two or three people and cannot endure an assembly that may do him harm? I shall tell you. He smells the roast; he has been with me once or twice in my cloister at Wittenberg and has had his nose punched; so he does not like the soup and will not appear except where his own followers are present who will say Yes to his swelling words. If I, who have no spirit and hear no heavenly voices, had used such words against my papists, how they would have shouted Victory, and stopped my mouth!

In the same letter Luther states that these prophets should submit in a proper manner, even if it's to "the papists":

I have said these things to your Graces, so that your Graces may not be afraid of this spirit or delay action, but enjoin them strictly to refrain from violence and stop their destroying of monasteries and churches and their burning of saints, commanding them, if they wish to prove their spirit, to do so in a proper manner, and first submit to investigation, either by us or by the papists, for, thank God! they consider us worse enemies than the papists.

I'm not going to speculate too much on this comment, other than saying that I think Luther realized these prophets wouldn't submit to anybody's scrutiny, and even if they did get scrutinized by "the papists" they would fail their test as well.

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"!

A Balanced View of Luther's Character

Here is perhaps one of the best short overviews of Luther's character I've ever come across:

There is a great deal about Luther's character and history to call forth admiration and love; while there is also a good deal about him to afford an excuse to those who, from whatever cause, whether as papists or on some other ground, are disposed to regard him with opposite feelings. With many high and noble endowments, both from nature and grace, both of head and heart, which in many respects fitted him admirably for the great work to which he was called, and the important services which he rendered to the church and the world, there were some shortcomings and drawbacks both about his understanding and his temperament; the results and manifestations of which have afforded many plausible handles to his enemies, and have occasioned corresponding annoyance and difficulty to his friends.

Luther occupied a position, and exerted an influence in the history of the church, and altogether manifested a character, well fitted to secure for him the admiration of all who are interested in the advancement of Christian truth, or qualified to appreciate what is noble, magnanimous, fearless, and disinterested. We have abundant evidence of his continuing to retain the common infirmities of human nature, aggravated in some respects by the system in which he had been originally educated, by the condition of society in the age and country in which he lived, and the influences to which, after he commenced the work of Reformation, he was subjected; but we have also the most satisfactory evidence of his deep piety, of his thorough devotedness to God's service, of his habitual walking with God, and living by faith in the promises of His word. No one who surveys Luther's history and writings, and who is capable of forming an estimate of what piety is, can entertain any doubt upon this point.

The leading service which Luther was qualified and enabled to render to the church, in a theological point of view, was the unfolding and establishing the great doctrine of justification, which for many ages had been grossly corrupted and perverted; and bringing the truth upon this subject to bear upon the exposure of many of the abuses, both in theory and practice, that prevailed in the Church of Rome. His engrossment, to a large extent, with this great doctrine, combined with the peculiar character of his mind, led him to view almost every topic chiefly, if not exclusively, in its relation to forgiveness and peace of conscience, to grace and merit; and thus fostered a certain tendency to exaggeration and extravagance in his doctrinal statements. Besides this defect in Luther's theology, giving it something of one-sidedness, he had some features of character which detract from the weight of his statements, and from the deference to which otherwise he might have appeared entitled, and which we feel disposed to accord to such a man as Calvin. He was naturally somewhat prone to indulge in exaggerated and paradoxical statements, to press points too far, and to express them in unnecessarily strong and repulsive terms. And this tendency he sometimes manifests not only in speaking of men and actions, but even in theological discussions. He was not characterised by that exact balance of all the mental powers, by that just and accurate perception of the whole relations and true importance of things, and by that power of carefully and precisely embodying in words just what he himself had deliberately concluded, and nothing more, which, in some men, have so strong a tendency to persuade us to give ourselves up to their guidance, under a sort of intuitive conviction that they will not lead us often or far astray from the paths of truth. In Luther's works, with a great deal to admire, to interest and impress, we often stumble upon statements which remind us that we must be on our guard, that we must exercise our own judgment, and not follow him blindly wherever he may choose to lead us. The leading defects of his character may be said to be,— 1st, The impetuosity of his temperament, leading often to the use of exaggerated and internperate language, both in conversation and in writing; though, as has been frequently and truly remarked, very seldom leading him into injudicious or imprudent actions, amid all the difficulties in which he was involved : and, 2d, A certain species of presumption or self-confidence, which, putting on the garb of better and higher principles, sometimes made him adhere with great obstinacy to erroneous opinions, shutting his understanding against everything that could be brought forward in opposition to them; and made him indulge sometimes in rather ridiculous boasting. The result of all these qualities was, that he has left many statements of an intemperate and exaggerated description; which have afforded a great handle to his enemies, and which, when collected and set off by being presented in isolation from accompanying statements and circumstances, and in combination with each other, are apt to produce a somewhat uncomfortable impression.

