Luther: "God is the author of the evil as well as the good in us, and as He saves us without any merit on our part. He also damns us through no fault of ours. All that we do is done, not freely, but through pure necessity"

Here's some anti-Protestant commentary and an obscure Luther quote I recently came across:

A Protestant is not obliged to follow the 10 Commandments or practice what he reads in the Scriptures. The founders of the Protestant revolt teach that works are useless and even injurious to salvation. Every action is a sin. 

Luther and Calvin deny the existence of free-will in man. Luther wrote a book called ''Slave Will," in which he states: ''God is the author of the evil as well as the good in us, and as He saves us without any merit on our part. He also damns us through no fault of ours. All that we do is done, not freely, but through pure necessity." (Works of Luther, vol. ii., p. 435.)

This was put together by someone, as far as I can tell, is a defender of Roman Catholicism. The points being made are: 1) Protestants don't believe in or practice good works; 2) if free will is denied, there is no such thing as human responsibility. Let's track down this Luther quote and see what's going on.

Documentation
The source provided is the ambiguous, "Works of Luther, vol. ii., p. 435." A quick search though reveals the entire two paragraphs are a reworking (a.k.a. plagiarism) of an old Roman Catholic book entitled, Christian Apologetics: A Defense of the Catholic Faith By Walter Devivier. A comparison of what this author states and what's posted above demonstrate the similarities:

Finally (it is hardly credible), a Protestant is not obliged to practise what he reads in the Scriptures, however clear it may be. For the founders of the Reformation teach that works are useless and even injurious to salvation; that faith suffices to make us the friends of God; that man once justified before God is sure of being saved, whatever crimes he may afterward commit. What is more, that it is even impossible for man to sin since he is not free. Luther and Calvin go so far as to deny the existence of free-will in man. Luther wrote a book called “Slave Will,” which may be summed up thus: “God is the author of the evil as well as the good in us, and as He saves us without any merit on our part, He also damns us through no fault of ours. . . . All that we do is done, not freely, but through pure necessity.” (Works of Luther, vol. ii., p. 435.)

The "Works of Luther, vol. ii., p. 435" appears to be a reference to the vol. 2 of the Wittenberg edition of Luther's writings. Here is page 435. The text being cited appears to be:

This is an old Latin text dating back to the sixteenth century. A clearer image can be found here.

The quote comes from Luther's De Servo Arbitrio, known in English as The Bondage of the Will. It has been translated into English in LW 33. The place where this quote is located is LW 33:70.

Context

But if we are unwilling to let this term go [free will] altogether—though that would be the safest and most God-fearing thing to do—let us at least teach men to use it honestly, so that free choice is allowed to man only with respect to what is beneath him and not what is above him. That is to say, a man should know that with regard to his faculties and possessions he has the right to use, to do, or to leave undone, according to his own free choice, though even this is controlled by the free choice of God alone, who acts in whatever way he pleases. On the other hand in relation to God, or in matters pertaining to salvation or damnation, a man has no free choice, but is a captive, subject and slave either of the will of God or the will of Satan. [LW 33:70]

Conclusion
In response to the original anti-Protestant comment which began this entry: first, there's nothing in the immediate context of Luther's words that he suggested acting against the Ten Commandments, that works were useless, and that all action is a sin. True, Luther abhorred the pseudo-works perpetuated by allegedly devout Roman Catholics. Pilgrimages, idolatry, monkery, self-denials, etc., which were considered good works one does for oneself on the road to eventual salvation. Luther plainly teaches that saving faith is a living faith,  a life under the cross, which is a life of discipleship of following after Christ. Our crosses though, do not save. They serve the neighbor. We are called to be neighbor to those around us. Luther says,

We receive Christ not only as a gift by faith, but also as an example of love toward our neighbor, whom we are to serve as Christ serves us. Faith brings and gives Christ to you with all his possessions. Love gives you to your neighbor with all your possessions. These two things constitute a true and complete Christian life; then follow suffering and persecution for such faith and love, and out of these grows hope and patience.[Sermons of Martin Luther (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), 1:34]

Second,  in regard to the Luther quote: it is true though that Luther spoke out against the concept of free will (his entire book the quote was purportedly taken from is about this subject). For Luther, the will is either enslaved by Satan or set free by God.  It is true also that Luther rejected performing works in order to achieve salvation: a rejection of personal merit to achieve salvation.

