Calvin Cites Augustine: "The Will of God is the Necessity of Things"

In chasing down a John Calvin quote, I came upon a citation of Augustine. In Institutes III.23.8, Calvin says,

Here they have recourse to the distinction between will and permission. By this they would maintain that the wicked perish because God permits it, not because he so wills. But why shall we say “permission” unless it is because God so wills? Still, it is not in itself likely that man brought destruction upon himself through himself, by God’s mere permission and without any ordaining. As if God did not establish the condition in which he wills the chief of his creatures to be! I shall not hesitate, then, simply to confess with Augustine that “the will of God is the necessity of things,” and that what he has willed will of necessity come to pass, as those things which he has foreseen will truly come to pass.

Calvin's comment here enters that controversial place many theists fear to go, God's absolute unchangeable will, God's permissive will, predestination, reprobation, and Adam's fall into sin. I was curious to see Augustine's citation in context, to see if Calvin either mis-cited or misused Augustine. Granted, this may seem in some sense like an invitation to debate or discuss God's sovereignty, but my goal is primarily academic, focusing on how Calvin cited Augustine.

Augustine: Documentation
The version of Calvin's Institutes I utilized was that translated by Ford Lewis Battles and edited by John T. McNeill. This text provides a reference:  Augustine, On Genesis in the Literal Sense VI. 15. 26 (MPL 34.350). MPL refers to Migne Patrologia Latina. Here is 34:350. The text reads:

Calvin appears to have cited last part of  the last sentence:

An English translation is available. For context, I've also included VI.14.25.

Augustine: Context

Conclusion
Calvin's comments occur in his overall discussion on predestination and reprobation primarily, but he ventures into the fall of Adam into sin. Did God permit man's fall into sin or did he ordain it? Calvin affirms the later and says, "I shall not hesitate, then, simply to confess with Augustine that 'the will of God is the necessity of things,' and that what he has willed will of necessity come to pass, as those things which he has foreseen will truly come to pass." Later in the same section Calvin states, "Accordingly, man falls according as God's providence ordains, but he falls by his own fault." If this sounds tricky, Calvin goes on to say that we should spend our time contemplating Adam as the evident cause of the fall rather than "seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensible cause in God's predestination":

Accordingly, we should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt nature of humanity—which is closer to us—rather than seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensible cause in God’s predestination. And let us not be ashamed to submit our understanding to God’s boundless wisdom so far as to yield before its many secrets. For, of those things which it is neither given nor lawful to know, ignorance is learned; the craving to know, a kind of madness.

What was Augustine writing about? His comments were not addressing predestination and reprobation. His comments are from a book entitled, The Literal Meaning of Genesis. His concerns are with creation and origins. in VI.14.25 tackles whether or not things were created fully formed or whether or not they developed. Augustine says "they were created with an aptitude for each mode." In the next section, Augustine applies this to the creation of Adam and says whichever way God did it, it would be his absolute will that determined it. If the creation of man was an instantaneous creation of a fully formed man, that happened by God's imposed necessity. If the creation of man was through a process of some sort, whether it be formed into the mud "in that primordial establishment of causes," that happened by God's imposed necessity. If the creation of man has the potentiality to be created either way, the way it happened is by God's imposed necessity.

Did Calvin mis-cite Augustine? I don't think so. Both Calvin and Augustine in essence agree that all things that God created conform to His sovereign necessity, however each applied it in different areas. The overarching point is God's necessity.  I see some overlap with Calvin the continuation of Augustine's comments in the next section. Augustine says we don't know if a person will grow old, but if he does, it was God's will, "who established all things" because "the hidden formula of old age is there in the youthful body" (VI.16.27). The necessity of the man growing old is because of God, "For if he wills that will of necessity be in the future, and it is those things that he has foreknown which will really be in the future" (VI.17.28). "The one who foreknows them [God] cannot be mistaken" (VI.17.28). He further refers to God adding fifteen years to the life of Hezekiah, something God knew he was going to do "before the foundations of the world (Eph 1:4) that he was going to do, and which he reserved to his own will" (VI.17.28).  "God's foreknowledge cannot be mistaken. And this is why what he foreknew would of necessity come to pass in the future" (VI.17.28).  Augustine further says that God "deliberately predetermined" Adam according to His will (VI.18.29).

Did Calvin misuse or misapply Augustine here? That's a little less clear to me.  I expected that when I tracked down the Augustine reference, the context would be directly related in some way to the issues of predestination or the fall into sin.  I was surprised to find a discussion about whether or not creation is created fully formed or whether it developed! I can certainly see how someone could be critical of Calvin's use of Augustine here, particularly since Augustine does attempt to tackle the implications of sovereignty and the fall in his writings, but not in this particular section Calvin referred to.

Addendum
For an interesting discussion of Augustine's view on man's fall into sin, see: Robert F. Brown, "The First Evil Will Must be Incomprehensible: A Critique of Augustine," JAAR 46, no. 3 (1978) 315-329. While critical, the author helpfully lays out Augustine's various answers to the origin of the fall.
This author says that Augustine came up with various explanations, including that the fall was incomprehensible to human intellect, but at times moved beyond that to  causal explanations.

Luther: All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned

I was asked about this Martin Luther quote:

All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned.

A quick search shows how popular this quote is. This is another instance in which you will not come across a lot of "Lutheran" web sites using this quote. It appears to be most popular with those involved in the debate over predestination. We'll see this isn't exactly what Luther said. Rather, his words have been augmented and placed in the context of  Calvinism.

Documentation
As far as I can tell, the popular source for this quote is Lorraine Boettner's book, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Boettner states,

That Luther was as zealous for absolute predestination as was Calvin is shown in his commentary on Romans, where he wrote: "All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned." And Melanchthon, his close friend and fellow-laborer, says: "All things turn out according to divine predestination; not only the works we do outwardly, but even the thoughts we think inwardly"; and again, "There is no such thing as chance, or fortune; nor is there a readier way to gain the fear of God, and to put our whole trust in Him, than to be thoroughly versed in the doctrine of Predestination."

While Boettner's book does a fair job outlining the Reformed doctrine of predestination, his method of citing secondary sources is often less than adequate. For this quote, I suspect Boettner didn't actually utilize Luther's "commentary on Romans, " but rather took the quote from another secondary English source: Absolute Predestination by Jerome Zanchius (Girolamo Zanchi). Zanchius was a contemporary of Luther's (1516-1590).  This writer  is claimed to have stated,

Luther* observes that in Rom. ix., x. and xi. the apostle particularly insists on the doctrine of predestination, "Because," says he, "all things whatever arise from and depend upon the Divine appointment, whereby it was preordained who should receive the word of life and who should disbelieve it, who should be delivered from their sins and who should be hardened in them, who should be justified and who condemned."

*In Praefat, ad Epist. ad Rom.

