Have you ever read the document that started the protestant reformation? On October 31st 1517 a man by the name of Martin Luther nailed 95 propositions for discussion to the Wittenburg Door. It was a common practice to nail letters to this door to spark debate and conversation. Luther had grown tired of the abuses going on in regards to selling indulgences and wanted to bring attention to the problem. The funny thing is, Luther thought that what he was doing would please the pope because Luther at the time still held the pope and the Roman Catholic Church in high esteem and simply sought to reform some of its practices. Luther believed that the pope would be glad that someone would draw attention to the practices that took glory away from God. Little did Luther know when he nailed the 95 thesis to that door that this would be the beginning of the Protestant reformation and lead to his excommunication.It's quite interesting to see how Luther's theology changes from when he wrote the 95 thesis to the time he wrote "The Bondage of the Will." Luther like all Christians who seek after God's heart continued to grow in his knowledge of the word of God. Luther became a Scripture quoting, highly theological weapon that would call people back to the word of God and away from the traditions of men. It's clear when reading the 95 thesis that at the time he wrote it Luther still held much love for the roman church and the pope in his heart. It would not be long until his eyes were opened to just how deep the corruption in the church had gone. Luther would take a stand on God's word along with others like him that the world still feels today. Scripture Alone, Grace Alone, Faith Alone, Christ Alone, to the Glory of God Alone.Here is what started the Reformation:
1. When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said "Repent", He called for the entire life of believers to be one of penitence.
2. The word cannot be properly understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, i.e. confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
3. Yet its meaning is not restricted to penitence in one's heart; for such penitence is null unless it produces outward signs in various mortifications of the flesh.
4. As long as hatred of self abides (i.e. true inward penitence) the penalty of sin abides, viz., until we enter the kingdom of heaven.
5. The Pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties beyond those imposed either at his own discretion or by canon law.
6. The Pope himself cannot remit guilt, but only declare and confirm that it has been remitted by God; or, at most, he can remit it in cases reserved to his discretion. Except for these cases,the guilt remains untouched.
7. God never remits guilt to anyone without, at the same time, making humbly submissive to the priest, His representative.
8. The penitential canons apply only to men who are still alive, and, according to the canons themselves, none applies to the dead.
9. Accordingly, the Holy Spirit, acting in the person of the Pope, manifests grace to us, by the fact that the papal regulations always cease to apply at death, or in any hard case.
10. It is a wrongful act, due to ignorance, when priests retain the canonical penalties on the dead in purgatory.
11. When canonical penalties were changed and made to apply to purgatory, surely it would seem that tares were sown while the bishops were asleep.
12. In former days, the canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution was pronounced; and were intended to be tests of true contrition.
13. Death puts and end to all the claims of the Church; even the dying are already dead to the canon laws, and are no longer bound by them.
14. Defective piety or love in a dying person is necessarily accompanied by great fear, which is greatest where the piety or love is least.
15. This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, whatever else might be said, to constitute the pain of purgatory, since it approaches very closely to the horror of despair.
16. There seems to be the same difference between hell, purgatory, and heaven as between despair, uncertainty, and assurance.
17. Of a truth, the pains of souls in purgatory ought to be abated, and charity ought to be proportionately increased.
18. Moreover, it does not seem proved, on any grounds of reason or Scripture, that these souls are outside the state of merit, or unable to grow in grace.
19. Nor does it seem proved to be always the case that they are certain and assured of salvation, even if we are very certain ourselves.
20. Therefore the Pope, in speaking of the plenary remission of all penalties, does not mean "all" in the strict sense, but only those imposed by himself.
21. Hence those who preach indulgences are in error when they say that a man is absolved and saved from every penalty by the Pope's indulgences;
22. Indeed, he cannot remit to souls in purgatory any penalty which canon law declares should be suffered in the present life.
23. If plenary remission could be granted to anyone at all, it would be only in the cases of the most perfect, i.e. to very few.
24. It must therefore be the case that the major part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of relief from penalty.
25. The same power as the Pope exercises in general over purgatory is exercised in particular by every single bishop in his bishopric and priest in his parish.
26. The Pope does excellently when he grants remission to the souls in purgatory on account of intercessions made on their behalf, and not by the power of the keys (which he cannot exercise for them).
27. There is no divine authority for preaching that the soul flies out of the purgatory immediately the money clinks in the bottom of the chest.
28. It is certainly possible that when the money clinks in the bottom of the chest avarice and greed increase; but when the church offers intercession, all depends in the will of God.
29. Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed in view of what is said of St. Severinus and St. Pascal? (Note: Paschal I, Pope 817-24. The legend is that he and Severinus were willing to endure the pains of purgatory for the benefit of the faithful).
30. No one is sure if the reality of his own contrition, much less of receiving plenary forgiveness.
31. One who _bona fide_ buys indulgence is a rare as a _bona fide_ penitent man, i.e. very rare indeed.
32. All those who believe themselves certain of their own salvation by means if letters of indulgence, will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.
33. We should be most carefully on our guard against those who say that the papal indulgences are an inestimable divine gift, and that a man is reconciled to God by them.
34. For the grace conveyed by these indulgences relates simply to the penalties of the sacramental "satisfactions" decreed merely by man.
35. It is not in accordance with Christian doctrines to preach and teach that those who buy off souls, or purchase confessional licenses, have no need to repent of their own sins.
36. Any Christian whatsoever, who is truly repentant, enjoys plenary remission from penalty and guilt, and this is given him without letters of indulgence.
37. Any true Christian whatsoever, living or dead, participates in all the benefits of Christ and the Church; and this participation is granted to him by God without letters of indulgence.
38. Yet the Pope's remission and dispensation are in no way to be despised, form as already said, they proclaim the divine remission.
39. It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, to extol to the people the great bounty contained in the indulgences, while, at the same time, praising contrition as a virtue.
40. A truly contrite sinner seeks out, and loves to pay, the penalties of his sins; whereas the very multitude of indulgences dulls men's consciences, and tends to make them hate the penalties.
41. Papal indulgences should only be preached with caution, lest people gain a wrong understanding, and think that they are preferable to other good works: those of love.
42. Christians should be taught that the Pope does not at all intend that the purchase of indulgences should be understood as at all comparable with the works of mercy.
43. Christians should be taught that one who gives to the poor, or lends to the needy, does a better action than if he purchases indulgences.
44. Because, by works of love, love grows and a man becomes a better man; whereas, by indulgences, he does not become a better man, but only escapes certain penalties.
45. Christians should be taught that he who sees a needy person, but passes him by although he gives money for indulgences, gains no benefit from the Pope's pardon, but only incurs the wrath of God.
46. Christians should be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they are bound to retain what is only necessary for the upkeep of their home, and should in no way squander it on indulgences.