Third, a comparison of the purported Luther quote and the actual context shows a severe discontinuity.  As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the immediate context in which Luther directly says, "God is the author of the evil as well as the good in us." Was this meant to be a synopsis of Luther's words, "a man should know that with regard to his faculties and possessions he has the right to use, to do, or to leave undone, according to his own free choice, though even this is controlled by the free choice of God alone, who acts in whatever way he pleases"? If so, that someone would translate Luther's words in such a crude way shows a profound bias in textual interpretation. It's quite possible though whoever originally put the quote together was citing a different section of  De Servo Arbitrio altogether (see my entry here).

The purported quote goes on to say, "and as He saves us without any merit on our part, He also damns us through no fault of ours. . . . All that we do is done, not freely, but through pure necessity.”  
This seems to be similar to the lines, "On the other hand in relation to God, or in matters pertaining to salvation or damnation, a man has no free choice, but is a captive, subject and slave either of the will of God or the will of Satan." Notice in context, Luther says that humans have a limited freedom in regard to the daily things of life (but even that is subject to God's pure freedom) "a man should know that with regard to his faculties and possessions he has the right to use, to do, or to leave undone, according to his own free choice, though even this is controlled by the free choice of God alone, who acts in whatever way he pleases." This appears to have been presented as "All that we do is done, not freely, but through pure necessity"! That's certainly an abuse of Luther's words.

The main disconnect for Rome's defenders is Luther's insistence that human ability does not contribute in any meritorious way to salvation. For Luther, if the will is enslaved, it has no ability to do works pleasing to God unto salvation. Humanity, therefore is in total reliance on God's grace. Here is "ground zero" of the debate which requires one to simply read Luther's full argumentation.

Luther: "Jesus in His Human Nature Got It Wrong" ?

Here's an odd Luther-related statement attributed to Tim Staples from the Catholic Answers Forums:

In a recent episode of Catholic Answers focus, Tim Staples said that there was an instance where Martin Luther said Christ in his human nature was in error on the subject of free will and that St. Paul was more reliable. I had never heard this and would be very interested to read where Luther said that. Could anyone here point me to a citation?

There were a number of comments before I joined in, including: that Mr. Staples misinterpreted a section from the Book of Concord,  to

"I very much doubt that Luther made such a remark..."
"This sounds like a case where Luther was probably saying something to the effect that we look at passages that speak directly to an issue to clarify the meaning of a passage which does not address an issue directly..."
"...anything that Tim Staples says about Lutheranism or Luther with a huge grain of salt..." "...Or smaller If he provided no context or source,"
"If Luther had ever said, or written, that Christ was in error, I think we would have heard about it before now. In error about anything at all, however trivial..." 

I had never heard anything like this before either. Luther was prone to strong hyperbole. Mr. Staples could easily be referring to an obscure Table Talk comment. Often those comments lack clear contexts that secure a definite theological position.

The person who originally brought this up was gracious enough to grant my request to provide a link to the broadcast in which Mr. Staples made the remarks in question.  Advance the show to around 15:50. Mr. Staples is having a discussion with Cy Kellett]. Here is a transcription:

Tim Staples: How man times in Matthew 23:37.... Jesus weeps over... at least in Luke's version he weeps... but in Matthew's version, "Oh Jerusalem Jerusalem you that killeth the prophet how often I would have gathered you as a hen gathers her chicks... but you refused...you refused..." Luther was so... Cy, I don't know if I've ever shared this with you, but... this is gonna shock you. Luther was adamant with this understanding of the passivity of the will, that he actually wrote that Jesus in his human nature got it wrong there.

Cy Kellett: oh Man! 

Tim Staples: He got it wrong there. 

Cy Kellett: Jesus is not a reliable teacher. 

Tim Staples: He didn't have the fullness of the revelation that Saint Paul later got. 

Cy Kellett: oh, so you put Saint Paul over Jesus.

Conclusion
Mr. Staples launches into his discussion of Luther by first commenting on Matthew 23:37. The obvious place to look for such a quote as described is Luther’s Bondage of the Will. The passage is discussed, but not quite as explained by Mr. Staples.

See LW 33:144-147 (or Packer’s translation 175-177). There Luther explains that God incarnate weeps and laments over “the perdition of the ungodly.” Then he states, “Nor is it to for us to ask why he does so, but to stand in awe of God, Who can do, and wills to do, such things.” God as the incarnate word in his humanity weeps for those who rejected him. Then Luther presents a typical counter to this… that some would run to the secret will of God when things don’t quite add up. Luther then goes on shortly thereafter to state it’s not his argument to refer to the secret will of God, but Paul’s in Romans, that God is the potter and he can do what he wants to in his hidden and secret will.

Here is link to an inferior English translation of Luther’s Bondage of the Will. This link goes directly to the page in which Luther begins comments on Matthew 23 (the same passage Mr. Staples was commenting on before his Luther comment). This translation refers to Christ shedding “useless tears” over Jerusalem. Luther then goes on to contrast this with Paul’s revelation of the secret will of God (p.168). If possible though, use LW 33 or the Packer translation for reference.