This English rendering is exact to Boettner's, making it highly likely this was the  source Boettner used (this version certainly predates Boettner as this English text from 1769 demonstrates!).  The original text of Zanchi's was not written in English, but rather, written in Latin. Here's where it gets very complicated. There's debate as to which Latin source was utilized for the English rendering. The English translation was the work of Augustus Toplady. Toplady stated he did not exactly follow Zanchi word for word:

Excellent as Zanchy's original piece is, I yet have occasionally ventured both to retrench and to enlarge it, in the translations. to this liberty I was induced, by a desire of rendering it as complete a treatise on the subject as the allotted compass would allow. I have endeavoured rather to enter into the spirit of the admirable author; than with a scrupulous exactness to retail his very words. By which means the performance will prove, I humbly trust, the more satisfactory to the English reader ; and, for the learned one, he can at any time, if he pleases, by comparing the following version with the original Latin, both perceive wherein I have presumed to vary from it; and judge for himself whether my omissions, variations, and enlargements, are useful and just (link, p. 26-27).

This link outlines the severe problems with Toplady's translation, noting particularly,

The "Problem" with Absolute Predestination is that while it is by far Zanchi's most well known work, it was not technically written by him. It is, in fact, a translation and revised abridgment of a section of Zanchi's corpus completed by Augustus Toplady in the eighteenth century, which spawned a heated epistolary controversy with John Wesley.

I went through a number of Latin sources of Zanchi's writings, and could find no exact matching text to that Toplady attributes to him. The closest I found was this text:

While this snippet has some similarities to the purported English text produced by Toplady, it does not sit in the same context as the English. Note that Zanchi  refers to Luther's comments on Romans 9, 10, and 11, while Toplady has Zanchi referring to "In Praefat, ad Epist. ad Rom." Putting both of these together, it appears Luther's Preface to Romans is being cited. I'm not sure which version Zanchi utilized.

The German text is found in WA DB 7:23.  The English text used below is found in   LW 35:377. 

Context

In chapters 9, 10, and 11 [of Romans Paul] teaches of God’s eternal predestination—out of which originally proceeds who shall believe or not, who can or cannot get rid of sin—in order that our salvation may be taken entirely out of our hands and put in the hand of God alone. And this too is utterly necessary. For we are so weak and uncertain that if it depended on us, not even a single person would be saved; the devil would surely overpower us all. But since God is dependable—his predestination cannot fail, and no one can withstand him—we still have hope in the face of sin.

Conclusion
Zanchi's Latin text follows the gist of Luther's comments, that in Romans 9-11 salvation is dependent on God's predestination, who will believe or not, who will be freed from sin, etc.  When Luther's words are compared to Toplady's rendering, notice Luther has a bit more Calvinistic "umph"; "All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment," "who should receive the word of life," "who should be hardened in them," "who should be justified and who should be condemned."

It appears to me Toplady was translating Zanchi with Calvinistic zeal, thus rendering Luther's comments more "Reformed" than Lutheran. True, Luther believed in predestination, and there's really nothing in Toplady's rendering that would contradict Luther's overall theology. But, as I've studied Luther, predestination and election were expressed in a different way than those with a Reformed worldview. In his Preface to Romans, consider what Luther then goes to immediately say:

Here, now, for once we must put a stop to those wicked and high flying spirits who first apply their own reason to this matter. They begin at the top to search the abyss of divine predestination, and worry in vain about whether they are predestinated. They are bound to plunge to their own destruction, either through despair, or through throwing caution to the winds.

But you had better follow the order of this epistle. Worry first about Christ and the gospel, that you may recognize your sin and his grace. Then fight your sin, as the first eight chapters here have taught. Then, when you have reached the eighth chapter, and are under the cross and suffering, this will teach you correctly of predestination in chapters 9; 10, and 11, and how comforting it is. For in the absence of suffering and the cross and the perils of death, one cannot deal with predestination without harm and without secret anger against God. The old Adam must first die before he can tolerate this thing and drink the strong wine. Therefore beware that you do not drink wine while you are still a suckling. There is a limit, a time, and an age for every doctrine (LW 35:378).

For Luther it is the hidden God who predestines, but this God is not to be sought after or scrutinized. He is to be avoided. As a pastor, Luther was concerned about those who would be entangled by scrupulous introspection, something that plagued him. Therefore, discussions about predestination were best avoided. The emphasis was placed on the positive proclamations of the Gospel. He would advise his hearers to cling to the positive voice of Christ’s gospel. For Luther, discussions of predestination provide little comfort to the Christ’s sheep.

Luther: "If it had not been for Dr. Staupitz, I should have sunk in hell."

This came via e-mail:

I've searched on your Beggars All blog and the many webpages found by Google, but have discovered no original source reference to the repeatedly claimed quote from Martin Luther about Johann von Staupitz. So I'm passing it onto you to see if you are aware of its source: "If it had not been for Dr. Staupitz, I should have sunk in hell."

It's true, this quote has been used often, even by Luther's famous biographer, Roland Bainton:

By reason of the move he came to know well a man who was to exercise a determinative influence upon his development, the vicar of the Augustinian order, Johann von Staupitz. No one better could have been found as a spiritual guide. The vicar knew all the cures prescribed by the schoolmen for spiritual ailments, and besides had a warm religious life of his own with a sympathetic appreciation of the distresses of another. "If it had not been for Dr. Staupitz," said Luther, "I should have sunk in hell."

I did locate the context for this remark. The context is fascinating. Luther touches on a variety issues including determinism and the secret counsel of God. I have reproduced the text below. Also find an extensive discussion from Luther on predestination in the conclusion.


Documentation
While it doesn't appear obvious as one reads Bainton, he actually documents much of what he put forth, almost line by line. He documents this quote, "Dok (s), No. 461." Bainton says this refers to, "Dokumente zu Luthers Entwicklung (Otto Scheel, ed., 1929)." This refers to a book containing source documents about Luther's development compiled by German Protestant theologian, Otto Scheel  (who unfortunately, got tangled up with the Nazi party). The year "1929" refers to a later volume of this set (Volume one can be found here). While I don't believe this book is available online (at the time of the writing of this entry), I can verify that the quote is on page 167, entry 461.

The quote appears to be from a letter Luther wrote to Albrecht of Mansfield. Walch places the date of the letter, December 28, 1541 (letter 2865). deWette though has the date December 8, 1542 (deWette 5, 512), while Seidemann 6:551 lists the date as December 28, 1542 (thanks to Rick Strickert for tracking down the deWette / Seidemann references). Footnote 50 on this page of this book refers to the date as February 23, 1542 (and also refers to Scheel's book). They also cite WA BR 9, 627, lines 23-25, (which I can verify), letter 3716. The footnote includes the following,  "I was once bogged down in such thoughts and doubts. And if Dr. Staupitz ¾ or rather God through Dr. Staupitz ¾ had not helped me, I would have drowned in them and long been in hell." ("Jnn disen gedancken oder anfechtungen [...] ich etwa [=einst] auch drinnen gestecket. Vndt wo mihr D. Staupitz, oder viel mehr Gott durch Doctor Staupitz, nicht heraus geholffen hette, so were ich darin ersoffen vndt langst in der helle").