47. Christians should be taught that they purchase indulgences voluntarily, and are not under obligation to do so.
48. Christians should be taught that, in granting indulgences, the Pope has more need, and more desire, for devout prayer on his own behalf than for ready money.
49. Christians should be taught that the Pope's indulgences are useful only if one does not rely on them, but most harmful if one loses the fear of God through them.
50. Christians should be taught that, if the Pope knew the exactions of the indulgence-preachers, he would rather the church of St. Peter were reduced to ashes than be built with the skin, flesh, and bones of the sheep.
51. Christians should be taught that the Pope would be willing, as he ought if necessity should arise, to sell the church of St. Peter, and give, too, his own money to many of those whom the pardon-merchants conjure money.
52. It is vain to rely on salvation by letters if indulgence, even if the commissary, or indeed the Pope himself, were to pledge his own soul for their validity.
53. Those are enemies of Christ and the Pope who forbid the word of God to be preached at all in some churches, in order that indulgences may be preached in others.
54. The word of God suffers injury if, in the same sermon, an equal or longer time is devoted to indulgences than to that word.
55. The Pope cannot help taking the view that if indulgences (very small matters) are celebrated by one bell, one pageant, or one ceremony, the gospel (a very great matter) should be preached to the accompaniment of a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
56. The treasures of the church, out of which the Pope dispenses indulgences, are not sufficiently spoken of or known among the people of Christ.
57. That these treasures are note temporal are clear from the fact that many of the merchants do not grant them freely, but only collect them.
58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, because, even apart from the Pope, these merits are always working grace in the inner man, and working the cross, death, and hell in the outer man.
59. St. Laurence said that the poor were the treasures of the church, but he used the term in accordance with the custom of his own time.
60. We do not speak rashly in saying that the treasures of the church are the keys of the church, and are bestowed by the merits of Christ.
61. For it is clear that the power of the Pope suffices, by itself, for the remission of penalties and reserved cases.
62. The true treasure of the church is the Holy gospel of the glory and the grace of God.
63. It is right to regard this treasure as most odious, for it makes the first to be the last.
64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is most acceptable, for it makes the last to be the first.
65. Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets which, in former times, they used to fish for men of wealth.
66. The treasures of the indulgences are the nets to-day which they use to fish for men of wealth.
67. The indulgences, which the merchants extol as the greatest of favors, are seen to be, in fact, a favorite means for money-getting.
68. Nevertheless, they are not to be compared with the grace of God and the compassion shown in the Cross.
69. Bishops and curates, in duty bound, must receive the commissaries of the papal indulgences with all reverence;
70. But they are under a much greater obligation to watch closely and attend carefully lest these men preach their own fancies instead of what the Pope commissioned.
71. Let him be anathema and accursed who denies the apostolic character of the indulgences.
72. On the other hand, let him be blessed who is on his guard against the wantonness and license of the pardon-merchant's words.
73. In the same way, the Pope rightly excommunicates those who make any plans to the detriment of the trade in indulgences.
74. It is much more in keeping eith his views to excommunicate those who use the pretext of indulgences to plot anything to the detriment of holy love and truth.
75. It is foolish to think that papal indulgences have so much power that they can absolve a man even if he has done the impossible and violated the mother of God.
76. We assert the contrary, and say that the Pope's pardons are not able to remove the least venial of sins as far as their guilt is concerned.
77. When it is said that not even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could grant a greater grace, it is blasphemy against St. Peter and the Pope.
78. We assert the contrary, and say that he, and any Pope whatever, possesses greater graces, viz., the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as is declared in I Corinthians 12 [:28].
79. It is blasphemy to say that the insignia of the cross with the papal arms are of equal value to the cross on which Christ died.
80. The bishops, curates, and theologians, who permit assertions of that kind to be made to the people without let or hindrance, will have to answer for it.
81. This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult for learned men to guard the respect due to the Pope against false accusations, or at least from the keen criticisms of the laity;
82. They ask, e.g.: Why does not the Pope liberate everyone from purgatory for the sake of love (a most holy thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their souls? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable souls for money, a most perishable thing, with which to build St. Peter's church, a very minor purpose.
83. Again: Why should funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continue to be said? And why does not the Pope repay, or permit to be repaid, the benefactions instituted for these purposes, since it is wrong to pray for those souls who are now redeemed?
84. Again: Surely this is a new sort of compassion, on the part of God and the Pope, when an impious man, an enemy of God, is allowed to pay money to redeem a devout soul, a friend of God; while yet that devout and beloved soul is not allowed to be redeemed without payment, for love's sake, and just because of its need of redemption.
85. Again: Why are the penitential canon laws, which in fact, if not in practice, have long been obsolete and dead in themselves,-why are they, to-day, still used in imposing fines in money, through the granting of indulgences, as if all the penitential canons were fully operative?
86. Again: since the Pope's income to-day is larger than that of the wealthiest of wealthy men, why does he not build this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of indigent believers?
87. Again: What does the Pope remit or dispense to people who, by their perfect penitence, have a right to plenary remission or dispensation?
88. Again: Surely a greater good could be done to the church if the Pope were to bestow these remissions and dispensations, not once, as now, but a hundred times a day, for the benefit of any believer whatever.
89. What the Pope seeks by indulgences is not money, but rather the salvation of souls; why then does he not suspend the letters and indulgences formerly conceded, and still as efficacious as ever?
90. These questions are serious matters of conscience to the laity. To suppress them by force alone, and not to refute them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the Pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christian people unhappy.
91. If therefore, indulgences were preached in accordance with the spirit and mind of the Pope, all these difficulties would be easily overcome, and indeed, cease to exist.
92. Away, then, with those prophets who say to Christ's people, "Peace, peace," where in there is no peace.
93. Hail, hail to all those prophets who say to Christ's people, "The cross, the cross," where there is no cross.
94. Christians should be exhorted to be zealous to follow Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hells;
95. And let them thus be more confident of entering heaven through many tribulations rather than through a false assurance of peace.
October 31, 1517
Source: Dillenberger, John. Martin Luther: A Selection From His Writings. Garden City: Doubleday, 1961.
Showing posts with label Martin Luther. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Martin Luther. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
The 95 Thesis
Have you ever read the document that started the protestant reformation? On October 31st 1517 a man by the name of Martin Luther nailed 95 propositions for discussion to the Wittenburg Door. It was a common practice to nail letters to this door to spark debate and conversation. Luther had grown tired of the abuses going on in regards to selling indulgences and wanted to bring attention to the problem. The funny thing is, Luther thought that what he was doing would please the pope because Luther at the time still held the pope and the Roman Catholic Church in high esteem and simply sought to reform some of its practices. Luther believed that the pope would be glad that someone would draw attention to the practices that took glory away from God. Little did Luther know when he nailed the 95 thesis to that door that this would be the beginning of the Protestant reformation and lead to his excommunication.