And then consider how this extraordinary man, of so peculiar a mental character and general temperament, was tried and tested. He occupied a very singular position, and was subjected to very peculiar influences. He was tried in a very unusual measure, with almost everything fitted to disturb and pervert, to elevate and to depress, with fears and hopes, with dangers and successes. Let it be further remembered, that of this man, who was so constituted and so circumstanced, there have been preserved and published no fewer than about 2300 letters, many of them private and confidenrial effusions to his friends; and that a great deal of his ordinary conversation or table talk has been recorded and transmitted to us, without our having any good evidence of its being accurately reported.

It is surely not to be wondered at that it should be easy to produce many rash, extravagant, inconsistent, and indefensible sayings of Luther. And if, notwithstanding the tests to which he has been subjected, he still stands out as unquestionably a man of high religious principle, of thorough and disinterested devotedness to God's service, and of many noble and elevated qualities,—all which most even of his depredators, except the Popish section of them, will probably concede,—how thoroughly base and despicable is it in any man to be grasping at opportunities of trying to damage his character and influence, by collecting and stringing together (perhaps exaggerating and distorting), his rash and inconsistent, or it may be extravagant and offensive, sentiments and expressions. Papists, of course, are labouring in their proper vocation in trying, per fas aut nefas, to damage Luther's character. Popish controversialists are ever ready to sacrifice conscience, and every manly and honourable feeling, to the interests of the church ; and Tractarians, following in their footsteps, have imbibed a large portion of their spirit.

Free Reformation Celebration Download materials

In case you haven't see these yet:

Free E-Book download of Martin Luther by John Piper
http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/martin-luther-biography-free-ebook

Free Calvin E-books at Desiring God!!
http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/free-calvin-ebooks

Free Audio and Video lectures about Luther and the Reformation by R. C. Sproul  (Only Today)
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/reformation-day-free-download-rc-sprouls-luther-and-reformation/

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

After Darkness, Light!

Most people who visit this blog will know this information, but it is an excellent intro to Martin Luther. Historical introduction to Martin Luther -- R. C. Sproul recounts historical aspects of the beginning of Martin Luther's life and how he came to be an Augustinian monk.

"After Darkness, Light!"  - from the Latin phrase, "Post Tenebras Lux"  (On the Reformation Wall in Geneva)

What was the "Darkness" ?

The Roman Catholic teaching that had engulfed the whole European culture that salvation comes through the Sacerdotal (from the Latin word for "priest") system of dependence upon the Roman Catholic priest in the RC churches to dole out salvation through infant baptismal regeneration by the ex opere operato words of the priest, deeds of penances that were ordered by the priest such as saying 100 hail Mary's or climbing up the steps of St. Peter's Cathedral in Rome or giving alms to the poor, confession to the priest, partaking of the eucharist, thinking it to be changed into the literal blood and body of the Lord Jesus Christ, by the mere words spoken by the priest, etc.   Those were truly "Dark Ages" (beginning around 430 - 500 AD) until the Reformation, beginning in 1517 when Luther nailed the 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg.
[scholars usually date the beginning of the "Dark Ages" as when the Goths and Vandals and other "barbarian tribes" conquered the city of Rome and N. Africa around 400-430 AD.
The Reformation brought light back in by pointing people back to the Scriptures as the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

Interesting tidbit about Jan Hus' trial and burning at the stake and his statement, that has become a popular story: Hus is reported to have said: "You may burn this goose (Hus in the Czech language means "goose") but after me will come a swan who you will not be able to silence."  And, according to Sproul, that under the very place where Luther was consecrated into the Augustinian order of monks, was the tomb of the bishop who ordered Hus' execution in 1415!
Addendum: James Swan blogged about that in 2010 here also. I should have known he would have researched it thoroughly before I pushed the publish button here! It was unclear to me if the sources are saying that Hus didn't say that at all; or that it was later exaggerated at Luther's funeral and afterward; but after I went back and read more carefully, it seems that Luther conflated 2 statements into one, one from Hus and the other from Jerome of Prague.
I had heard or read about this story before, I am pretty sure from listening to Sproul years ago; and it makes for a good story, but James Swan is to be commended for his historical research on Luther. It is still true that Hus was condemned for opposing some of the same traditions, un-biblical practices, and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church that Luther later opposed.

HT: Justin Taylor - Sproul on Luther and the Reformation ___ Note: this article went through several changes after I first hit the publish button; so I apologize for anyone who read it right after I posted it; for the inaccuracies at the beginning.