This letter does not appear to have been translated into English in any official way. An English translation of this lengthy letter can be hound here.

Context

Count Albrecht, of Mansfeld, is a personality not entirely unknown in Reformation history. He was the first in Thuringia to cope successfully with the insurgent peasants, surprising them at Osterhausen, and had already in 1518 attached himself with such decision to the new doctrine, that he sent Luther warning, through the well-known Augustinian prior, Johann Lange, of the plots of certain influential men against him. In the course of time, however, the Count fell into wrong ways. He began to cherish doctrinal errors, and to repudiate utterly the obligations of brotherly love. Luther observed this with deep regret, and admonished his "gracious and heartily beloved liege-lord, the noble, high-born Lord Albrecht, Count of Mansfeld," in the following letter:

"Grace and Peace in the Lord, and my poor Pater-noster. Gracious Lord, I beg most earnestly that your Reverend Grace may accept this writing of mine in a Christian and gracious spirit. Your Reverend Grace knows that I am a child of the sovereignty of Mansfeld, and have to the present day cherished natural affection for my Fatherland, as even the books of all heathen nations declare that every child has a natural affection for his fatherland. Besides this, God accomplished in the beginning of the Gospel so many praiseworthy achievements through your Reverend Grace, so excellently ordering the affairs of churches, pulpits and schools for the praise and glory of God, and made your Reverend Grace so eminently and gloriously useful in quelling the insurrection of the peasants, that I, for such and other reasons, cannot so easily forget nor omit from my cares and prayers your Reverend Grace. 

 "But it comes to my ears, chiefly through many rumors and complaints, that your Reverend Grace is said to have fallen away from the course first entered upon and to have become quite different, which, as I think your Reverend Grace will readily believe, if it were true, would cause me heartfelt sorrow for your Reverend Grace. For now people will talk against the Christian faith, and say, as I have myself often heard: 'What need of the Gospel? That which is fore-ordained must come to pass. Let us do what we will. If we are to be saved, we will be saved, etc' This is now thought to be great shrewdness and wisdom, although we theologians knew it long ago and also God himself. Should your Reverend Grace be entangled in these thoughts and temptations, it would cause me heartfelt sorrow, for I was once myself entangled in them, and had not Dr. Staupitz, or, rather, God through Dr. Staupitz, helped me out, I would have been drowned in them and would have been in hell long ago. For such diabolical thoughts finally drive the timid-hearted to despondency, despairing of the grace of God; whilst those who are bold and courageous become despisers and enemies of God, and say: 'Let things go as they will! I will do as I please. I'm lost anyhow.' 

"How I wish that I could speak with your Reverend Grace face to face, for I am grieved beyond measure for the soul of your Reverend Grace, since I cannot esteem your Reverend Grace so lightly as the reprobate Henry's and Mentz's. One cannot talk so well to another with the pen. Nevertheless—to write briefly of this matter, my Gracious Lord—it is true, that what God has decreed must certainly come to pass; otherwise he would be a liar in his promises, upon which we must place our faith or shamefully fail, and that is impossible. But here is, at the same time, this great difference to be observed, namely: What God has revealed to us, promised or commanded, that we are to believe, and to act accordingly, assured that he will not lie: but what he has not revealed to us, nor promised, that we are not to and cannot know, much less can we act accordingly. Whoever troubles himself much about this, is tempting God, since he neglects that which he is commanded to know and to do, and concerns himself about that which he is not commanded to know and to do. This can only produce people who ask not for God's Word and sacrament; but give themselves up to wild living, mammon, tyranny, and every kind of dissolute life. For, with such thoughts, they can have no faith, nor hope, nor love to man or to God, whom they despise, because they are not permitted to know what he secretly thinks; although he has so abundantly revealed himself in everything that can minister to their benefit or salvation, from which they wantonly turn away. No man would tolerate a servant, who should refuse to perform his appointed duty, unless he knew in advance all the secret thoughts of his master in regard to all his possessions. And shall God not have power likewise to have some secrets to himself, beyond that which he has commanded us? 

"Let your Reverend Grace only think how it would be, if we were to be guided by such thoughts of the secret judgments of God, for example: 'Why does he permit his Son to become man? Why does he establish family relations — fatherhood and motherhood? Why does he ordain civil law and government? What more is needed? That which is to happen, will happen without all this! What need is there of the devil, the Holy Scriptures, and all created things? What he wishes to do, he can do without any of these.' But we are told that he desires to accomplish his purpose, as far as now revealed, through us as fellow-laborers, 1 Cor. iii. 9: therefore we should let him manage and not trouble ourselves about it, but do that which he has commanded us. Thus also says Solomon, Prov. xxv.: 'He that would search out royalty shall be crushed;' and Sirach iii. (vs. 22 and 23): 'Understand not what is too high, but think what is commanded thee;' and when the disciples asked the Lord whether he would at that time establish the kingdom of Israel, he replied: 'It is not for you to know the time or the hour, which my Father hath kept in his own power, hut go ye and be my witnesses.' (Acts i. 7 and 8.) As though he should say: Let my Father and me see to the events of the future; go ye and do what I Command you.

Accordingly, I beseech your Reverend Grace most earnestly not to forsake the Word and sacrament, for the devil is an evil spirit, far too cunning for your Reverend Grace, as likewise for all saints, to say nothing of all men; as I myself also discover, although I am scarcely ever off my guard for a single day. Men so easily become cold, and their indifference grows ever greater: and if there were no other result of the devil's cunning, this would be reason enough to bid him flee without a moment's delay, and let the heart be warmed again. Thus, doubtless, your Reverend Grace himself feels that he is already cold and gone astray after mammon, aiming to become very rich, and also, according to common complaints, pressing his subjects altogether too severely and sharply, thinking to take them from their ancestral homes and possessions, and almost to make them his own property—which God will not endure, or, enduring, will bring the earldom to abject poverty. It is his gift, and he can easily take it away again, and that without recompense, as Haggai says (i. 6): 'Ye gather much, but ye put it into a bag with holes, and the Lord bloweth upon your grain till there is nothing left.'

"I have heard it said that some propose to introduce in Germany a form of government like that of France. Well, if they would stop first to ask whether that would be right and well-pleasing to God, I would not object. Let it be considered, too, that the kingdom of France, which was once a golden, glorious kingdom, is now so impoverished in both property and people, that it has become, instead of a golden, a leaden kingdom, and that, although formerly far-famed as the Christian kingdom, it has formed an alliance with the Turks. That is the way it goes when God and his Word are despised.