If this is the passage from Luther Mr. Staples has in mind, I can sort of see how, given Tim's presupposition of the freedom of the will, he could make the interpretation he’s making. I think its misconstruing Luther’s words, but only Mr. Staples can clarify if this is the passage from Luther he has in mind, and then explain how he reads it. I believe Mr. Staples was probably speaking “off the cuff” or extemporaneously and misspoke that Luther exactly wrote what he attributes to him. Rather, I think given an opportunity to clarify, Mr. Staples may say his comments about Luther are his conclusion of what Luther's words imply. I’ve interacted with Mr. Staples before. I suspect if I ask him about what he was referring to, this is the context from Luther that he had in mind. I suspect also, if given another opportunity, he would flesh out his remarks and make them more cogent.

To echo one of the folks on the forums, "If Luther had ever said, or written, that Christ was in error, I think we would have heard about it before now." Without actually contacting Mr. Staples to clarify, I suspect this is the context from Luther he's referring to.

Katie Luther Inspires Martin to Write The Bondage of the Will

ht: Thank you Katie Luther

"In the first months of their marriage, when she insisted that her husband could not leave Erasmus unanswered, she had been pushed into the forefront by Camerarius, as we know. Camerarius was driven by objective reasons. The diatribe that Erasmus had published was the Humanists’ declaration of war on the Reformer. And with the prominence of both men, the battle had to be taken up and fought until there was an honorable accord or one of the combatants was defeated. Katie maybe had little understanding of such deliberations, but she understood that the opponents could easily see her husband’s stubborn silence as conceding defeat—a concern which Luther himself shared otherwise—and she didn’t stop assailing him with urgent pleas until, after he had indignantly procrastinated almost a year, he finally overcame his reluctance and wrote his reply in a few weeks."

I've never heard this before. The quote above is said to come from Ernst Kroker, The Mother of the Reformation: The Amazing Life and Story of Katharine Luther (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing, 2013). A preview of the book can be found here.

Special thanks to the Heavenly Springs blog for the information.

Sproul on Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Roman Catholicism, and the will of man

R. C. Sproul demonstrates the contradiction in Roman Catholic Theology, when it claims it agrees with Augustine against Pelagius and the Semi-Pelagians (Provincial Synod of Orange in 529 AD), but later re-affirms Semi-Pelagianism by the decrees of Trent (1545-1563) and then, later, arguably, it approves of even Pelagianism by the condemnation of the Jansenists (roughly, 1638-1713) and the modern Roman Catholic Catechism of 1994.  Sproul calls it an "ambiguity".  Indeed, it is more than that; it is a real contradiction.  It also shows the Roman Catholic Church to be fallible; thus bringing down the whole system of its claim to be infallible.



I recommend Sproul's book, Willing to Believe, and DVD teaching series. 

See also an earlier post about the tendency of Roman Catholicism to drift back to Semi-Pelagianism between the Council of Orange in 529 AD until Luther questioned the issue, and the Council of Trent in 1545-1563. 

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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"!

Luther: "God creates in us the evil in like manner as the good"

This is a fascinating quote purported to come from Luther's Bondage of the Will:

"God pleaseth you when He crowns the unworthy, He ought not to displease you when he damns the innocent. All things take place by the eternal and invariable will of God, who blasts and shatters in pieces the freedom of the will. God creates in us the evil in like manner as the good. The high perfection of faith is to believe that God is just, notwithstanding that by His will He renders us necessarily damnable."

It was cited in this form by Sir William Hamilton, a respected scholar in the 19th Century.  Hamilton claimed that he had literally translated Luther. It was later proved this wasn't so. He had relied on a translation for the above quote from a secondary source. I provide this example because many times in researching quotes from Luther, I've found that the quotes can sometimes be different sentences strung together from various places, put forth to sound like one specific quote:

As the sentences just quoted stand in the Review, they seem to form one continuous passage. But when we look through the Treatise De Servo Arbitrio, we discover to our surprise that they are culled out from various parts of it, with long intervals between them, and that they are monstrously garbled and misrepresented. I dare say the Reviewer himself does not know this; and he may perhaps be thankful to see the originals of his quotation. Well! if he will look into the third volume of the Jena edition, p. 207 a, he will find Luther arguing thus against an objection urged by Erasmus in his Diatribe de Libero Arbitrio on the score of justice: "Vides ergo Diatriben cum suis in hac causa non judicare secundum aequitatem, sed secundum affectum commodi sui. Si enim aequitatem spectaret, aeque expostularet cum Deo, dum indignos coronat, atque expostulat cum eo, dum immeritos damnat. Aeque etiam latidaret et praedicaret Deum, dum damnat immeritos, atque facit, dum indignos salvat. Utrobique enim par iniquitas, si sensum nostrum spectes; nisi non fuerit aeque iniquum si Cain ob homicidium laudes regemque facias, atque si Habel innocentem in carcerem conjicias aut occidas. Cum igitur ratio Deum laudet indignos salvantem, arguat vero immeritos damnantem, convincitur non laudare Deum ut Deum, sed ut suo commodo servientem : hoc est, seipsam et quae sua sunt in Deo quaerit et laudat, non Deum aut quae Dei sunt. At si placet tibi Deus indignos coronans, non debet etiam displicere immeritos damnans." Here the sentence which the Reviewer sets at the head of Luther's offensive sayings, and which, as so placed, can only be understood absolutely, —nay, which he plainly meant to be understood absolutely, — nay, which, as we shall see, he himself understood absolutely, — comes in as one in a chain of strictly logical propositions, in reply to a particular argument used by Erasmus. Luther is not declaring his ovra belief, but merely reducing his opponent's argument ad ahsurdum.

Turn we back eighty-four folio pages to 165 a, and we come to the following sentences. " Est itaque hoc imprimis necessarium et salutare Christiano nosse, quod Deus nihil praescit contingenter, sed quod omnia incommutabiU, et aeterna, infallibilique voluntate et praevidet et proponit et facit. Hoc fuhnine sternitur et conteritur penitus Liberum Arbitrium." If the reader compares this with the Reviewer's second sentence, he will perceive what is the meaning of a "literal translation." Luther says that "the foreknowledge of God is a thunderbolt by which Liberum Arbitrium is crusht and destroyed." The Reviewer's literal translation most profanely represents God as "blasting and shattering in pieces the freedom of the will" But this mistranslation too, we shall see, is not imputable wholly to him.

The precise original of the next sentence, "God creates in us the evil, in like manner as the good," I have not met with: perhaps there is none, none at all events that the Reviewer knows of; but there are a number of passages that "blast and shatter in pieces" such an accusation; for instance in 199 a : "Quando Deus omnia in omnibus movet et agit, necessario movet etiam et agit in Satana et impio. Agit autem in illis taliter, quales illi sunt, et quales invenit ; hoc est, cum illi sint aversi et maK, et rapiantur motu illo divinae omnipotentiae, non nisi aversa et mala faciunt. Tanquam si eques agat equum tripedem vel bipedem, agit quidem taliter, qualis equus est; hoc est, equus male incedit. Sed quid faciat eques ? Equum talem simul agit cum equis sanis, illo male, istis bene : aliter non potest, nisi equus sanetur. Hie vides Deum, cum in malis et per malos operatur, mala quidem fieri, Deum tanien non posse male facere, licet mala per malos faciat, quia ipse bonus malefacere non potest, malis tamen instrumentis utitur. —Omnipotentia Dei facit ut impius non possit motum et actionem Dei evadere. — Corruptio vero seu aversio sui a Deo facit ut bene moveri et rapi non possit. Deus suam omnipotentiam non potest omittere propter illius aversi- onem, impius vero suam aversionem non potest mutafe. Ita fit ut perpetuo et necessario peccet et erret, donee Spiritu Dei corrigatur. — Non igitur quispiam cogitet, Deum, cum dicitur indurare, aut malum in nobis operari, (indurare enim est malum facere), sic facere, quasi de novo in nobis malum creet ; ac si fingas malignum caupo- nem, qui, ipse mains, in vas non malum fundat aut temperet venenum, ipso vase nihil faciente. — Sic enim fingere videntur hominem per sese bonum, aut non malum, pati a Deo malum opus, dum audiunt a nobis dici Deum in nobis operari bona et mala — (can this be the original of the Reviewer's sentence, "God creates in us the evil, in like manner as the good?" the Reviewer himself, we shall see, cannot tell us whether it is or not:) nosque mera necessitate passiva sutjici Deo operanti. — Sed ita cogitet, — in nobis, id est, per nos Deum operari mala, non culpa Dei, sed vitio nostro, qui cum simus natura mali, Deus vero bonus, nos actione sua pro natura omnipotentiae suae rapiens, aliter facere non possit, quam quod ipse bonus malo instrumento malum faciat, licet hoc malo pro sua sapientia utatur bene ad gloriam suam et salutem nostram." Let none despise this explanation. "Who has given a better? and Luther himself, just before, says, "Oportuit verbis Dei contentos esse, et simpliciter credere quod dicunt, cum sint opera Dei prorsus inenarrabilia. Tamen in obsequium Rationis, id est, stultitiae humanae, libet ineptire et stultescere, et balbutiendo tentare si qua possimus eam movere."