It's quite interesting to see how Luther's theology changes from when he wrote the 95 thesis to the time he wrote "The Bondage of the Will." Luther like all Christians who seek after God's heart continued to grow in his knowledge of the word of God. Luther became a Scripture quoting, highly theological weapon that would call people back to the word of God and away from the traditions of men. It's clear when reading the 95 thesis that Luther still held much love for the roman church and the pope in his heart. It would not be long until his eyes were opened to just how deep the corruption in the church had gone. Luther would take a stand on God's word along with others like him that the world still feels today. Scripture Alone, Grace Alone, Faith Alone, Christ Alone, to the Glory of God Alone.
Here is what started the Reformation:
The 95 Thesis
by, Martin Luther
1. When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said "Repent", He called for the entire life of believers to be one of penitence.
2. The word cannot be properly understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, i.e. confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
3. Yet its meaning is not restricted to penitence in one's heart; for such penitence is null unless it produces outward signs in various mortifications of the flesh.
4. As long as hatred of self abides (i.e. true inward penitence) the penalty of sin abides, viz., until we enter the kingdom of heaven.
5. The Pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties beyond those imposed either at his own discretion or by canon law.
6. The Pope himself cannot remit guilt, but only declare and confirm that it has been remitted by God; or, at most, he can remit it in cases reserved to his discretion. Except for these cases,
the guilt remains untouched.
7. God never remits guilt to anyone without, at the same time, making humbly submissive to the priest, His representative.
8. The penitential canons apply only to men who are still alive, and, according to the canons themselves, none applies to the dead.
9. Accordingly, the Holy Spirit, acting in the person of the Pope, manifests grace to us, by the fact that the papal regulations always cease to apply at death, or in any hard case.
10. It is a wrongful act, due to ignorance, when priests retain the canonical penalties on the dead in purgatory.
11. When canonical penalties were changed and made to apply to purgatory, surely it would seem that tares were sown while the bishops were asleep.
12. In former days, the canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution was pronounced; and were intended to be tests of true contrition.
13. Death puts and end to all the claims of the Church; even the dying are already dead to the canon laws, and are no longer bound by them.
14. Defective piety or love in a dying person is necessarily accompanied by great fear, which is greatest where the piety or love is least.
15. This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, whatever else might be said, to constitute the pain of purgatory, since it approaches very closely to the horror of despair.
16. There seems to be the same difference between hell, purgatory, and heaven as between despair, uncertainty, and assurance.
17. Of a truth, the pains of souls in purgatory ought to be abated, and charity ought to be proportionately increased.
18. Moreover, it does not seem proved, on any grounds of reason or Scripture, that these souls are outside the state of merit, or unable to grow in grace.
19. Nor does it seem proved to be always the case that they are certain and assured of salvation, even if we are very certain ourselves.
20. Therefore the Pope, in speaking of the plenary remission of all penalties, does not mean "all" in the strict sense, but only those imposed by himself.
21. Hence those who preach indulgences are in error when they say that a man is absolved and saved from every penalty by the Pope's indulgences;
22. Indeed, he cannot remit to souls in purgatory any penalty which canon law declares should be suffered in the present life.
23. If plenary remission could be granted to anyone at all, it would be only in the cases of the most perfect, i.e. to very few.
24. It must therefore be the case that the major part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of relief from penalty.
25. The same power as the Pope exercises in general over purgatory is exercised in particular by every single bishop in his bishopric and priest in his parish.
26. The Pope does excellently when he grants remission to the souls in purgatory on account of intercessions made on their behalf, and not by the power of the keys (which he cannot exercise for them).
27. There is no divine authority for preaching that the soul flies out of the purgatory immediately the money clinks in the bottom of the chest.
28. It is certainly possible that when the money clinks in the bottom of the chest avarice and greed increase; but when the church offers intercession, all depends in the will of God.
29. Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed in view of what is said of St. Severinus and St. Pascal? (Note: Paschal I, Pope 817-24. The legend is that he and Severinus were willing to endure the pains of purgatory for the benefit of the faithful).
30. No one is sure if the reality of his own contrition, much less of receiving plenary forgiveness.
31. One who _bona fide_ buys indulgence is a rare as a _bona fide_ penitent man, i.e. very rare indeed.
32. All those who believe themselves certain of their own salvation by means if letters of indulgence, will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.
33. We should be most carefully on our guard against those who say that the papal indulgences are an inestimable divine gift, and that a man is reconciled to God by them.
34. For the grace conveyed by these indulgences relates simply to the penalties of the sacramental "satisfactions" decreed merely by man.
35. It is not in accordance with Christian doctrines to preach and teach that those who buy off souls, or purchase confessional licenses, have no need to repent of their own sins.36. Any Christian whatsoever, who is truly repentant, enjoys plenary remission from penalty and guilt, and this is given him without letters of indulgence.
37. Any true Christian whatsoever, living or dead, participates in all the benefits of Christ and the Church; and this participation is granted to him by God without letters of indulgence.
38. Yet the Pope's remission and dispensation are in no way to be despised, form as already said, they proclaim the divine remission.
39. It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, to extol to the people the great bounty contained in the indulgences, while, at the same time, praising contrition as a virtue.
40. A truly contrite sinner seeks out, and loves to pay, the penalties of his sins; whereas the very multitude of indulgences dulls men's consciences, and tends to make them hate the penalties.
41. Papal indulgences should only be preached with caution, lest people gain a wrong understanding, and think that they are preferable to other good works: those of love.42. Christians should be taught that the Pope does not at all intend that the purchase of indulgences should be understood as at all comparable with the works of mercy.
43. Christians should be taught that one who gives to the poor, or lends to the needy, does a better action than if he purchases indulgences.
44. Because, by works of love, love grows and a man becomes a better man; whereas, by indulgences, he does not become a better man, but only escapes certain penalties.
45. Christians should be taught that he who sees a needy person, but passes him by although he gives money for indulgences, gains no benefit from the Pope's pardon, but only incurs the wrath of God.
46. Christians should be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they are bound to retain what is only necessary for the upkeep of their home, and should in no way squander it on indulgences.
47. Christians should be taught that they purchase indulgences voluntarily, and are not under obligation to do so.
48. Christians should be taught that, in granting indulgences, the Pope has more need, and more desire, for devout prayer on his own behalf than for ready money.
49. Christians should be taught that the Pope's indulgences are useful only if one does not rely on them, but most harmful if one loses the fear of God through them.
50. Christians should be taught that, if the Pope knew the exactions of the indulgence-preachers, he would rather the church of St. Peter were reduced to ashes than be built with the skin, flesh, and bones of the sheep.
51. Christians should be taught that the Pope would be willing, as he ought if necessity should arise, to sell the church of St. Peter, and give, too, his own money to many of those whom the pardon-merchants conjure money.