"I write thus candidly to encourage your Reverend Grace, for I am now much nearer to my, grave than people think; and I beg, as before, that your Reverend Grace may deal more mildly and graciously with the subjects of your Reverend Grace, and allow them to remain; then shall your Reverend Grace also remain, by the blessing of, God, both here and in the life to come. Otherwise, you shall lose both worlds, and be like the man in Aesop's fable, who opened the goose that laid every day a golden egg, and thereby lost the golden eggs and the goose that laid them, or like the dog in Aesop, that lost the piece of meat by snapping at its reflection in the water: for it is most certainly true, as Solomon in so many of his proverbs says, that he who wants too much gets least of all.

"To conclude, I am concerned for the soul of your Reverend Grace, which I cannot bear to have cast out of my cares and prayers, for that would to me mean, just as truly, cast out of the Church. I have been compelled to write, not only by the commandment of Christian love, but also by the severe threatening which God has announced to us in the third chapter of Ezekiel, namely, that we shall be condemned for others' sins. He says (verse 18): 'If thou tell not the sinner of his sin, and he die therein, I will require his soul at thy hands,' for to this end have I made thee a guardian of souls.

"I trust your Reverend Grace will therefore receive kindly this exhortation, for I cannot allow myself to be condemned for the sin of your Reverend Grace, but must on the contrary make every possible effort, that your Reverend Grace may with me be saved. Thus I shall at least be guiltless before God. I commend you to the abounding grace and mercy of God.

"Your Reverend Grace's willing and true-hearted, "Martinus Luther, D.

"Day of the Innocents, in the year 1542''

Conclusion
I'm still unsure of the exact date for this letter. However, there is one more context worth mentioning in regard to the statement, "If it had not been for Dr. Staupitz, I should have sunk in hell." Note the following Table Talk statement found in WA TR V, 5658a. The following English translation comes from Luther's Letters of Spiritual Counsel,  pp.131-136.  The date these statements were said to be made was February 18, 1542. That's just a few days before February 23, 1542 (one of the dates mentioned above in regard to the letter). Here, Luther is recorded as having an extensive discussion about predestination; in fact, a footnote in the text states, "One version bears the title 'Dr. Martin Luther's Opinion Concerning Predestination, Written as It Fell From His Lips on Feb. 18, 1542."

TABLE TALK RECORDED BY CASPAR HEYDENREICH. February 18, 1542 

Speculations concerning predestination are now being spread abroad indiscriminately by epicureans who say: "I do not know whether I am predestined to salvation. If I am elected to eternal life, I shall be saved no matter what I do. On the other hand, if I am not elected, I shall be damned no matter what I do." Although these opinions are true, nevertheless the Passion of Christ and his Sacraments are thereby made of no effect, for it would follow either that it was very foolish of God to send his Son into the world, and so many prophets before him, or that we are surely quite mad. These are poisonous speculations and weapons of the devil. They deceived our first parents when the devil said to them, "Ye shall be as gods." Yet it may be objected that it is necessary that I be saved because God has this intention (if it be God's will).

I reply: Well, are you to climb up to heaven and inquire into this opinion as if it were possible for you to investigate it? It would be most foolish of God to give us his Son and the Scriptures and the prophets if he wished us to be uncertain and to doubt concerning our salvation. It is the work of the devil to make us unbelieving and doubtful. People are assailed either by disdain or by despair when they think, "If I am to be saved, I shall be saved no matter what I do." It is not for you to inquire into the secret will of God without a word of revelation, nor should you imagine that God will fail to keep his promises to you. God is truthful, and he has given us assurances in the Scriptures in order that we may be certain. Otherwise it will come to pass that books, Bibles, and Sacraments will be cast aside and, like the Turks, we shall say, "Let me live, for tomorrow we die." Such an opinion leads to scorn or despair. I was once freed from this notion by Staupitz,otherwise I should long since have been burning in hell. 

For us this is an exceedingly necessary doctrine. A distinction must be made between knowledge of God and despair of God, and consideration must be given to the revealed God on the one hand and to knowledge of the unrevealed will of God on the other. Of the latter nothing at all is known to us. We must confess that what is beyond our comprehension is nothing for us to bother about. Nevertheless, Satan reproaches me with this impenetrable mystery. Apart from the Word of God I am not supposed to know whether I am predestined to salvation or not, and because reason seeks thus to inquire into God, it does not find him. We are not to know even if we break our heads over it. Moses was reproved when he asked, "Lord, show me thy face," and God replied, "Thou shalt see my back parts!"God has disapproved of and forbidden knowledge of his hidden will. Christ says, "No man knoweth God or the Father save the Son." Without the Word there is neither faith nor understanding. This is the invisible God. The path is blocked here. Such was the answer which the apostles received when they asked Christ when he would restore the kingdom to Israel, for Christ said, "It is not for you to know." Here God desires to be inscrutable and to remain incomprehensible.

He says in effect: "Let me remain hidden. Otherwise you will fall into the abyss of hell, as it is written, 'He who inquires into the majesty of God shall be crushed by it.' In this place leave me untouched. Carnal wisdom shall here have its limit. Here I wish to remain unrevealed. I shall reveal your election in another way. From the unrevealed God I shall become the revealed God. I shall incarnate my Son and shall give you one who will enable you to see whether you are elected. Do this: Give up your speculations which are apart from the Word of God, thoroughly root them out, and drive them to the devil in hell. 'This is my beloved Son. Hear ye him.' Behold his death, cross, and Passion. See him hanging on his mother's breast and on the cross. What he says and does you may be sure of.  No man cometh unto the Father, but by me,' says the Lord, and to Philip he said, 'He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.' Here you have me and will see me." 

Whosoever accepts the Son and is baptized and believes on his Word will be saved. I should indeed like to have it otherwise. But the Lord will not have it so. Begin at the bottom with the incarnate Son and with your terrible original sin. If you wish to escape from despair and hate, let your speculation go. There is no other way. Otherwise you must remain a doubter the rest of your life. God did not come down from heaven to make you uncertain about predestination or to cause you to despise the Sacraments. He instituted them to make you more certain and to drive such speculations out of your mind. Whoever doubts the revealed will of God will perish, for where there is doubt there is no salvation. 

What more do you want him to do? He reveals himself to you so that you may touch and see him not only in your thoughts but also with your eyes. It is as Christ says, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." Christ will lead you to the hidden God. You ought not to risk having the child Jesus snatched away from you. If you embrace him with true love of your heart and with true faith, you will know for sure that you are predestined to salvation. But the devil has a special fondness for making us most uncertain about predestination at the point at which we are most certain, namely, in the revelation of his Son. 

A wretched woman who was troubled by such temptations of the devil once came to me and said, "I do not know if I am predestined or not."