How Luther Went Viral 5 Centuries Before Facebook and YouTube

Here's an interesting video link left in a comment box by PBJ:

Social media in the 16th Century: How Luther went viral

The video highlights the use of the printing press as well as the failure of the Roman church to take Luther's protest seriously, much like a big company thinking, "why worry about something on the Internet?"

Some of my favorite works on this topic are from Reformation historian Steven Ozment. Protestants, The Birth of a Revolution presents an interesting look at the spread of the Reformation. I didn't find a free Google preview of it, but Amazon has "look inside" available (as well as used copies available for around 2 bucks). This is  a very readable and popular treatment of this subject.For a more detailed examination, Ozment's The Reformation in the Cities is available via Google's limited preview feature. This one is a little more expensive.

Calvin's Only Letter to Luther

There is only one letter that John Calvin wrote to Martin Luther, and Luther never read it.

A helpful account of its circumstances can be found in Phillip Schaff's History of the Christian Church Vol. 8, pp. 610-614. Schaff refers to these circumstances as "Calvin and the Nicodemites."

A great practical difficulty presented itself to the Protestants in France, where they were in constant danger of persecution. They could not emigrate en masse, nor live in peace at home, without concealing or denying their convictions. A large number were Protestants at heart, but outwardly conformed to the Roman Church. They excused their conduct by the example of Nicodemus, the Jewish Rabbi, who came to Jesus by night.Calvin, therefore, called them "Nicodemites."

-snip-

The Nicodemites charged Calvin with immoderate austerity. "Away with this Calvin! he is too impolite. He would reduce us to beggary, and lead us directly to the stake. Let him content himself with his own lot, and leave us in peace; or, let him come to us and show us how to behave.

-snip-

The French Protestants were under the impression that Luther and Melanchthon had milder and more practicable views on this subject, and requested Calvin to proceed to Saxony for a personal conference.

Calvin didn't go to Wittenberg. Rather, he wrote to Melanchthon and Luther on January 20, 1545. Calvin's letter to Melanchthon can be found here.  Calvin seemed confident that Melanchthon would look the situation over fairly, despite their disagreements. Of the letter to Luther though, Calvin states:

With regard to Dr. Martin there will be somewhat more of difficulty. For so far as I could understand by report, and by letters from different persons, the scarcely pacified temper of the man might, on very slight occasion, break out into a sore. On that account, therefore the messenger will shew you the letter which I have written to him, that on examination of the contents, you may proceed as you think advisable, that nothing may be attempted therein either rashly or unadvisedly, which may hereafter produce unpleasant consequences. I am aware that you will do all that you can worthily accomplish to the utmost of your power, in every thing seemly and befitting.

Luther never saw the letter. Melanchthon  replied back:  " 'I have not shown your letter to Dr. Martin,' he replied to Calvin, April 17, 1545, 'for he takes many things suspiciously, and does not like his answers to questions of the kind you have proposed to him, to be carried round and handed from one to another.' " Schaff points out,

Melanchthon substantially agreed with Calvin; he asserts the duty of the Christian to worship God alone (Matt. 4:10), to flee from idols (1 John 5 : 21), and to profess Christ openly before men (Matt. 10: 83); but he took a somewhat milder view as regards compliance with mere ceremonies and non-essentials. Bucer and Peter Martyr agreed with this opinion. The latter refers to the conduct of the early disciples, who, while holding worship in private houses, still continued to visit the temple until they were driven out.

LETTER 124. TO LUTHER.
CALVIN SUBMITS TO LUTHER SEVERAL OF HIS WRITINGS, OF WHICH HE DESIRES TO OBTAIN HIS APPROBATION.

January 21, 1545.
To the very excellent pastor of the Christian Church, Dr. M. Luther, my much respected father,