52. It is vain to rely on salvation by letters if indulgence, even if the commissary, or indeed the Pope himself, were to pledge his own soul for their validity.
53. Those are enemies of Christ and the Pope who forbid the word of God to be preached at all in some churches, in order that indulgences may be preached in others.
54. The word of God suffers injury if, in the same sermon, an equal or longer time is devoted to indulgences than to that word.
55. The Pope cannot help taking the view that if indulgences (very small matters) are celebrated by one bell, one pageant, or one ceremony, the gospel (a very great matter) should be preached to the accompaniment of a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
56. The treasures of the church, out of which the Pope dispenses indulgences, are not sufficiently spoken of or known among the people of Christ.
57. That these treasures are note temporal are clear from the fact that many of the merchants do not grant them freely, but only collect them.
58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, because, even apart from the Pope, these merits are always working grace in the inner man, and working the cross, death, and hell in the outer man.
59. St. Laurence said that the poor were the treasures of the church, but he used the term in accordance with the custom of his own time.
60. We do not speak rashly in saying that the treasures of the church are the keys of the church, and are bestowed by the merits of Christ.
61. For it is clear that the power of the Pope suffices, by itself, for the remission of penalties and reserved cases.
62. The true treasure of the church is the Holy gospel of the glory and the grace of God.
63. It is right to regard this treasure as most odious, for it makes the first to be the last.
64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is most acceptable, for it makes the last to be the first.
65. Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets which, in former times, they used to fish for men of wealth.
66. The treasures of the indulgences are the nets to-day which they use to fish for men of wealth.
67. The indulgences, which the merchants extol as the greatest of favors, are seen to be, in fact, a favorite means for money-getting.
68. Nevertheless, they are not to be compared with the grace of God and the compassion shown in the Cross.
69. Bishops and curates, in duty bound, must receive the commissaries of the papal indulgences with all reverence;
70. But they are under a much greater obligation to watch closely and attend carefully lest these men preach their own fancies instead of what the Pope commissioned.
71. Let him be anathema and accursed who denies the apostolic character of the indulgences.
72. On the other hand, let him be blessed who is on his guard against the wantonness and license of the pardon-merchant's words.
73. In the same way, the Pope rightly excommunicates those who make any plans to the detriment of the trade in indulgences.
74. It is much more in keeping eith his views to excommunicate those who use the pretext of indulgences to plot anything to the detriment of holy love and truth.
75. It is foolish to think that papal indulgences have so much power that they can absolve a man even if he has done the impossible and violated the mother of God.
76. We assert the contrary, and say that the Pope's pardons are not able to remove the least venial of sins as far as their guilt is concerned.
77. When it is said that not even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could grant a greater grace, it is blasphemy against St. Peter and the Pope.
78. We assert the contrary, and say that he, and any Pope whatever, possesses greater graces, viz., the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as is declared in I Corinthians 12 [:28].
79. It is blasphemy to say that the insignia of the cross with the papal arms are of equal value to the cross on which Christ died.
80. The bishops, curates, and theologians, who permit assertions of that kind to be made to the people without let or hindrance, will have to answer for it.
81. This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult for learned men to guard the respect due to the Pope against false accusations, or at least from the keen criticisms of the laity;
82. They ask, e.g.: Why does not the Pope liberate everyone from purgatory for the sake of love (a most holy thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their souls? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable souls for money, a most perishable thing, with which to build St. Peter's church, a very minor purpose.
83. Again: Why should funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continue to be said? And why does not the Pope repay, or permit to be repaid, the benefactions instituted for these purposes, since it is wrong to pray for those souls who are now redeemed?
84. Again: Surely this is a new sort of compassion, on the part of God and the Pope, when an impious man, an enemy of God, is allowed to pay money to redeem a devout soul, a friend of God; while yet that devout and beloved soul is not allowed to be redeemed without payment, for love's sake, and just because of its need of redemption.
85. Again: Why are the penitential canon laws, which in fact, if not in practice, have long been obsolete and dead in themselves,-why are they, to-day, still used in imposing fines in money, through the granting of indulgences, as if all the penitential canons were fully operative?
86. Again: since the Pope's income to-day is larger than that of the wealthiest of wealthy men, why does he not build this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of indigent believers?
87. Again: What does the Pope remit or dispense to people who, by their perfect penitence, have a right to plenary remission or dispensation?
88. Again: Surely a greater good could be done to the church if the Pope were to bestow these remissions and dispensations, not once, as now, but a hundred times a day, for the benefit of any believer whatever.
89. What the Pope seeks by indulgences is not money, but rather the salvation of souls; why then does he not suspend the letters and indulgences formerly conceded, and still as efficacious as ever?
90. These questions are serious matters of conscience to the laity. To suppress them by force alone, and not to refute them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the Pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christian people unhappy.
91. If therefore, indulgences were preached in accordance with the spirit and mind of the Pope, all these difficulties would be easily overcome, and indeed, cease to exist.
92. Away, then, with those prophets who say to Christ's people, "Peace, peace," where in there is no peace.
93. Hail, hail to all those prophets who say to Christ's people, "The cross, the cross," where there is no cross.
94. Christians should be exhorted to be zealous to follow Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hells;
95. And let them thus be more confident of entering heaven through many tribulations rather than through a false assurance of peace.
October 31, 1517
Source: Dillenberger, John. Martin Luther: A Selection From His Writings. Garden City: Doubleday, 1961.
It's quite interesting to see how Luther's theology changes from when he wrote the 95 thesis to the time he wrote "The Bondage of the Will." Luther like all Christians who seek after God's heart continued to grow in his knowledge of the word of God. Luther became a Scripture quoting, highly theological weapon that would call people back to the word of God and away from the traditions of men. It's clear when reading the 95 thesis that Luther still held much love for the roman church and the pope in his heart. It would not be long until his eyes were opened to just how deep the corruption in the church had gone. Luther would take a stand on God's word along with others like him that the world still feels today. Scripture Alone, Grace Alone, Faith Alone, Christ Alone, to the Glory of God Alone.
Here is what started the Reformation:
The 95 Thesis
by, Martin Luther
1. When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said "Repent", He called for the entire life of believers to be one of penitence.
2. The word cannot be properly understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, i.e. confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
3. Yet its meaning is not restricted to penitence in one's heart; for such penitence is null unless it produces outward signs in various mortifications of the flesh.
4. As long as hatred of self abides (i.e. true inward penitence) the penalty of sin abides, viz., until we enter the kingdom of heaven.
5. The Pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties beyond those imposed either at his own discretion or by canon law.
6. The Pope himself cannot remit guilt, but only declare and confirm that it has been remitted by God; or, at most, he can remit it in cases reserved to his discretion. Except for these cases,
the guilt remains untouched.
7. God never remits guilt to anyone without, at the same time, making humbly submissive to the priest, His representative.
