Saturday, February 27, 2010

Martin Luther: God is the Author of Evil & Hates Some Men Eternally / Horse & Rider Analogy / No Free Will / Everything (+ Damnation) Predetermined


[ source ]


All the cited words below are Luther's own, from various translations of The Bondage of the Will (his own favorite work). Sources are always non-Catholic ones unless specifically identified as "Catholic". The blue highlighting is mine.

* * * * *

Summary of English Versions of The Bondage of the Will (Luther Treatise of 1525)


Translation by J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Fleming H. Revell, 1957.

Translation by Phillip Watson (based on WA 18 600-787); in Luther's Works [LW], Volume 33.

Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, edited by Ernest Gordon Rupp and Philip S. Watson, LCC XVII, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969.

Translation by Edward Thomas Vaughan, 1823.

Translation by Henry Cole, 1823.

Combination of the Vaughan and Cole versions , by Henry Atherton, 1930.


The Horse (Man) and its Rider (God)


In short, if we are under the god of this world, away from the work and Spirit of the true God, we are held captive to his will, as Paul says to Timothy [II Tim. 2:26], so that we cannot will anything but what he wills. For he is that strong man armed, who guards his own palace in such a way that those whom he possesses are in peace [Luke 11:21], so as to prevent them from stirring up any thought or feeling against him; otherwise, the kingdom of Satan being divided against itself would not stand [Luke 11:18], whereas Christ affirms that it does stand. And this we do readily and willingly, according to the nature of the will, which would not be a will if it were compelled; for compulsion is rather (so to say) “unwill.” But if a Stronger One comes who overcomes him and takes us as His spoil, then through his Spirit we are again slaves and captives—though this is royal freedom—so that we readily will and do what he wills. Thus the human will is placed between the two like a beast of burden. If God rides it, it wills and goes where God wills, as the psalm says: “I am become as a beast [before thee] and I am always with thee” [Ps. 73:22 f.]. If Satan rides it, it wills and goes where Satan wills; nor can it choose to run to either of the two riders or to seek him out, but the riders themselves contend for the possession and control of it. What if I can prove from the words you yourself use in asserting freedom of choice that there is no free choice? What if I convict you of unwittingly denying what you seek so carefully to affirm? Frankly, unless I do so, I swear to regard everything I write against you in the entire book as revoked, and everything your Diatribe either asserts or queries against me as confirmed. (LW, vol. 33, 65)

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. 72.22-3). 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 hold of it. (Packer / Johnston, pp. 103-104)

Thus, the human will is placed, as a sort of packhorse, in the midst of two contending parties. If God hath mounted, it wills and goes whither God pleases; as the Psalmist says, I am become as a beast of burden, and I am ever with thee." (Psa. Ixxiii. 22, 23.) If Satan hath mounted, it wills and goes whither Satan wills. Nor is it in its own choice, to which of the two riders it shall run, or to seek its rider; but the riders themselves contend for the acquisition and possession of it. (Vaughan)

Thus the human will is, as it were, a beast between the two. If God sit thereon, it wills and goes where God will: as the Psalm saith, " I am become as it were a beast before thee, and I am continually with thee." If Satan sit thereon, it wills and goes as Satan will. Nor is it in the power of its own will to choose, to which rider it will run, nor which it will seek; but the riders themselves contend, which shall have and hold it. (Cole)

Either God or Satan rules over men; to this pet thought he adds: "The matter stands simply thus . . when God is in us, the devil is absent and then we can will only what is good; but when God is not there, the devil is, and then we can will only what is evil. Neither God nor Satan leaves us with an indifferent will." "When the stronger of the two comes upon us," he says, " and makes a prey of us, snatching us away from our former ruler, we become servants and prisoners to such an extent that we desire and do gladly what he wills (ut velimus et faciamus libenter quce ipse velit). Thus the human will stands," Luther continues, using a simile which has become famous, "like a saddle-horse between the two. If God mounts into the saddle, man wills and goes forward as God wills . . . but if the devil is the horseman, then man wills and acts as the devil wills. He has no power to run to one or the other of the two riders and offer himself to him, but the riders fight to obtain possession of the animal." (Hartmann Grisar [Catholic], Luther, Vol. II, p. 274 )