I said to her: "Dear woman, you have been baptized. Do you believe what you hear in the preaching of the Word and do you accept it as the truth?" "Yes," she replied, "I have no doubt that it is true, but I am unable to believe it." 

I said: "To have faith in him is to accept these things as true without any doubting. God has revealed himself to you. If you believe this, then you are to be numbered among his elect. Hold to this firmly and with assurance, and if you accept the God who is revealed, the hidden God will be given to you at the same time. 'He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.' Cling to the revealed God, allow no one to take the child Jesus from you, hold fast to him, and you will not be lost. The Father desires you. The Son wishes to be your Saviour and Liberator. In so kind and friendly a fashion has God freed us from these terrible temptations. Otherwise our hearts are deprived of that certain trust and predestination. Those with terrified hearts will disagree, and those whose hearts are hardened will be filled with contempt. Christ said, 'Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to the Father except the Father which hath sent me draw him.' And [Jesus] Sirach said, 'Search not out things that are above thy strength.' Do this, as I said to you at the beginning, and accept the incarnate Son."

This is the way in which [John] Staupitz comforted me when the devil was similarly vexing me: "Why do you trouble yourself with these speculations of yours? Accept the wounds of Christ and contemplate the blood which poured forth from his most holy body for our sins—for mine, for yours, for those of all men. 'My sheep hear my voice.'

There is a beautiful example in the lives of the Fathers, where it is written that a young man named Neophile ascended to heaven and, having placed one foot inside of heaven, drew it back in order to thrust his other foot in, and he fell and plunged headlong into hell. So those who try to climb into heaven without the revealed Christ, and think that they have both feet in heaven, tumble down to hell. We should accept the child Jesus and cling to him because the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. This is the only way. You will find no other, and you will break your neck if you try. This means that God cannot deny himself. If we cling to him, he will hold us fast, and he will tear us away from sin and death and will not let us fall. Besides, these speculations about predestination are of the devil. If they assail you, say: "I am a son of God. I have been baptized. I believe in Jesus Christ, who was crucified for me. Let me alone, devil." Then such thoughts will leave you.

There is an account of a nun who was troubled by the devil with such wretched thoughts. When he addressed her and attacked her with his fiery darts, she said no more than this: "I am a Christian." The devil understood her very well, for it was as if she said: "I believe in the Son of God, who died on the cross, who sits at the right hand of the Father, who cares for me, and who is accustomed to intercede in my behalf. Let me alone, you cursed devil! With his inscrutable seal God has given me assurance." At once the temptation ceased, and at once she had peace of conscience and love for God. He wishes his predestination to be more surely grounded on many certain arguments. He sent his Son to become man, and he gave us the Sacraments and his Word, which cannot be doubted. The words of that nun come to mind in time of temptation, for unless we flee to this Christ, we shall either despair of our salvation or become blasphemous epicureans who hide behind divine predestination as an excuse. These opinions are impious and wicked.

The fact that Isaac doubted cannot be adduced here as an example, for it is allowable to doubt with respect to man, as Isaac doubted whether he would have a good omen and a friendly reception. But God is not man. It is permissible to doubt man because we are commanded not to put our trust in princes. If we rely on them and they fail us, or if one of them renders us a service, we call it fortuitous or a chance occurence. It is not so with the help of God, however, concerning whom we have many signs that he is not a God who deceives us and is to be doubted. This is demonstrated for us by spiritual and corporeal arguments in the incarnation of his Son and in the Sacraments, which are plainly from God and meet our carnal eyes and are administered with external ceremonies, under which external marks God manifests himself to us and distributes his benefits to us. Consequently one should say of a man, "I do not know if he is friend or foe." But not so of God. In this case I have no doubt that God is absolute and that your sins are forgiven. But we are such scoundrels that we prefer to put our constant reliance on man rather than on God.

Adam did this when God placed him in paradise and said, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it." What do you think drove Adam to eat of it? He wished to know what God's secret intention was with regard to this tree that he should not eat of it, and he thought, God certainly has something extraordinary on this tree. He was searching out God apart from the Word. Then the devil came and urged on Adam [and Eve] by saying: "Ye shall be as gods if ye eat of it. Your eyes shall be opened so that ye shall see everything as God sees it." So they wished to be God and to eat of the tree which God had forbidden them to eat of when he said, "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye know what I have on the tree." Thereupon Adam said, "Truly, I must know!" He ate of it, and at once he knew what he had done and he saw that he was naked. That is, his eyes were opened.

We do the same thing in our relation to God. We wish to know what he has not commanded us to know. We should eat of every tree that he allows us to eat of, and we should rejoice to do so, but none of the fruit tastes so good to us as that of the tree we are forbidden to touch and on account of which he closed paradise and heaven to us so that we may know nothing of him except what he has revealed to us in his Word. If you wish to know what God's secret intention is, his dear Son will show it to you. We must have a God who is hidden from us, but we should not investigate into him, else we shall break our necks. It is God's will that we should be agreeable sons of his because we believe in his Son. There is no wrath here. Be satisfied with this.

God and Evil: The Trauma of Sovereignty

Originally posted on the Aomin blog, March 9, 2010

I'm not particularly keen on reinventing wheels. Part of the fortunate heritage of the Reformed worldview is that much better minds than mine have studied the Biblical text, then formulated its information into concise doctrinal statements. Of course the statements are only as good as the verses they're based on. For instance, chapter three of the Westminster Confession of Faith states:

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]

1. Psa. 33:11: Eph. 1:11: Heb. 6:17
2. Psa. 5:4; James 1:13-14; I John 1:5; see Hab. 1:13
3. Acts 2:23; 4:27-28: Matt. 17:12; John 19:11; Prov. 16:33

If one were going to dispute this statement, it shouldn't be by philosophic speculation, tradition, or an emotional feeling. It should be done by proving the Biblical texts used don't support the statement being made. Such though typically isn't the case. The counter charge often begins with the assertion that Reformed theology turns God into a puppet master and the author of evil. The ingredient said to be missing is free will. It's touted that by adding free will to a biblical summary statement, a completely different view of sovereignty emerges, one which absolves God of being the author of evil and provides humanity with true freedom. Some go as far to say that the God of Reformed theology is far from Biblical.

Before a Reformed person pounces on such a counter view, one thing shouldn't be overlooked. Those who find Reformed theology illogical often have no other intent than to vigorously defend the honor of God as not being the author of evil, and wanting to place responsibility for evil and sin clearly on the shoulders of mankind. The irony of course is that the Reformed don't hold God to be the author of evil, nor do they consider men to be mere puppets. We agree with them that God is good and men are responsible. We're on a similar page in some respects, but the theological explanation as to how we both got there is very different. There are also crucial ramifications on other important areas of soteriology based on those differing explanations.