8. The penitential canons apply only to men who are still alive, and, according to the canons themselves, none applies to the dead.
9. Accordingly, the Holy Spirit, acting in the person of the Pope, manifests grace to us, by the fact that the papal regulations always cease to apply at death, or in any hard case.
10. It is a wrongful act, due to ignorance, when priests retain the canonical penalties on the dead in purgatory.
11. When canonical penalties were changed and made to apply to purgatory, surely it would seem that tares were sown while the bishops were asleep.
12. In former days, the canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution was pronounced; and were intended to be tests of true contrition.
13. Death puts and end to all the claims of the Church; even the dying are already dead to the canon laws, and are no longer bound by them.
14. Defective piety or love in a dying person is necessarily accompanied by great fear, which is greatest where the piety or love is least.
15. This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, whatever else might be said, to constitute the pain of purgatory, since it approaches very closely to the horror of despair.
16. There seems to be the same difference between hell, purgatory, and heaven as between despair, uncertainty, and assurance.
17. Of a truth, the pains of souls in purgatory ought to be abated, and charity ought to be proportionately increased.
18. Moreover, it does not seem proved, on any grounds of reason or Scripture, that these souls are outside the state of merit, or unable to grow in grace.
19. Nor does it seem proved to be always the case that they are certain and assured of salvation, even if we are very certain ourselves.
20. Therefore the Pope, in speaking of the plenary remission of all penalties, does not mean "all" in the strict sense, but only those imposed by himself.
21. Hence those who preach indulgences are in error when they say that a man is absolved and saved from every penalty by the Pope's indulgences;
22. Indeed, he cannot remit to souls in purgatory any penalty which canon law declares should be suffered in the present life.
23. If plenary remission could be granted to anyone at all, it would be only in the cases of the most perfect, i.e. to very few.
24. It must therefore be the case that the major part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of relief from penalty.
25. The same power as the Pope exercises in general over purgatory is exercised in particular by every single bishop in his bishopric and priest in his parish.
26. The Pope does excellently when he grants remission to the souls in purgatory on account of intercessions made on their behalf, and not by the power of the keys (which he cannot exercise for them).
27. There is no divine authority for preaching that the soul flies out of the purgatory immediately the money clinks in the bottom of the chest.
28. It is certainly possible that when the money clinks in the bottom of the chest avarice and greed increase; but when the church offers intercession, all depends in the will of God.
29. Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed in view of what is said of St. Severinus and St. Pascal? (Note: Paschal I, Pope 817-24. The legend is that he and Severinus were willing to endure the pains of purgatory for the benefit of the faithful).
30. No one is sure if the reality of his own contrition, much less of receiving plenary forgiveness.
31. One who _bona fide_ buys indulgence is a rare as a _bona fide_ penitent man, i.e. very rare indeed.
32. All those who believe themselves certain of their own salvation by means if letters of indulgence, will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.
33. We should be most carefully on our guard against those who say that the papal indulgences are an inestimable divine gift, and that a man is reconciled to God by them.
34. For the grace conveyed by these indulgences relates simply to the penalties of the sacramental "satisfactions" decreed merely by man.
35. It is not in accordance with Christian doctrines to preach and teach that those who buy off souls, or purchase confessional licenses, have no need to repent of their own sins.36. Any Christian whatsoever, who is truly repentant, enjoys plenary remission from penalty and guilt, and this is given him without letters of indulgence.
37. Any true Christian whatsoever, living or dead, participates in all the benefits of Christ and the Church; and this participation is granted to him by God without letters of indulgence.
38. Yet the Pope's remission and dispensation are in no way to be despised, form as already said, they proclaim the divine remission.
39. It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, to extol to the people the great bounty contained in the indulgences, while, at the same time, praising contrition as a virtue.
40. A truly contrite sinner seeks out, and loves to pay, the penalties of his sins; whereas the very multitude of indulgences dulls men's consciences, and tends to make them hate the penalties.
41. Papal indulgences should only be preached with caution, lest people gain a wrong understanding, and think that they are preferable to other good works: those of love.42. Christians should be taught that the Pope does not at all intend that the purchase of indulgences should be understood as at all comparable with the works of mercy.
43. Christians should be taught that one who gives to the poor, or lends to the needy, does a better action than if he purchases indulgences.
44. Because, by works of love, love grows and a man becomes a better man; whereas, by indulgences, he does not become a better man, but only escapes certain penalties.
45. Christians should be taught that he who sees a needy person, but passes him by although he gives money for indulgences, gains no benefit from the Pope's pardon, but only incurs the wrath of God.
46. Christians should be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they are bound to retain what is only necessary for the upkeep of their home, and should in no way squander it on indulgences.
47. Christians should be taught that they purchase indulgences voluntarily, and are not under obligation to do so.
48. Christians should be taught that, in granting indulgences, the Pope has more need, and more desire, for devout prayer on his own behalf than for ready money.
49. Christians should be taught that the Pope's indulgences are useful only if one does not rely on them, but most harmful if one loses the fear of God through them.
50. Christians should be taught that, if the Pope knew the exactions of the indulgence-preachers, he would rather the church of St. Peter were reduced to ashes than be built with the skin, flesh, and bones of the sheep.
51. Christians should be taught that the Pope would be willing, as he ought if necessity should arise, to sell the church of St. Peter, and give, too, his own money to many of those whom the pardon-merchants conjure money.
52. It is vain to rely on salvation by letters if indulgence, even if the commissary, or indeed the Pope himself, were to pledge his own soul for their validity.
53. Those are enemies of Christ and the Pope who forbid the word of God to be preached at all in some churches, in order that indulgences may be preached in others.
54. The word of God suffers injury if, in the same sermon, an equal or longer time is devoted to indulgences than to that word.
55. The Pope cannot help taking the view that if indulgences (very small matters) are celebrated by one bell, one pageant, or one ceremony, the gospel (a very great matter) should be preached to the accompaniment of a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
56. The treasures of the church, out of which the Pope dispenses indulgences, are not sufficiently spoken of or known among the people of Christ.
57. That these treasures are note temporal are clear from the fact that many of the merchants do not grant them freely, but only collect them.
58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, because, even apart from the Pope, these merits are always working grace in the inner man, and working the cross, death, and hell in the outer man.
59. St. Laurence said that the poor were the treasures of the church, but he used the term in accordance with the custom of his own time.
60. We do not speak rashly in saying that the treasures of the church are the keys of the church, and are bestowed by the merits of Christ.
61. For it is clear that the power of the Pope suffices, by itself, for the remission of penalties and reserved cases.
62. The true treasure of the church is the Holy gospel of the glory and the grace of God.
63. It is right to regard this treasure as most odious, for it makes the first to be the last.
64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is most acceptable, for it makes the last to be the first.
65. Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets which, in former times, they used to fish for men of wealth.