God's Foreknowledge the "Thunderbolt" that Destroys Human Free Will


Here, then, is something fundamentally necessary and salutary for a Christian, to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but that he foresees and purposes and does all things by his immutable, eternal, and infallible will. Here is a thunderbolt by which free choice is completely prostrated and shattered, so that those who want free choice asserted must either deny or explain away this thunderbolt, or get rid of it by some other means. (LW , vol. 33, 37)

It is, then, fundamentally necessary and wholesome for Christians to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His own immutable, eternal and infallible will. This bombshell knocks 'free-will' flat, and utterly shatters it; so that those who want to assert it must either deny my bombshell, or pretend not to notice it, or find some other way of dodging it. (Packer / Johnston, p. 80)

God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that he foreknows, purposes, and does all things according to his immutable, eternal, and infallible will. By this thunderbolt, Free-will is thrown prostrate, and utterly dashed to pieces. (Cole, p. 26)

This, therefore, is also essentially necessary and wholesome for Christians to know: That God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will. By this thunderbolt, “Free-will” is thrown prostrate, and utterly dashed to pieces. Those, therefore, who would assert “Free-will,” must either deny this thunderbolt, or pretend not to see it, or push it from them. (Atherton, section IX)

God foreknows nothing contingently, but that he foresees and purposes and does all things by his immutable, eternal, and infallible will. Here is a thunderbolt by which free choice is completely prostrate and shattered . . . (Rupp and Watson, p. 118)


All That Happens is By Necessity, Not Free Will


From this it follows irrefutably that everything we do, everything that happens, even if it seems to us to happen mutably and contingently, happens in fact nonetheless necessarily and immutably, if you have regard to the will of God. (LW, vol. 33, 37; same in Rupp/Watson, p. 119)

From which it follows, by resistless logic, that all we do, however it may appear to us to be done mutably and contingently, is in reality done necessarily and immutably in respect of God's will. (Packer/Johnston, p. 80)

Hence it irresistibly follows, that all which we do, and all which happens, although it seem to happen mutably and contingently, does in reality happen necessarily and unalterably, insofar as respects the will of God. (Vaughan, p. 33)

From which it follows unalterably, that all things which we do, although they may appear to us to be done mutably and contingently, and even may be done thus contingently by us, are yet, in reality, done necessarily and immutably, with respect to the will of God. (Cole, p. 27; same in Atherton, section IX)


God is the Author of Evil


But hardest is the view of those who say that free choice is a mere empty name, that it is God who works both good and evil in us, and that all things which happen come about by sheer necessity. (LW, vol. 33, 112; this is a statement of Erasmus that Luther is stating back to him in the dispute; Erasmus is opposing the notion, while Luther is supporting it; see Erasmus' own statement of it in Rupp/Watson, p. 54)

'that the opinion of those who say that Free-will is an empty term, for that God works in us both good and evil, is most severe.' (Cole, pp. 119-120)


* * *

Here you see that when God works in and through evil men, evil things are done, and yet God cannot act evilly although he does evil through evil men, because one who is himself good cannot act evilly; yet he uses evil instruments that cannot escape the sway and motion of his omnipotence. It is the fault, therefore, of the instruments, which God does not allow to be idle, that evil things are done, with God himself setting them in motion. (Rupp/Watson, pp. 232-233)

* * *

God works evil in us, i.e., by means of us, not through any fault of his, but owing to our faultiness, since we are by nature evil and he is good; but as he carries us along by his own activity in accordance with the nature of his omnipotence, good as he is himself he cannot help but do evil with an evil instrument, though he makes good use of this evil in accordance with his wisdom for his own glory and our salvation. (Rupp/Watson, p. 234)

God works evil in us, that is, by us, not from the fault of God, but from the fault of evil in us: -- that is, as we are evil by nature, God, who is truly good, carrying us along by his own action, according to the nature of his omnipotence, cannot do otherwise than do evil by us, as instruments, though he himself be good; though by his wisdom, he overrules that evil well, to his own glory and to our salvation. (Cole, p. 211)

* * *

Hence the divine action and omnipotence impels the will of Shimei, which like all his members is already evil and has already been inflamed against David . . . (Rupp/Watson, p. 234)

* * *

Why then does God not cease from that motion of his omnipotence, by which the will of the wicked is moved to go on in evil, and to become worse? I answer: this is to wish that God, for the sake of the wicked, would cease to be God . . . Why does he not then change, in his motion, those evil wills which he moves? -- This belongs to those secrets of Majesty, where "his judgments are past finding out." (Cole, p. 214)