When non-Reformed people argue against the Reformed understanding of sovereignty, I have to immediately ask them how they also avoid their own argument. If we apply their argument against their own position what happens? They similarly believe God created all that is, and knew the beginning from the end before He created. If I knew in advance that a person was going to get in their car by their own choice, and while driving down the road strike and kill someone, and I let them do it, I share responsibility. It's actually a severely culpable responsibility because I knew and they didn't. When God chooses to create knowing full well what evil will happen, and creates anyway, I don't see how a non-Reformed person can avoid the same charge they place on us. Also, if God knows what we're going to choose when he creates us, do we really have free will? We certainly can't choose otherwise at that point. Further, to really make a free choice, those choices would have to be uncaused by circumstances surrounding us. Don't genetic and environmental factors place quite a burden on the proper and pure operation of free will? The long chain of events leading up to our point of choosing can't in any way be caused by God for our choices to be truly free. If God is behind that long chain of events, shouldn't God share at least some responsibility?

Many of you probably realize the above arguments are those typically launched by atheists against theists that use free will to absolve God of evil and determinism. One thing should jump out immediately: garden variety non-Reformed people really share a similar dilemma as the Reformed. Rarely though will a non-Reformed person admit that their view of sovereignty if scrutinized by an atheist, ends up with the conclusion that people are puppets and God is ultimately the author of evil. When the non-Reformed argue against us, they need to explain why they aren't arguing against themselves. Then they should explain why they use our paradigms when trouble or evil enters their lives. They can't escape their own heart of faith that knows "God is in control" and that all works according to His purposes. Everything is a free will adventure until tough circumstance befall a non-Reformed person. Then come cries for God's sovereign control.

The battle therefore really shouldn't be the Reformed versus the non-Reformed. The battle should be Christian theism versus atheism. The battle is between belief and unbelief. If you have non-Reformed friends that attack your Reformed understanding of sovereignty, with love and respect you have to show them they are standing right next to you facing common enemies: the world, the flesh, and the Devil. If their own arguments work just as well against their own position, they don't have valid arguments. Then it's to the Biblical text, to see whose view fits the evidence of Scripture. There, free will as understood by the non-Reformed crumbles under the weight of clear Scripture.

One of the problems with non-Reformed argumentation on this subject is it's application of extra-Biblical reasoning rather than simply taking sola scriptura to its logical conclusion. This isn't readily admitted. No Christian wants to admit their core belief on this issue is tainted. Of course, making generalized statements typically isn't safe, but I've found probing through typical non-Reformed explanations of sin and the nature of the will ultimately turn "The carnal mind is enmity against God for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" into "That man has a will and the ability to choose from his heart (indeed that he must in order to please God) is abundantly clear from the repeated references to 'heart' throughout Scripture" (Dave Hunt, Debating Calvinism pp.339-340). The Reformed hold whatever views we have of God's sovereignty and man''s will must be based only on the Scriptures. If God says he's sovereign, we're enslaved to sin and responsible, and he's not the author of sin, that is precisely who God is and how the world is. It doesn't matter how many times the word "heart" is used. If the Bible repeatedly describes the will and heart as enslaved and dead in sin, that's indeed what it is.

Only the eyes of faith want to know who God is and what the exact plight of man is according to Scripture. By worldly standards, a sovereign God and a spiritually dead sinner sounds absurd, utterly foolish. The God invented by mankind is more of a loving aged grandfather. It holds each person, though they make mistakes, all have a spark of goodness within them simply needing to be ignited. Contrary to this, 1 Corinthians tells us how a central tenet of our theology, the cross of Jesus Christ, is foolishness to the world. The passage should serve as a reminder that much of what we believe as Christians will be considered foolish. Is it foolish to believe that a sovereign God created everything from nothing, knew the beginning from the end, is not the author of evil, and that men are responsible? I say without the eyes of faith, it is, but it's just as foolish as other central beliefs of Christianity:

Christians believe that a virgin gave birth to the Son of God. Is this not just as "foolish" as believing God is sovereign, not the author of evil, and that we are responsible?

Christians believe that this baby was fully God and fully man, infinite and finite at the same time. Is this not just as "foolish" as believing God is sovereign, not the author of evil, and that we are responsible?

Christians believe that God almighty spent his infancy being taken care of by a woman, nursed and diapered. Is this not just as "foolish" as believing God is sovereign, not the author of evil, and that we are responsible?

Christians believe that God Almighty had a job. He was a carpenter. Is this not just as "foolish" as believing God is sovereign, not the author of evil, and that we are responsible?

Christians believe that a man deemed to be a criminal by his own people and by the governing powers was God. God Almighty, the most powerful force that is, was nailed to a cross and died in weakness. Is this not just as "foolish" as believing God is sovereign, not the author of evil, and that we are responsible?

Christians believe that God has communicated to us via a book. The book is perfect, even though written by sinful human beings. The book also is authored by God the Holy Spirit. Is this not just as "foolish" as believing God is sovereign, not the author of evil, and that we are responsible?

This of course is only a partial list. We could go on, exploring many more facets of Christian theology. I think non-Reformed Christians often forget the deep mysteries of the faith. There are simply facets of Christianity that can't be dissected philosophically or understood completely. God's sovereignty and human responsibility is just as mysterious as all those things listed above. As Christians, we don't simply pick and choose what we're going to believe based on if it makes sense to us. When our non-Reformed friends chastise us for believing something that sounds utterly foolish, we need to remind them of all the foolish things they likewise believe along with us. We have to press them to choose either the world's wisdom of the loving grandfather and humanity's spark of goodness, or the foolish paradigm of a holy sovereign king and enslaved sinful humanity.

Attempting to get an infinite being off the hook because of his sovereignty is a difficult plight for anyone claiming to adhere to Christian theism. It's a built in failure that the finite will never be able to fully comprehend the infinite. I can't even wrap my brain around the fact that a simple line with two points on either end has an infinite amount of points in between. How is it possible I can see the beginning and ending of a line, yet have infinity in the middle? As Christians, we're surrounded by more mysteries than we even realize. But some of those mysteries are holy. In terms of getting God's sovereignty off the hook, perhaps it would be wiser to simply stand back in awe of his holiness and infinitude.

Simply because it is a mystery though, doesn't mean Reformed people don't have any Biblical information to prove their view. The Bible repeatedly shows us that God decreed all things, and that people are still held accountable for their actions, especially their sinful actions.Theologians refers to this as compatibilism: God's decree is compatible with a person's will. They don't contradict each other.