66. The treasures of the indulgences are the nets to-day which they use to fish for men of wealth.
67. The indulgences, which the merchants extol as the greatest of favors, are seen to be, in fact, a favorite means for money-getting.
68. Nevertheless, they are not to be compared with the grace of God and the compassion shown in the Cross.
69. Bishops and curates, in duty bound, must receive the commissaries of the papal indulgences with all reverence;
70. But they are under a much greater obligation to watch closely and attend carefully lest these men preach their own fancies instead of what the Pope commissioned.
71. Let him be anathema and accursed who denies the apostolic character of the indulgences.
72. On the other hand, let him be blessed who is on his guard against the wantonness and license of the pardon-merchant's words.
73. In the same way, the Pope rightly excommunicates those who make any plans to the detriment of the trade in indulgences.
74. It is much more in keeping eith his views to excommunicate those who use the pretext of indulgences to plot anything to the detriment of holy love and truth.
75. It is foolish to think that papal indulgences have so much power that they can absolve a man even if he has done the impossible and violated the mother of God.
76. We assert the contrary, and say that the Pope's pardons are not able to remove the least venial of sins as far as their guilt is concerned.
77. When it is said that not even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could grant a greater grace, it is blasphemy against St. Peter and the Pope.
78. We assert the contrary, and say that he, and any Pope whatever, possesses greater graces, viz., the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as is declared in I Corinthians 12 [:28].
79. It is blasphemy to say that the insignia of the cross with the papal arms are of equal value to the cross on which Christ died.
80. The bishops, curates, and theologians, who permit assertions of that kind to be made to the people without let or hindrance, will have to answer for it.
81. This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult for learned men to guard the respect due to the Pope against false accusations, or at least from the keen criticisms of the laity;
82. They ask, e.g.: Why does not the Pope liberate everyone from purgatory for the sake of love (a most holy thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their souls? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable souls for money, a most perishable thing, with which to build St. Peter's church, a very minor purpose.
83. Again: Why should funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continue to be said? And why does not the Pope repay, or permit to be repaid, the benefactions instituted for these purposes, since it is wrong to pray for those souls who are now redeemed?
84. Again: Surely this is a new sort of compassion, on the part of God and the Pope, when an impious man, an enemy of God, is allowed to pay money to redeem a devout soul, a friend of God; while yet that devout and beloved soul is not allowed to be redeemed without payment, for love's sake, and just because of its need of redemption.
85. Again: Why are the penitential canon laws, which in fact, if not in practice, have long been obsolete and dead in themselves,-why are they, to-day, still used in imposing fines in money, through the granting of indulgences, as if all the penitential canons were fully operative?
86. Again: since the Pope's income to-day is larger than that of the wealthiest of wealthy men, why does he not build this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of indigent believers?
87. Again: What does the Pope remit or dispense to people who, by their perfect penitence, have a right to plenary remission or dispensation?
88. Again: Surely a greater good could be done to the church if the Pope were to bestow these remissions and dispensations, not once, as now, but a hundred times a day, for the benefit of any believer whatever.
89. What the Pope seeks by indulgences is not money, but rather the salvation of souls; why then does he not suspend the letters and indulgences formerly conceded, and still as efficacious as ever?
90. These questions are serious matters of conscience to the laity. To suppress them by force alone, and not to refute them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the Pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christian people unhappy.
91. If therefore, indulgences were preached in accordance with the spirit and mind of the Pope, all these difficulties would be easily overcome, and indeed, cease to exist.
92. Away, then, with those prophets who say to Christ's people, "Peace, peace," where in there is no peace.
93. Hail, hail to all those prophets who say to Christ's people, "The cross, the cross," where there is no cross.
94. Christians should be exhorted to be zealous to follow Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hells;
95. And let them thus be more confident of entering heaven through many tribulations rather than through a false assurance of peace.
October 31, 1517
Source: Dillenberger, John. Martin Luther: A Selection From His Writings. Garden City: Doubleday, 1961.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Does Man Really Have "Free-Will"?
I have been reading as of late a book by Martin Luther called "The Bondage of The Will." As the title implies it addresses the issue of "free will" versus the "enslaved will." And thus is my question of the day to you, my readers. Is mans will really as free as most would like to think? I dare to say no, it is not.
Just a couple of posts ago on this blog we took up the issue of God's sovereignty in salvation and the first part of that series was on the Total Depravity of man. In that post I gave Scripture that conclusively taught that mankind is totally depraved, and in bondage to sin. Not only are we as people enslaved to sin, but we are incapable of doing anything about it ourselves.
I see the discussion of "free will" finding its answers in the doctrines of grace and a proper understanding of the sovereignty of God. In my series on the sovereignty of God in part 4 which you may see here: http://reformationinprogress.blogspot.com/2007/02/sovereignty-of-god-part-4.html, we looked at how God is the mastermind behind all things. Everything that takes place, does so by the will of God.
From the above linked article:
"Here is an illustration that I find helpful. God observes His creation not as we do as temporal beings, but as the sovereign Lord over all creation. He is the painter, we are a part of the painting. God is not merely in the process of painting the picture, the picture is already complete. God views the past, present and future, complete and simultaneously. He asserts prophecy not because He is merely confident He can make it happen, but He asserts prophecy because it is already done.
Consider the following verses from Hebrews 2:6-96.
It has been testified somewhere, "what is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for Him? 7You made Him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned Him with glory and honor, 8putting everything in subjection under His feet." Now in putting everything in subjection to Him, He left nothing outside of His control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to Him. 9But we see Him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. (Emphasis mine)
Look at what Scripture tells us. It says that everything has (past tense) been put into subjection under the feet of Christ. It’s done, finished, complete. But Scripture also tells us that as of now we do "not yet see everything in subjection to Him.
We look at the world and say "there is evil all over the place" we don’t see that Jesus has all of this under His subjection, but He does. Why? Because God sees the future judgement of Satan, evil and sin as already completed. It is finished. We don’t see it now as temporal beings, but God has already won the battle in the future. He exist outside of time and the story is already over. This is part of why God knows all things, because it is already finished and done according to His will. Not that God would be incapable of seeing the future, but it’s a moot point, because God wrote the future."
For more about God's sovereignty I recommend that you read the whole article and 6 part series. But nevertheless, Scripture clearly teaches that the ultimate reason things happen the way they do is because God ordains them to happen as they do. God is in control.
That said, let me here ask, do we have truly "free" will? Since we ultimately do what God has ordained us to, the answer is no. However, here is where we will enter into the discussion of whether what we do is by compulsion, or by necessity.
Compulsion would refer to an outside source forcing its will upon us, making us do something that we did not really want to do. Does God make us do things we don't want to do? No, He doesn't force us to do anything against our "will."