When I saw that my French fellow-countrymen, as many of them as had been brought out from the darkness of the Papacy to soundness of the faith, had altered nothing as to their public profession, and that they continued to defile themselves with the sacrilegious worship of the Papists, as if they had never tasted the savor of true doctrine, I was altogether unable to restrain myself from reproving so great sloth and negligence, in the way that I thought it deserved. How, indeed, can this faith, which lies buried in the heart within, do otherwise than break forth in the confession of the faith? What kind of religion can that be, which lies submerged under seeming idolatry? I do not undertake, however, to handle the argument here, because I have done so at large already in two little tractates, wherein, if it shall not be troublesome to you to glance over them, you will more clearly perceive both what I think, and the reasons which have compelled me to form that opinion. By the reading of them, indeed, some of our people, while hitherto they were fast asleep in a false security, having been awakened, have begun to consider what they ought to do. But because it is difficult either casting aside all consideration of self, to expose their lives to danger, or having roused the displeasure of mankind, to encounter the hatred of the world, or having abandoned their prospects at home in their native land, to enter upon a life of voluntary exile, they are withheld or kept back by these difficulties from coming to a settled determination. They put forth other reasons, however, and those somewhat specious, whereby one may perceive that they only seek to find some sort of pretext or other. In these circumstances, because they hang somehow in suspense, they are desirous to hear your opinion, which as they do deservedly hold in reverence, so it shall serve greatly to confirm them. They have therefore requested me, that I would undertake to send a trusty messenger to you, who might report your answer to us upon this question. And because I thought it was of very great consequence for them to have the benefit of your authority, that they might not fluctuate thus continually, and I myself stood besides in need of it, I was unwilling to refuse what they required. Now, therefore, much respected father in the Lord, I beseech you by Christ, that you will not grudge to take the trouble for their sake and mine, first, that you would peruse the epistle written in their name, and my little books, cursorily and at leisure hours, or that you would request some one to take the trouble of reading, and report the substance of them to you. Lastly, that you would write back your opinion in a few words. Indeed, I am unwilling to give you this trouble in the midst of so many weighty and various employments; but such is your sense of justice, that you cannot suppose me to have done this unless compelled by the necessity of the case; I therefore trust that you will pardon me. Would that I could fly to you, that I might even for a few hours enjoy the happiness of your society; for I would prefer, and it would be far better, not only upon this question, but also about others, to converse personally with yourself; but seeing that it is not granted to us on earth, I hope that shortly it will come to pass in the kingdom of God.

Adieu, most renowned sir, most distinguished minister of Christ, and my ever-honored father. The Lord himself rule and direct you by his own Spirit, that you may persevere even unto the end, for the common benefit and good of his ownChurch.
— Yours, John Calvin.

The Deaths of the Reformers According to "Fanatical Romanists"

Luther reconverted to the Roman Church on his deathbed? No he didn't. I receive many Google visits to this blog from people searching for information on "Did Luther Recant on His Deathbed?"

I recently came across this related section from Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church vol. 8 (pp. 827-828) on the deaths of the major Protestant Reformers from what Schaff calls "fanatical Romanists." I've added some hyper-links to Schaff's text of the sources he mentions.

NOTE. A CALUMNY.
It is painful to notice that sectarian hatred and malice followed the Reformers to their death-beds. Fanatical Romanists represented Zwingli’s heroic death as a judgment of God, and invented the myths that Oecolampadius committed suicide and was carried off by the devil; that Luther hung himself by his handkerchief on the bed-post and emitted a horrible stench; and that Calvin died in despair.


The myth of Luther’s suicide was soberly and malignantly repeated by an ultramontane priest (Majunke, editor of the "Germania" in Berlin), and gave rise to a lively controversy in 1890. It must be added, however, that learned and honest Catholics indignantly protested against the calumny. (Cf. my article, Did Luther commit Suicide? in "Magazine of Christian Literature," New York, for December, 1890.)


As to Calvin, it is quite probable that his body, broken by so many diseases, soon showed signs of decay, which put a stop to the reception of strangers, and may have given rise to some "calumnies," of which Beza vaguely speaks. But it was not till fifteen years after his death, that Bolsec, the Apostate monk, fastened upon Calvin’s youth an odious vice (see above, p. 302), and spread the report that he died of a terrible malady,—that of being eaten by worms,—with which the just judgment of God destroys His enemies. He adds that Calvin even invoked the devils and cursed his studies and writings. ("Il mourut invoquant les diables … . Même il maudissait l’heure qu’il avait jamais étudié et écrit.") But he gives no authority, living or dead.


Audin (Life of Calvin, p. 532, Engl. transl.) repeats this infamous fabrication with some variations and dramatic embellishments, on the alleged testimony of an unknown student, who, as he says, sneaked into the death-chamber, lifted the black cloth from the face of Calvin and reported: "Calvinus in desperatione furiens vitam obiit turpissimo et faedissimo morbo quem Deus rebellibus et maledictis comminatus est, prius excruciatus et consumptus, quod ego verissime attestari audeo, qui funestum et tragicum illius exitum et exitium his meis oculis praesens aspexi. Joann. Harennius, apud Pet. Cutzenum!"


We regret to say that a Roman Catholic archbishop, Dr. Spalding, whose work on the Reformation gives no evidence of any acquaintance with the writings of Calvin or Beza, retails the slanders of Bolsec and Audin, and informs American readers that Calvin was "a very Nero" and "a monster of impurity and iniquity!" (See above, § 110, p. 520.)


Calvin’s whole life and writings, his testament, and dying words to the senators and ministers of Geneva, and the minute account of his death by his friend Beza, who was with him till his last moments, ought to be sufficient to convince even the most incredulous who is not incurably blinded by bigotry.