In Genesis 50 we find Joseph, whose brothers sold him into the evil of slavery, who lied to their father breaking his heart, claiming Joseph was dead. In front of his brothers, years later Joseph states, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive." The two statements in Hebrew are in direct parallel. Joseph's brothers meant evil by their actions, but God intended the same actions for good. The text shows one action with two intentions. This same principle can be found in Isaiah 10: 5-12, where God uses Assyria as an instrument of judgment on the rebellious people of Israel, and then holds Assyria responsible for her sinful attitude and desires against Israel. The text shows one action with two intentions, a sinful intention and a holy intention.The most important example of compatibilism though is Acts 4:27-28. Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and the Jews all sinfully join forces to crucify Jesus. Yet God?s predestined the entire event for his holy purpose.

R.C. Sproul wrote a chapter a number of years ago entitled, "The Trauma of Holiness." Similarly, I think looking at this issue as "the trauma of God's sovereignty" is a good beginning. We need to remind the non-Reformed of the danger is defining God's sovereignty differently than the way the Bible has expressed it. It's not simply an issue that we can be haphazard with. It demands reverence, caution, and meekness. The Belgic Confession rightly puts the humble spirit of a Christian before us on this issue:

As to what God does surpassing human understanding, we will not curiously inquire into farther than our capacity will admit of; but with the greatest humility and reverence adore the righteous judgment of God, which are hid from us, contenting ourselves that we are pupils of Christ, to learn only those things which he has revealed to us in His word, without transgressing these limits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luther said that men should have "ineffable joy" if they discover God predestined them to Hell? Not quite.

This quote comes from Luther's Lectures on the Epistle to the Romans. These lectures began on November 3, 1515, and ended on September 7, 1516. Notice his work on Romans precedes the 95 Theses, and I would argue this writing contains certain thoughts from Luther that he later revised, abandoned or simply delineated to speculation about the hidden god. Roman Catholic writers coming across this material view these early writings as an all out assault on Roman doctrine. Luther speaks about the bondage of the will and God's sovereign election and predestination- doctrines that typically are abhorrent to those championing free will like Rome's defenders. Here's what's been published on the Internet:

Luther thought that men should have an "ineffable joy" if they discovered that they were damned, because they were resigned to God's will. [source]

He even dares to say to those who are affrighted by predestination to hell, that resignation to eternal punishment is, for the truly wise, a source of  "ineffable joy." [source]

His assurance to souls, affrighted by their inevitable predestination to Hell, that for the truly wise acceptance of eternal punishment is a source of "ineffable joy", seems more a mockery than anything else. [source]

Martin Luther had started to dissent from received Catholic doctrine as early as 1516, in his Commentary on Romans. In this work, he denied both venial sin and merit. He also taught more bizarre doctrines, such as that men should have an "ineffable joy" to discover that they were damned, because they were in accord with God's will. [source]

One can venture into these web pages for further clarification to see how this concept is used. However, on a bald reading these Roman Catholic writers appear to be stating that Luther held those who somehow know they are damned should be very happy about it. One writer calls it one of Luther's "bizarre doctrines." It certainly smells a lot like fatalism, and indeed, if Luther was stating that a revelation of being damned to hell by one on the way to hell should have an "ineffable joy," I heartily agree it is quite bizarre, if not flippant and cold-hearted,  but that's not what the context says.

Documentation
These conclusions from Rome's modern defenders may be based on an older Roman Catholic polemical work: Hartmann Grisar, Luther Vol. 1 (St. Louis: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., LTD, 1913). At least Grisar hints at an explanation of why the young Luther used the phrase "ineffable joy," whereas, those quoted above leave the phrase hanging in ambiguity. Grisar states:

[Luther] even dares to say to those who are affrighted by predestination to hell, that resignation to eternal punishment is, for the truly wise, a source of "ineffable joy" ("ineffdbili iucunditate in ista materia delectantur"); for the perfect this is "the best purgation from their own will," i.e. the way of the greatest bitterness," because under charity the cross and suffering is always understood" [p.238].

Grisar cites "'Schol. Rom.,' pp. 213, 223" as the source for this quote. This appears to be
Luthers Vorlesung über den Römerbrief, 1515/1516.  The quote appears to be on page 213:

This text can also be found in WA 56:386, lines 24-30. Luther's Lectures on Romans were never intended for publication (LW 25:xii).By the late sixteenth century, the manuscript was thought to be lost. A copy of it was eventually found, in of all places, the Vatican Library. Johannes Ficker eventually found the original. Grisar therefore, was citing Ficker's publication.

This has been translated into English LW 25.377. An edited version also exists: Luther's Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1976, p.131]  LW 25 is a more complete word for word translation (see addendum #2 below). For clarity, I prefer Kregel's simpler reading much more than that presented in LW 25, but both say the same thing. Below is the Kregel context for Luther's "ineffable joy" of those learning they are damned to hell.

Context
The comment is from Luther's lengthy treatment of Romans 8:28, and falls within a specific treatment on the subjects of predestination and election. Luther has argued first, in connection with studying divine predestination, God has an unchangeable election of individuals. Second, All objections to to this type of individual predestination proceed from fallen human reason. Luther's third point provides the pertinent context:

The third thought (that we could consider in connection with God's eternal election) is that this doctrine is indeed most bitter to the wisdom of the flesh, which revolts against it and even becomes guilty of blasphemy on this point. But it is fully defeated when we learn to know that our salvation rests in no wise upon ourselves and our conduct, but is founded solely upon what is outside us, namely, on God's election. Those who have the wisdom of the Spirit become ineffably happy through the doctrine, as the Apostle himself illustrates this. To them, (His elect), Christ says: "Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom" (Luke 12:32). So also God says in Isaiah 35:4: "Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not:behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you." Everywhere in Scripture those are praised and encouraged who listen to God's Word with trembling. As they despair of themselves, the Word of God performs its work in them. If we anxiously tremble at God's Word and are terrified by it, this is indeed a good sign.

If one fears that he is not elected or is otherwise troubled about his election, he should be thankful that he has such fear; for then he should surely know that God cannot lie when in Psalm 51:17 He says: "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, 0 God, thou wilt not despise." Thus he should cheerfully cast himself on the faithfulness of God who gives this promise, and turn away from the foreknowledge of the threatening God. Then he will be saved as one that is elected. It is not the characteristic of reprobates to tremble at the secret counsel of God; but that is the characteristic of the elect. The reprobates despise it, or at least pay no attention to it, or else they declare in the arrogance of their despair: "Well, if I am damned, all right, then I am damned."

With reference to the elect we might distinguish between three classes. First, there are those who are satisfied with God's will, as it is, and do not murmur against God, but rather believe that they are elected. They do not want to be damned. Secondly, there are those who submit to God's will and are satisfied with it in their hearts. At least they desire to be satisfied, if God does not wish to save, but reject them. Thirdly, there are those who really are ready to be condemned if God should will this. These are cleansed most of all of their own will and carnal wisdom. And these experience the truth of Canticles 8:6: "Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm: for love is strong as death." Such love is always joined with cross and tribulation, for without it the soul becomes lax, and does not seek after God, nor thirst after God, who is the Fountain of Life. [pp. 131-132].