What do I mean by that? Someone might say here "You just said that we don't have free will and then you say that God won't make us do something against our will. What are you smoking?" You can be sure, I meant just what I said. Let me quote Luther when discussing "necessity" versus "compulsion."
"I could wish, indeed, that a better term was available for our discussion than the accepted one, necessity, which cannot accurately be used of either man's will or God's. Its meaning is too harsh, and foreign to the subject; for it suggests some sort of compulsion, and something that is against ones will, which is no part of the view under debate. The will, whether it be God's or man's, does what it does, good or bad, under no compulsion, but just as it wants or pleases, as if totally free." (Luther, 81)
Let's talk this out for a bit shall we? Remember in the discussion of "total depravity" that we discussed how mankind loves its sin. We sin because we want to, and we have no desire on our own to stop sinning. God has ordained all that we do, but he has not forced us against our will, because we love what we are doing and we long for more of it. So man freely does what man wants to do, however they do so, not by compulsion but by necessity, for that was what God had predestined for them to do.
In the same way God does not force someone to love Him, but instead he takes out their heart of stone and gives them a heart of flesh.
Ezekiel 36:26,
"And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh."
God gives the sinner His Spirit making them a new creation who no longer wants sin, they want God. They have not been compulsed to do anything, they freely do just what they want, but they do it out of necessity because God ordained them to do so.
Ultimately it comes down to this, the will of man is enslaved either to Satan and sin or to God and righteousness, but regardless of which one it is enslaved to the will of man does its bidding not under compulsion but freely and gladly, and they do so because God has ordained it to be so.
Let's look at how Luther explains this in an analogy.
"So man's will is like a beast standing between two riders. If God rides, it wills and goes where God wills: as the Psalm says, 'I am become as a beast before thee, and I am ever with thee' (Ps. 73:22-23). 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." (Luther, 103-104)
I would note, as would Luther if anyone should question his meaning, that God always wins the fight when it is His desire to ride a particular beast.
I think this example wonderfully illustrates the position of mankind. Although I would add, again, that the beast is not being driven by compulsion with whips and spurs, but by a carrot or sugar cube in front of them, the beast pursues willingly the direction it is led.
So does man have free will? Ultimately the answer is no. But we carry on day to day, feeling as though our will is totally free, because we do only that which we desire most to do. And it depends upon whether our will is enslaved to Satan and sin or to God and righteousness as to what desires we have in our hearts.
-Jacob
Luther, Martin. The Bondage of the Will. Grand Rapids, MI: Revell, 2005.
Just a couple of posts ago on this blog we took up the issue of God's sovereignty in salvation and the first part of that series was on the Total Depravity of man. In that post I gave Scripture that conclusively taught that mankind is totally depraved, and in bondage to sin. Not only are we as people enslaved to sin, but we are incapable of doing anything about it ourselves.
I see the discussion of "free will" finding its answers in the doctrines of grace and a proper understanding of the sovereignty of God. In my series on the sovereignty of God in part 4 which you may see here: http://reformationinprogress.blogspot.com/2007/02/sovereignty-of-god-part-4.html, we looked at how God is the mastermind behind all things. Everything that takes place, does so by the will of God.
From the above linked article:
"Here is an illustration that I find helpful. God observes His creation not as we do as temporal beings, but as the sovereign Lord over all creation. He is the painter, we are a part of the painting. God is not merely in the process of painting the picture, the picture is already complete. God views the past, present and future, complete and simultaneously. He asserts prophecy not because He is merely confident He can make it happen, but He asserts prophecy because it is already done.
Consider the following verses from Hebrews 2:6-96.
It has been testified somewhere, "what is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for Him? 7You made Him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned Him with glory and honor, 8putting everything in subjection under His feet." Now in putting everything in subjection to Him, He left nothing outside of His control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to Him. 9But we see Him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. (Emphasis mine)
Look at what Scripture tells us. It says that everything has (past tense) been put into subjection under the feet of Christ. It’s done, finished, complete. But Scripture also tells us that as of now we do "not yet see everything in subjection to Him.
We look at the world and say "there is evil all over the place" we don’t see that Jesus has all of this under His subjection, but He does. Why? Because God sees the future judgement of Satan, evil and sin as already completed. It is finished. We don’t see it now as temporal beings, but God has already won the battle in the future. He exist outside of time and the story is already over. This is part of why God knows all things, because it is already finished and done according to His will. Not that God would be incapable of seeing the future, but it’s a moot point, because God wrote the future."
For more about God's sovereignty I recommend that you read the whole article and 6 part series. But nevertheless, Scripture clearly teaches that the ultimate reason things happen the way they do is because God ordains them to happen as they do. God is in control.
That said, let me here ask, do we have truly "free" will? Since we ultimately do what God has ordained us to, the answer is no. However, here is where we will enter into the discussion of whether what we do is by compulsion, or by necessity.
Compulsion would refer to an outside source forcing its will upon us, making us do something that we did not really want to do. Does God make us do things we don't want to do? No, He doesn't force us to do anything against our "will."
What do I mean by that? Someone might say here "You just said that we don't have free will and then you say that God won't make us do something against our will. What are you smoking?" You can be sure, I meant just what I said. Let me quote Luther when discussing "necessity" versus "compulsion."
"I could wish, indeed, that a better term was available for our discussion than the accepted one, necessity, which cannot accurately be used of either man's will or God's. Its meaning is too harsh, and foreign to the subject; for it suggests some sort of compulsion, and something that is against ones will, which is no part of the view under debate. The will, whether it be God's or man's, does what it does, good or bad, under no compulsion, but just as it wants or pleases, as if totally free." (Luther, 81)
Let's talk this out for a bit shall we? Remember in the discussion of "total depravity" that we discussed how mankind loves its sin. We sin because we want to, and we have no desire on our own to stop sinning. God has ordained all that we do, but he has not forced us against our will, because we love what we are doing and we long for more of it. So man freely does what man wants to do, however they do so, not by compulsion but by necessity, for that was what God had predestined for them to do.
In the same way God does not force someone to love Him, but instead he takes out their heart of stone and gives them a heart of flesh.
Ezekiel 36:26,
"And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh."
God gives the sinner His Spirit making them a new creation who no longer wants sin, they want God. They have not been compulsed to do anything, they freely do just what they want, but they do it out of necessity because God ordained them to do so.
Ultimately it comes down to this, the will of man is enslaved either to Satan and sin or to God and righteousness, but regardless of which one it is enslaved to the will of man does its bidding not under compulsion but freely and gladly, and they do so because God has ordained it to be so.
Let's look at how Luther explains this in an analogy.
"So man's will is like a beast standing between two riders. If God rides, it wills and goes where God wills: as the Psalm says, 'I am become as a beast before thee, and I am ever with thee' (Ps. 73:22-23). 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." (Luther, 103-104)
I would note, as would Luther if anyone should question his meaning, that God always wins the fight when it is His desire to ride a particular beast.