God Decrees the Damnation of the Lost From All Eternity


Now, if you are disturbed by the thought that it is difficult to defend the mercy and justice of God when he damns the undeserving, that is to say, ungodly men who are what they are because they were born in ungodliness and can in no way help being and remaining ungodly and damnable, but are compelled by a necessity of nature to sin and to perish (as Paul says: “We were all children of wrath like the rest,” since they are created so by God himself from seed corrupted by the sin of the one man Adam)—rather must God be honored and revered as supremely merciful toward those whom he justifies and saves, supremely unworthy as they are, and there must be at least some acknowledgement of his divine wisdom so that he may be believed to be righteous where he seems to us to be unjust. For if his righteousness were such that it could be judged to be righteous by human standards, it would clearly not be divine and would in no way differ from human righteousness. But since he is the one true God, and is wholly incomprehensible and inaccessible to human reason, it is proper and indeed necessary that his righteousness also should be incomprehensible, as Paul also says where he exclaims: “O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments and how unsearchable his ways!” But they would not be incomprehensible if we were able in every instance to grasp how they are righteous. What is man, compared with God? How much is there within our power compared with his power? What is our strength in comparison with his resources? What is our knowledge compared with his wisdom? What is our substance over against his substance? In a word, what is our all compared with his? (LW, vol. 33, 289)

And if you are concerned about this,—that it is difficult to defend the mercy and justice of God, seeing that, he damns the undeserving, that is, those who are for that reason ungodly, because, being born in iniquity, they cannot by any means prevent themselves from being ungodly, and from remaining so, and being damned, but are compelled from the necessity of nature to sin and perish, as Paul saith, " We all were the children of wrath, even as others," when at the same time, they were created such by God himself from a corrupt seed, by means of the sin of Adam,— (Cole, p. 370)

But if this disturb us, that, it is difficult to maintain the mercy and equity of God, in that he damns the undeserving, namely, ungodly men who are even of such a sort, that, being born in ungodliness, they cannot by any means help being ungodly, remaining so, and being damned; yea, being compelled by the necessity of their nature to sin and perish (as Paul speaks, "We were all the sons of wrath even as others"), being created such as they are, by God himself, out of a seed which became corrupted through that sin which was Adam's only. (Vaughan, p. 460)


God Hates Many Men From All Eternity



God’s love toward men is eternal and immutable, and his hatred is eternal, being prior to the creation of the world, and not only to the merit and work of free choice; and everything takes place by necessity in us, according as he either loves or does not love us from all eternity, . . . (LW, vol. 33, 198)

[T]he love and hatred of God towards men is immutable and eternal; existing, not only before there was any merit or work of Free-will, but before the worlds were made; and that, all things take place in us by necessity, accordingly as he loved or loved not from all eternity. (Cole, p. 240)

We know very well, that God does not hate or love, as we do; since we both love and hate mutably; but he loves and hates according to his eternal and immutable nature: so far is he from being the subject of accident and affection. And it is this very thing which compels Freewill to be a mere no thing; namely, that the love of God towards men is eternal and immutable, and his hatred towards them eternal; not only prior to the merit and operation of Freewill, but even to the very making of the world; and that every thing is wrought in us necessarily, according to his having either loved us or not loved us, from eternity: insomuch that not only the love of God, but even his manner of loving, brings necessity upon us. (Vaughan, p. 305)

* * *

. . . the hatred by which we are eternally damned . . . (Vaughan, p. 306)

18 comments:

Giovanni A. Cattaneo said...

Mr. Armstrong I know that you do not think that Luther was neurotic or crazy or that he suffered from some kind of Psychological impediment, however some of the things he writes can be considered to be border line I think, even by those that try to be as fair as possible to him.

Dave Armstrong said...

I think he had some serious depression, as all biographers acknowledge (and I've written a few posts about that). He was also overscrupulous and probably had neuroses. I don't think he was mad in the psychotic sense. Many of his heretical ideas stem from nominalistic teachings of the previous few centuries.

Ken said...

Here is a good presentation of the issues. This may help over Luther's choice of words.

God is not the author of evil and does not sin; in fact He cannot sin nor lie ( I John 1:5; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18; Hab. 1:13) and He is totally good and wise; but He has decided (ordained) to allow evil for His glory as He uses it wisely and justly to bring about the salvation of His people from all nations (Rev. 5:9) and their sanctification and He gets glory from justly punishing unbelievers in hell.