For the last sentence in the Reviewer's quartette we must again go back fifty-six folio pages to 171 a; and there we read, "Hie est fidei summus gradus, credere ilium esse clementem, qui tam paucos salvat, tam multos damnat, credere justum, qui sua vohmtate nos necessario damnabiles facit, ut videatur, referente Erasmo, delectari cruciatibus miserorum, et odio potius quam amore dignus." The meaning of this passage, as is clear from the context, is: "This is the highest pitch of faith, to believe in the mercy of God, although few are saved, and so many condemned, to believe in the justice of God, who by His will creates us, though by the necessity of our fallen nature we become inevitably subject to condemnation, without the special help of His Spirit; so that, as Erasmus states it, He seems to find pleasure in the torments of the wretched, and to be deserving of hatred rather than love." The argument throughout the whole Treatise is, that God does not create the evil in us, but that He creates us, though our fallen nature is evil, and though, until that fallen nature is renewed, we are unable to resist sin, and thereby become liable to condemnation. How grossly all this is misrepresented in the Reviewer's "literal translation," is plain. In the last clause the words referente Erasmo, which show that it was a conclusion drawn, not by Luther himself, but by Erasmus, are wholly left out (bf).

Still in one sense the Reviewer is not so guilty as he appears. For, strange though it may be deemed, it unquestionably is the fact, as I have already hinted more than once, that he had never set eyes on the original Latin of any one of these four sentences. The garbling, the mistranslation, the misrepresentation are not the Reviewer's sin, but Bossuet's, in the second Book of whose Histoire des Variations the four sentences stand, almost consecutively, though not in the same order, in one page, § xvii. As a thief is sometimes detected through some flaw in his shoe or boot, which happens to coincide with the foot-prints about the spot where the robbery was committed, so here we may feel confident that the Reviewer, who verily needs an expert policeman to track him, took his quotations from Bossuet, because, after the Chinese fashion, they copy Bossuet's faults. For Bossuet too, in the second sentence, gives, "Toutes choses arrivent par une immuable, ^ternelle, et inevitable volonte de Dieu, qui foud/roie et met en pieces tout le libre arhitre; " and Bossuet also, according to his wont, perverts the whole of the last sentence, omitting the very words which the Reviewer omits, not only the clause about God's mercy, but also the two words referente Erasmo, the absence of which completely changes the character of the last clause, shifting its offensiveness from Erasmus to Luther; and Bossuet in like manner mistranslates "qui sua voluntate nos necessario damnahiles facit" by " quoiqu'il nous rende necessairement damnahles par sa volonte."

But though Bossuet may thus relieve the Reviewer from a part of his guilt, still, when we remember that in the sentence immediately before these propositions, which he quotes as exemplifying Luther's paradoxes in Speculative Theology, he promises that his "hasty anthology of Luther's opinions" shall be "in his own words, literally translated" — and when we find it thus demonstrated that the first four sentences which he produces, on a subject on which the utmost precision is, above all, indispensable, as a metaphysician must be especially aware, are not translated from Luther, but from the translation of a Frenchman, a person therefore nationally inaccurate, and Luther's bitter and fierce enemy, — and that he can never have seen Luther's words, that he had no notion whatever of their meaning and logical connection, — we will leave him to characterize his own conduct, if he can find appropriate terms for it in that rich vocabulary which he has poured out in his attacks on the University of Oxford. On the other hand what a testimony is it to the soundness of Luther's doctrines, that this knot of garbled sentences thus twisted and strained from their meaning are all that so unscrupulous an enemy has been able to scrape together against him under the head of Speculative Theology!


This was Hamilton's response:

 "In regard to the testimonies from Luther under this first head, but under this alone, I must make a confession. There are few things to which I feel a greater repugnance than relying upon quotations at second-hand. Now those under this head were not taken immediately from Luther's treatise, 'De Servo Arbitrio,' in which they are all contained. I had indeed more than once read that remarkable work, and once attentively, marking, as is my wont, the more important passages; but at the time of writing this article, my copy was out of immediate reach, and the press being urgent, I had no leisure for a reperusal. In these circumstances, finding that the extracts from it in Theoduls Gastmald corresponded, so far as they went, with those also given by Bossuet, and as, from my own recollection (and the testimony, I think, of Werdermann), they fairly represented Luther's doctrine; I literally translated the passages, even in their order, as given by Von Stark (and in Dr Kentsinger's French version). Stark, I indeed now conjecture, had Bossuet in his eye. I deem it right to make this avowal, and to acknowledge that I did what I account wrong. But, again, I have no hesitation in now, after full examination, deliberately saying, that I do not think these extracts, whether by Bossuet, or by Stark and Bossuet, to be unfairly selected, to be unfaithfully translated, to be garbled, or to misrepresent in any way Luther's doctrine; in particular his opinions touching the divine predestination and the human will."