I think this example wonderfully illustrates the position of mankind. Although I would add, again, that the beast is not being driven by compulsion with whips and spurs, but by a carrot or sugar cube in front of them, the beast pursues willingly the direction it is led.
So does man have free will? Ultimately the answer is no. But we carry on day to day, feeling as though our will is totally free, because we do only that which we desire most to do. And it depends upon whether our will is enslaved to Satan and sin or to God and righteousness as to what desires we have in our hearts.
-Jacob
Luther, Martin. The Bondage of the Will. Grand Rapids, MI: Revell, 2005.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Publishing books without fear.
I have been reading Martin Luther's book "The Bondage of the Will" recently. Basically the book was written as a response to a person named Erasmus who was a humanist in the Roman church, who took the position of mans free will. Christians history does owe Erasmus some credit on a couple of levels, he was responsible for one of the (if not the) earliest critical Greek New Testament texts. Even Martin Luther found it quite useful.
There is a lot of history between Erasmus and Luther that led up to Erasmus' publishing the book "Diatribe seu collatio de libero arbitrio" (Discussion, or Collation, concerning Free-Will). The translation of Luther's book as done by J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston does a great job of giving details of all the events and exchanges between Luther and Erasmus and other prominent figures in light of the tension being caused by the reformation. Long story short, Erasmus wrote the "Diatribe" more by compulsion from outside forces rather than desire or conviction. Nevertheless, He wrote it. And he did so as a sort of swipe at Luther's theology, to which Luther masterfully responded and tore the Diatribe to shreds with unarguable theology.
Hopefully, if nothing else, this will get you interested in reading a great book. But here are my thoughts that I intended to share. Even as I was just reading the Historical and theological introduction to this book it struck me how even letters sent to one person and another were published for everyone to read and see. Furthermore it also struck me how it seemed there was some accountability amongst the theologians for what they wrote. After all Luther did not hesitate to strike down the diatribe with all the weight of Scripture because he saw it as no less than an attack on the gospel itself.
I'm sure there was much that went unchecked then as well, but just seeing a few examples of this "accountability" as you might call it, I thought to myself there needs to be more of that today. James White wrote "The Potter's Freedom" in response to Norman Geislers "Chosen But Free" and I think it kind of perturbed Geisler. My thinking however is "So what?" Should a person be able to wright a book dealing with doctrines of God's holy Scripture and have no fear? I should think that an honest Christian would welcome critique, even if it is a bit harsh. Though a response should certainly be done in the love of Christ, it should be done more often than it is.
To many authors today write books with no fear because they feel they can say whatever they like and get away with it. Here is my war cry, small though it may be received, "Let's keep theolgians and authors accountable for what they write!"
I don't mean to say that every book that is published deserves a response, or even everytime we disagree with a certain point made that it warrants a full response. But I do mean to say when we see a book or an article written that (knowingly or unknowingly) assaults the gospel it is our Christian duty to give an apologetic/polemic response. Apologetic meaning a biblical defense of the truth, not an "I'm sorry."
If such could be brought about more often then it might make the next person think hard before he puts pen to paper or more likely finger to keyboard. If I wrote something that did not stand under the weight of Scripture I would hope someone would challenge me in a Christlike manner. If this practice became more common place 1 of 2 things might happen.
1. Earnest and sincere brothers might be corrected in love and refute their own mistakes.
2. The person might not change their position but at least both sides of the argument have presented for readers to weigh for themselves.
I'm sick of books and articles that spit out heresies, and false doctrines going unchecked. And in the spirit of meaning what I say, I am going to take on a book written by Bryan McLaren called "The Secret Message of Jesus." Mclaren does no less than try to redefine the gospel in a way that unravells it altogether. And I am going to very soon write a response and see if I can get it published.
Those of you who know the word of God I encourage to join me in my pursuit of putting some fear back into writing on the Scriptures.
IN CHRIST -Jacob
There is a lot of history between Erasmus and Luther that led up to Erasmus' publishing the book "Diatribe seu collatio de libero arbitrio" (Discussion, or Collation, concerning Free-Will). The translation of Luther's book as done by J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston does a great job of giving details of all the events and exchanges between Luther and Erasmus and other prominent figures in light of the tension being caused by the reformation. Long story short, Erasmus wrote the "Diatribe" more by compulsion from outside forces rather than desire or conviction. Nevertheless, He wrote it. And he did so as a sort of swipe at Luther's theology, to which Luther masterfully responded and tore the Diatribe to shreds with unarguable theology.
Hopefully, if nothing else, this will get you interested in reading a great book. But here are my thoughts that I intended to share. Even as I was just reading the Historical and theological introduction to this book it struck me how even letters sent to one person and another were published for everyone to read and see. Furthermore it also struck me how it seemed there was some accountability amongst the theologians for what they wrote. After all Luther did not hesitate to strike down the diatribe with all the weight of Scripture because he saw it as no less than an attack on the gospel itself.
I'm sure there was much that went unchecked then as well, but just seeing a few examples of this "accountability" as you might call it, I thought to myself there needs to be more of that today. James White wrote "The Potter's Freedom" in response to Norman Geislers "Chosen But Free" and I think it kind of perturbed Geisler. My thinking however is "So what?" Should a person be able to wright a book dealing with doctrines of God's holy Scripture and have no fear? I should think that an honest Christian would welcome critique, even if it is a bit harsh. Though a response should certainly be done in the love of Christ, it should be done more often than it is.
To many authors today write books with no fear because they feel they can say whatever they like and get away with it. Here is my war cry, small though it may be received, "Let's keep theolgians and authors accountable for what they write!"
I don't mean to say that every book that is published deserves a response, or even everytime we disagree with a certain point made that it warrants a full response. But I do mean to say when we see a book or an article written that (knowingly or unknowingly) assaults the gospel it is our Christian duty to give an apologetic/polemic response. Apologetic meaning a biblical defense of the truth, not an "I'm sorry."
If such could be brought about more often then it might make the next person think hard before he puts pen to paper or more likely finger to keyboard. If I wrote something that did not stand under the weight of Scripture I would hope someone would challenge me in a Christlike manner. If this practice became more common place 1 of 2 things might happen.
1. Earnest and sincere brothers might be corrected in love and refute their own mistakes.
2. The person might not change their position but at least both sides of the argument have presented for readers to weigh for themselves.
I'm sick of books and articles that spit out heresies, and false doctrines going unchecked. And in the spirit of meaning what I say, I am going to take on a book written by Bryan McLaren called "The Secret Message of Jesus." Mclaren does no less than try to redefine the gospel in a way that unravells it altogether. And I am going to very soon write a response and see if I can get it published.
Those of you who know the word of God I encourage to join me in my pursuit of putting some fear back into writing on the Scriptures.
IN CHRIST -Jacob
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