Suffering and The Sovereignty of God

you can read the whole book for free here:

http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/books_bssg/books_bssg.pdf

Dave Armstrong said...

Luther says much more than that God simply allowed evil (on which all agree). This is the problem.

Adomnan said...

Ken: He gets glory from justly punishing unbelievers in hell.

Adomnan: It is not glorious to punish someone as evil who was not free to be good; that is, who did not have the ability to be good. It fact, it is unjust. That's why insane people are not punished for what they do.

Therefore, a person born with an evil nature, should such a person exist, would never be guilty of anything and could not be held accountable for anything he did.

Adomnan said...

Fortunately, the Lutherans subsequently dropped these ravings of their founder. It was the Calvinists who picked up on them.

Adomnan said...

Luther: God’s love toward men is eternal and immutable, and his hatred is eternal.

Adomnan: So, according to Luther, John, instead of writing "God is love" in his epistles, could just as truly have written "God is hate."

Adomnan said...

Luther: Here you see that when God works in and through evil men, evil things are done, and yet God cannot act evilly although he does evil through evil men, because one who is himself good cannot act evilly; yet he uses evil instruments that cannot escape the sway and motion of his omnipotence.

Adomnan: This is the first time I've seen an act blamed on tools rather than the user of the tools! Thus, if a carpenter made a chair, Luther would say the carpenter didn't make the chair, but his tools did.

Or, when asked who chopped down the cherry tree, George Washington could have answered: Not I! (And to himself: It was my ax that did it.)

It would be easier for Luther if he'd just come right out and say that the Christian God, like Woden, does evil because He can do anything he wants to do -- that power, not goodness, characterizes divinity. I wonder why Luther drew back from this? Residual Catholicism?

Ben M said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
RD Miksa said...

On a more general note, it is without a doubt true that the more that one investigates and deeply studies both the personal lives and specific theological views of the founders of the "Reformation," the more that one can be happy to remain Catholic. For though the Catholic Church may have had its share of questionable leaders, it is ultimately not founded on the singular interpretation of Biblical texts by one individual, who, through their very interpretation, opened the door to endless and continuous schisms within Christianity anytime someone believed their interpretation to be more correct than another's.

Keep up the great work Dave!

radosmiksa.blogspot.com

Dave Armstrong said...

Thanks! (to the previous commenter).

Adomnan: So, according to Luther, John, instead of writing "God is love" in his epistles, could just as truly have written "God is hate."

No; rather it would be: "God is love and hate" (one or the other, depending on what human recipients of His love / hate we are talking about).

Frank said...

heavy stuff dave
i understand how and why luther drew some of these conclusions, but i think the Bible would contradict some

Nick said...

The truth is, the average Protestant has NO IDEA that Luther was this extreme of a person, far more extreme than most other pretend reformers. If the average Protestant knew this, they'd be horrified, just as if they knew that Lutherans and Calvinists teach (via Penal Substitution) that Jesus was damned to hell in their place:
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2009/04/was-jesus-damned-in-your-place.html
(see quotes from Luther)

It's astonishing, and quite telling of how powerful the devil can deceive, that Luther is given Super-Apostle status on one hand and a free pass on the other, and the Protestants see nothing wrong or unfair about this.

And what is the response to all this? "Oh it's no big deal" or "Oh, that's 'hyper-calvinism'". LOL!

Dave Armstrong said...

I didn't know 90% of this stuff, either, when I was a Protestant, because the information is mostly not available (especially this was the case prior to 1990, when I converted, without the Internet).

The stuff I posted today I had to search and search to find. Obviously, Protestants who know about all this stuff are embarrassed about it. Oftentimes it is not translated into English.

But facts is facts. And I am about getting all the facts out so that people can make informed decisions.

All I've been doing in these recent Luther posts is citing his own words, without all the editorializing comments that we see on other sites, which attempt to bias the reader and assume he or she is too stupid to interpret words without hand-holding, help.

RD Miksa said...

"All I've been doing in these recent...posts is citing his own words, without all the editorializing comments that we see on other sites..."

And Dave, it is my opinion that this fact is what makes your arguments/posts so powerful and convincing. Essentially, let them hang themselves with their own rope, so to speak!

RD Miksa
radosmiksa.blogspot.com

Ben M said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Adomnan said...

Luther: That was before I knew how health-giving that despair was and how close to grace.

Adomnan: This is a (neurotic) sentiment you won't find in any biblical figure.

Ben M said...
This comment has been removed by the author.