Tim Staples, Luther, and "Error Begets Error," a Review

I was sent a link over to a recent Catholic Answers article by Tim Staples: Error Begets Error. The "errors" Mr. Staples has in mind are Luther's understanding of justification without the contribution of human works, Luther's error of claiming Roman Catholics deny the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice,  the error of denying free will,  the error of "simul justus et peccator," and finally the ultimate error of double predestination.


1. Justification
In regard to the first "error," Staples cites the Packer / Johnston translation of Luther's The Bondage of the Will, (he doesn't cite the page number, 294):

The assertion that justification is free to all that are justified leaves none to work, merit or prepare themselves… For if we are justified without works, all works are condemned, whether small or great; Paul exempts none, but thunders impartially against all.

Staples says Luther misinterpreted Paul because,

St. Paul was answering "Judaizers"—believers in Christ who were attempting to re-establish the law of the Old Covenant as necessary for salvation in the New. This was tantamount to forfeiting Christ, or rejecting the free gift, because it represented an attempt to be justified apart from Christ.

What Staples appears to mean by "the law of the Old Covenant" is the Mosaic law. The actual debate then Staples should have with Luther is over this very issue: what constitutes the Law, according to Paul? Had Staples backed up a few pages in The Bondage of the Will, he would have found Luther specifically addressing this issue. Luther states the moral law (the Decalogue) was indeed important to Paul as being commanded by God, as were the other aspects of the Mosaic law:

Ceremonial works were as much commanded and made obligatory in the old law as was the Decalogue; therefore, the latter had neither more nor less force than the former. Paul speaks to the Jews first, as he says in Rom. x (v. 16); so none need doubt that by 'the works of the law' all the works of the entire law are meant. Indeed, they could not be called 'the works of the law' if the law was abrogated and death-dealing, for an abrogated law is law no more, as Paul well knew. When he speaks of 'the works of the law', therefore, he is speaking, not of a law that is abrogated, but of a law that is in force and authoritative. Otherwise, how easily he might have said: 'The law itself is now abrogated!'—which would have been a plain, clear statement of the case. But let us appeal to Paul himself, his own best interpreter. In Gal. 3, he says: 'As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them' (v. 10). Paul is here urging the same point as in Romans, and in the same words; and you see that when he makes mention of the works of the law he speaks of all the laws that are written in the book of the law. Moreover—what is still more remarkable —Paul cites Moses as cursing those who continue not in the law, whereas he himself pronounces accursed those who are of the works of the law; thus adducing a passage with a different scope from his own expressed view, the former being negative and the latter affirmative. This he does, however, because the real position in the sight of God is that those who are most zealous in the works of the law are furthest from fulfilling the law; for they are without the Spirit, Who alone fulfills the law. Men may try to keep it in their own strength, but they can accomplish nothing. Thus, both statements are true—that of Moses, that they are accursed who 'continue not', and that of Paul, that they are accursed who 'are of the works of the law'. Both speakers require that men should have the Spirit, without Whom works of law, however many are done, do not justify, as Paul says; so that men do not continue in all things that are written, as Moses says. In a word: Paul fully confirms what I say by his division. He divides workers at the law into two classes, those who work after the Spirit and those who work after the flesh, leaving no middle state. He says: 'By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified.' What is this, but to say that when men work at the law without the Spirit, being themselves flesh, that is, ungodly and ignorant of God, their works profit them nothing? In Gal. 3, he makes use of the same division when he says: 'Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?' (v. 2). Again, in Rom. 3 he says: 'But now the righteousness of God has been revealed without the law'; and again: 'We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law' (VV. 21, 28). From all these passages it is clear and plain that in Paul the Spirit is set in opposition to the works of the law, as He is to all other things that are not spiritual, and to all the powers and qualities of the flesh. So it is certain that Paul's view here accords with Christ's teaching in John 3 (v. 6), that everything which is not of the Spirit is flesh, however specious, holy and excellent it may be, even the most - glorious works of God's law, by whatever powers wrought. For the Spirit of Christ is needed, and without Him all is nothing but a matter for condemnation. Let it be settled, then, that Paul by 'the works of the law' means, not ceremonial works, but all the works of all the law. Then it will also be settled that all works of law that are wrought without the Spirit are condemned. But the power of 'free-will' (which is the matter in dispute), though no doubt the most excellent thing in man, is without the Spirit. That he is 'of the works of the law' is the finest thing that can be said of a man. But Paul does not say, 'who are of sins, and of ungodliness, contrary to the law'; he says, 'who are of the works of the law'—. that is, the best devotees of the law, who, over and above the power of 'free-will', are also aided—that is, instructed and encouraged—by the law itself. If, now, 'free-will,' when aided by the law, and occupied in the law with all its powers, profits nothing and fails to justify, but is left in ungodliness in the flesh, what must we think it could do on its own, without the law? 'By the law is the knowledge of sin,' says Paul (Rom. 3.20). Here he shows how much and how far the law profits, teaching that 'free-will' is of itself so blind that it does not even know what sin is, but needs the law to teach it! And what can a man essay to do in order to take away sin, when he does not know what sin is? Surely this: mistake what is sin for what is not sin, and what is not sin for what is sin! Experience informs us clearly enough how the world, in the persons of those whom it accounts its best and most zealous devotees of righteousness and godliness, hates and hounds down the righteousness of God preached in the gospel, and brands it heresy, error, and other opprobrious names, while flaunting and hawking its own works and devices (which are really sin and error) as righteousness and wisdom. By these words, therefore, Paul stops the mouth of 'free-will', teaching tat by the law it is shown sin, as being ignorant of its sin; so far is he from allowing it any power to make endeavors towards good. (pp. 285-287)