Conclusion
So rather than Luther teaching the damned should have "ineffable joy" about going to Hell, Luther here states that God's eternal election serves as a comfort to his chosen people. Luther, heavily influenced at this time by German mysticism, lastly speaks of those of the elect that so trust in God's eternal decrees that even if they were to learn God had decreed to damn them, their love for God's eternal divine sovereignty would keep them at peace with such a decree. Of course, the argument is more about one "being cleansed of their own will and carnal wisdom" rather than God actually sending one of his elect into eternal damnation. In other words, Luther is making the point that those really seeking to live a life of holiness could arrive at say, something similar to what Abraham experienced when God asked him to offer his son Issac as a sacrifice, or Job's famous words, "Though He slay me, I will hope in Him." One could arrive at being cleansed of our own will and carnal wisdom and trust in God's sovereign plan, despite what we see through our sinful eyes.

Grisar though sees differently:

Several times in his Commentary on Romans he represents resignation to, indeed even an actual desire for, damnation- should that be the will of God- as something grand and sublime. Thereby he thinks he is teaching the highest degree of resignation to God s inscrutable will; thereby the highest step on the ladder of self-abnegation has been attained. In reality it is an ideal of a frightful character, far worse even than a return to nothingness. He lets us see here, as he does so often in other matters, how greatly his turbulent spirit inclined to extremes [p.238].

But, according to Grisar, Luther abandoned this form of mystical purity, replacing it with the understanding of God's gift of faith in justification by faith alone. Grisar sums up Luther's mysticism as follows:

Luther s mysticism is veritably a mysticism of despair and the "humilitas" with its love ready even for hell, which he belauds as the anchor of safety, is a forced expedient really excluded by his system, and which he himself discarded as soon as he was able to replace it by the (God- given) fides, in the shape of faith in personal justification and salvation. [p.240].

These are only snippets from Grisar, who actually gives a lengthy treatment. The second part of this series looks at another quote from Luther's Romans Commentary quoted by Grisar and subsequently used by Rome's defenders. The next quote is typically linked with the "ineffable joy"statement- though in Luther's Commentary it comes 6 or 7 pages later, in Luther's comments on Romans 9.

Addendum 1
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2008. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former. Part two of this series will be revised in a future blog post.

Addendum 2

Here is the translation of the quote in question from LW 25:376-377. You'll notice that the text is more complete than the Kregel edition, but a bit more of a cumbersome read:

Although this matter is very hard for the “prudence of the flesh,” which is made even more indignant by it and brought even to the point of blasphemy, because here it is strangled to death and reduced to absolutely nothing, it understands that salvation comes in no way from something working in itself but only from outside itself, namely, from God, who elects. But those who have the “prudence of the spirit” delight in this subject with an ineffable pleasure, as the apostle makes clear here and as is seen in the case of Hannah, the mother of Samuel in 1 Sam. 2. Among these are those people in the middle who have begun to turn away from the “prudence of the flesh” or are coming close to the “prudence of the spirit,” people who gladly want to do the will of God, but they are pusillanimous and tremble when they hear these teachings. Thus even though these words of the most perfect and nourishing food are still not entirely pleasant to them, yet by the process of antiperistasis, that is, through the fact that opposites attract, they find these words soothing and consoling. Thus, for example, no words are more effective than these for terrifying, humbling, and destroying our arrogant presumptuousness regarding merits. But those who are fearful and become pale before them have here the best and happiest sign, for the Scripture says: “Upon whom does My Spirit rest except on him who is humble and trembles at My Word?” (Is. 11:2; 66:2). To these people Christ also says: “Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s pleasure to give you the Kingdom” (Luke 12:32). And Is. 35:4: “Say to those who are of a fearful heart, ‘Be strong, fear not! Behold, your God will come.’ ” For if He had not seen that they were thinking the opposite, namely, fear and despair of the Kingdom, He would not have said, “You who are of fearful heart, ‘Be strong! Behold, your God will come.’ ” And again: “Blessed is the man who fears the Lord” (Ps. 112:1). And everywhere in the Scriptures, people of this kind who fear the Word of God are commended and comforted. For they despair of themselves, and the Word of God accomplishes its work in them, that is, creating the fear of God in them. For just as those who are hardened toward the Word of God and trust in themselves have a very bad sign so they who tremble before it and are frightened have the very best sign; as it is written in Ps. 144:6: “Send out Thy arrows and rout them.”

Therefore he who is overly fearful that he is not elect or is tested concerning his election, let him give thanks for this kind of fear and rejoice that he is afraid, for he knows with confidence that God, who cannot lie, has said: “The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken,” that is, a despairing “spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise” (Ps. 51:17). Moreover, he himself knows what “broken” means. Therefore he should boldly lay hold on the truthfulness of the God who promises and thus free himself from his former idea of a terrifying God and be saved and elect.

It is surely not a characteristic of reprobate men, at least in this life, that they fear the hidden judgment of God, but rather it is a quality of the elect. For the reprobate despise it and pay it no attention, or in desperation they become presumptuous, saying: “If I am damned, I will be damned.”

And there are three degrees of the company of the elect.

The first belongs to those who are content regarding this will of God and do not murmur against God but rely on the fact that they are elect and do not wish to be damned.

The second degree is better than the first. They are resigned and content in this feeling or at least in the desire for it, should God not want to save them but consider them among the reprobate.

The third degree is the best and highest of them, who in effect resign themselves to hell if God so wills, as is probably the case with many at the hour of death. These people are perfectly cleansed of their own will and the “prudence of the flesh.” They know the meaning of the passage: “Love is strong as death, jealousy is cruel as the grave” (Song of Sol. 8:6). A marvelous comparison, because love is compared with harsh things, although it seemingly is a soft and sweet thing. But it is true that love is the pleasure in someone else, for it enjoys the beloved. But in this world God gives this love to His elect fleetingly and sparingly, for it is a most dangerous thing to have it frequently and for a long time; “for they have their reward” (Matt. 6:2). But this love for something we long for, I say, is like hell, hard and strong, and in this God trains His elect in this life in wonderful ways. Thus the bride says in the Song of Solomon: “I am sick with love” (Song of Sol. 2:5). Therefore under the term “love” or “charity” we must always understand the cross and sufferings, as is clear in this passage. For without these the soul becomes lazy and tepid, neglects the love of God and no longer thirsts for Him, the living Fountain. This love is sweet indeed, but not in passively receiving but in actively demonstrating itself, that is, to speak in common language, it is sweet toward its object but bitter to its subject. For it wishes all good things for others and demonstrates them, but it receives all evils upon itself and takes them as its own. For “it does not seek its own, but bears all things and endures all things” (1 Cor. 13:5, 7).

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 25: Lectures on Romans. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 25, pp. 376–378). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.