2. The Sufficiency of Christ's Work 
In  regard to the second "error" Staples cites an undocumented sermon from Luther:

[Catholics] know very well how to say of him: I believe in God the Father, and in his only begotten Son. But it is only upon the tongue, like the foam on the water; it does not enter the heart. Figuratively a big tumor still remains there in the heart; that is, they cling somewhat to their own deeds and think they must do works in order to be saved—that Christ's person and merit are not sufficient. . . . They say, Christ has truly died for us, but in a way that we, also, must accomplish something by our deeds. Notice how deeply wickedness and unbelief are rooted in the heart.

The sermon being cited is Luther's Sunday After Christ's Ascension (1522). The error this is supposed to represent is that Luther "claimed any belief that man must actively cooperate in salvation at all to be equivalent to a denial of the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice."

In context, Luther is speaking about those who claim to "know" God broadly, not simply "Catholics" (a word that was added to Luther's quote by Mr. Staples). In fact, if one were to look at that which immediately precedes what Mr. Staples quotes, Luther refers to the Turks and a little earlier mentions the pope, not "Catholics" generally, but I grant that Luther certainly has the "papists" of his day in mind as well.

Staples argues,

Saying man must 'accomplish something' in Christ does not deny the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice; it merely states, in agreement with St. John no less, that man must, among other things, 'walk in the light' of Christ in order for Christ’s all-sufficient sacrifice to become efficacious in his life."

Notice what Luther immediately goes on to say from the same context:

But to know Christ in the other and true sense is to know that he died for me and transferred the load of my sin upon himself; to so know this that I realize that all my doings amount to nothing. To let go all that is mine, and value only this, that Christ is given to me as a present; his sufferings, his righteousness and all his virtues are at once mine. When I become conscious of this, I must in return love him; my affections must go out to such a being. After this I climb upon the Son higher, to the Father, and see that Christ is God, and that he placed himself in my death, in my sin, in my misery, and bestows upon me his grace. Then I know also his gracious will and the highest love of the Father, which no heart of itself can discover or experience. Thus I lay hold of God at the point where he is the tenderest, and think: Aye, that is God; that is God's will and pleasure, that Christ did this for me. And with this experience I perceive the high, inexpressible mercy and the love in him because of which he offered his beloved child for me in ignominy, shame and death. That friendly look and lovely sight then sustain me. Thus must God become known, only in Christ. Therefore, Christ himself says to his disciples: "No one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him." Mt 11, 27.

The issue in the actual debate between Luther and Romanism is that for Luther, one who is saved by faith alone goes on to live a life in gratitude to what Christ has done, but this life of gratitude is not a salvific contribution. As was stated of Luther's sermons long ago, "[Luther’s] leading thoughts were always faith and charity, justification and sanctification, giving to each its proper place and its due importance. He did not preach sanctification at the expense of justification, a sin which many sectarian preachers are guilty; but he did not fail to emphasize the necessity of the Christian life. His sermons were immensely practical, as all preaching, in order to serve its purpose should be” [Rev. John H.C. Fritz, “Luther as a Preacher,” found in W.H.T. Dau (editor), Four Hundred Years: Commemorative Essays on the Reformation of Dr. Martin Luther and its Blessed Results [St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1917), 204].


3. Free Will
Mr. Staples then refers to another "error of Luther:

The errors continue in The Bondage of the Will when Luther takes the next logical step by declaring man’s will to be absolutely passive when it comes to salvation; and consequent to that, he expressly denies the truth of man’s free will. This again follows logically from the principle of "no works," meaning there is nothing we can do, leading to two-for-one errors.

He cites The Bondage of the Will (he doesn't cite the page number, 103-104):

So man’s will is like a beast standing between two riders. If God rides, it wills and goes where God wills. . . . If Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan wills. Nor may it choose to which rider it will run, or which it will seek; but the riders themselves fight to decide who shall have and hold it.

Certainly Mr. Staples is correct that Luther denies "free will." As to whether it's a denial of "the truth of man’s free will" is more an example of Mr. Staples preaching to his own choir rather than a detailed argument against Luther's book (and, I realize the article by Staples was not meant to be a detailed refutation of Luther).


4. Simul justus et peccator
Mr. Staples then cites another error:

Luther’s famous notion of simul justus et peccator (“at the same time just and sinner”) is another error rooted in leaving man completely out of the equation when it comes to his own justification. It means, in effect, man's justification is accomplished extrinsic to him. God declares a man just via a divine, forensic declaration—a legal fiction—rather than the biblical notion of a real inward transformation that makes him truly and inwardly just (cf. II Cor. 5:17).

Once again this is another snippet of preaching to the choir rather than an interaction with any of Luther's argumentation, nor does Mr. Staples offer any particular Luther quote. What Mr. Staples should have done, to be fair to Luther, is to explain what Luther actually believed the role of works were in the life of a Christian.


5. Predestination
Mr Staples then goes on to state what he believes was Luther's worst error:

There are many other errors we could add to this litany of Lutheran misstandings, but what I would argue to be Luther’s most egregious errors came as a direct consequence of his denial of free will. Think about it. If you deny free will, but you also teach that at least some people will end up in hell—and Luther did just that—then it necessarily follows that God does not will all to be saved. This is logical if you accept Luther's first principles. The problem is it runs contrary to plain biblical texts like I Tim. 2:4: “God wills all to be saved” (see also II Peter 3:9: I John 2:1-2), and Matthew 23:37, which records the words of our Lord himself.

Well, I'm Reformed, so I don't particularly have a problem with Luther if his view was "God does not will all to be saved." However, as far as I've been able to understand Luther, he did not limit the extent of the atonement. He rather argued Christ died for "all", as in, every single person.  Mr Staples then provides actual argumentation from Luther on this issue from The Bondage of the Will (he doesn't cite the page number, p. 176),

Here, God Incarnate (sic) says: “I would and thou wouldst not.” God Incarnate (sic), I repeat, was sent for this purpose, to will, say, do, suffer, and offer to all men, all that is necessary for salvation; albeit he offends many who, being abandoned or hardened by God’s secret will of Majesty, do not receive Him thus willing, speaking, doing, and offering. . . . It belongs to the same God incarnate to weep, lament, and groan over the perdition of the ungodly, though that will of Majesty purposely leaves and reprobates some to perish.

Mr. Staples interprets Luther as follows:

So what is Luther’s response to Jesus’ obvious willing all to be saved? Certainly, he would acquiesce to the Master and acknowledge God's universal salvific will, would he not? After all, Jesus Christ is, in one sense, the will of God manifest in the flesh. Unfortunately not. Luther claimed Christ's human knowledge to be lacking when it came to understanding "God's secret will of Majesty," which led our Lord's human will to find itself in opposition to the divine will. Poor Jesus. If he only knew what Luther knew.

Exactly where is Luther saying this about Christ's human knowledge? Luther certainly isn't saying this in the quote cited by Mr. Staples. What's interesting is this very section is quoted in Packer's introduction along with an explanation of Luther's Deus absconditus (pp. 55-57), and that appears to be the actual text Mr. Staples is citing (based on the fact that both Mr. Staples and Packer leave out the same sentences). Luther describes God in his bare majesty as the hidden God (deus absconditus). This God has absolute control over everything. Of the agenda of the hidden God, a finite creature can know nothing. He is the God who enforces his “hidden and awful will” which includes the predestinating punishment for sinners. Of this hidden will, no creature is to speculate on or inquire. Rather, as Packer explains, "...we must listen to, and deal with, God as He speaks to us in Christ." Packer, as far I could see from the immediate context, does not say anything about Luther's solution being to limit the knowledge of Christ. In fact, I would refer Mr. Staples to one of the standard works on Luther's theology for his review.