3 Unfortunate Ideas of Luther in “The Bondage of the Will”
DiscussionsReformation Era: History and Literature
Rejoignez LibraryThing pour poster.
1geoffreymeadows
So, I’ve read some of the writings of Erasmus and Luther now. And I’m beginning to suspect that some of my study techniques are not effective. I’m not taking good enough notes. And I’m not remembering as much detail in the books I’m reading to be able to write about them.
This is especially true for complex ideas given in works like Erasmus’ “The Freedom of the Will” and Luther’s “The Bondage of the Will.” I’m wanting to write about those two works more in depth, but after reading them I have acquired only the foggiest of outlines of what was said.
So, what follows is from my impressions of the works, though I haven’t been able to go back and get the quotes I need to make my points. I would have to read the books over again entirely, and I’m not wanting to do that. So, with those cautions, here goes.
Michael Massing in his book, Fatal Discord: Erasmus, Luther, and the Fight for the Western Mind, makes a point that Christianity has taken from Luther a kind of brash way of relating to the Scriptures. He believes that the Erasmian way of reading the Scriptures is more nuanced, focusing on cautious interpretation and a tendency to leave open, questions that seem not to be totally settled. Luther’s way seems to lead to a kind of “hot shot” Christianity (my words) which focuses on the idea that there is only one correct interpretation of Scripture, though interpretation itself is not acknowledged.
1) Luther believes that everyone not saved into the Christian Church will go to hell in the judgment.
I know that the Church has pretty much been permeated with this idea, but to my mind it’s something we can still change and would profit from changing.
Admittedly, some Scriptures seem to support this idea of universal damnation. Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by Me.” (John 14:6) But in this Scripture Christ is talking about the *Father* and a deeply personal relationship with Him. If the Lord had said, No man comes to God but by Me, I’d have a different idea. But He’s not talking about all men, and He’s not talking in general about God, He’s talking about disciples entering into a deep personal relationship. In another place, Paul says, “for there is given none other name under heaven whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12) But again, “there is given none other *name*,” doesn’t mean that those who know God apart from any name, since they’ve never been presented with one, can therefore never find God’s kindness. In the story of the rich man and Lazarus, no mention is made at all of whether Lazarus was a believer or had accepted Christ. He was saved and comforted by God because he suffered. God had mercy on him. That’s why *he* was saved.
The critical verse for me is in I Timothy 4:10, where it says, “We trust in the living God, which is the savior of all men, but specially of those that believe.” Sure, God is “especially” saving those who believe; believers have all kinds of advantages; but he’s also the savior of those who are righteous and who fear Him, even if they have never been exposed to the gospel.
The story of the Roman captain, Cornelius, in Acts (chapter 10) is another Scripture that comes to mind here. God is no respecter of persons. There is no partiality with God.
But why does it matter? I know people who have rejected God simply because it appears He’s going to send people to endless torments who have never done anything grossly wrong in their lives. It makes it look like God is not aware of nuances of judgment that should probably be applied. If God is going to treat murderers and chocolate eaters in exactly the same way, how can anyone trust in Him in the first place? Christ in the gospels seems to have been acutely aware of factors leading towards and away from judgment. Christians should be of that same sort of mind themselves (and rescue those who are moving towards it).
Luther says then that we just have to trust God, that the predestined will be saved and those not predestined will be lost. He thinks that this just adds to the mystery of God and God’s ways. But I think that’s a cop out. I think Christians should admit that they are on a level playing field with those that don’t believe (at least before God), and that such people should be respected and listened to, as well. Sometimes unbelievers can believe things in error, but believers should give assent to them when what they say is the truth, regardless of whether what they say comes wrapped up in Biblical verses. God is the Savior of all men. If He isn’t, then what does Paul mean here in I Timothy 4:10?
2) Now again, I should probably go back to “The Bondage of the Will” and look again at Luther’s arguments. But to do that, I’d probably have to reread the whole book. So here’s what I *think* Luther was saying.
Luther thinks that one takes the Bible entirely at face value, no interpretation is needed. There are no tropes in the Bible.
Now obviously the Bible is a unique document. It speaks directly to people where they are at. And it is open to almost anyone, even to, or especially to, the average person. There is nothing esoteric about the Bible. It is generally understandable to almost anyone who carefully reads it.
That is not to say, however, that the Bible is an easy book. It raises many questions, sometimes especially for new readers, as any pastor would admit.
The Bible is also great literature. It challenges us in many ways, not always in the same way for any two readers. The Bible stretches us intellectually, spiritually, and emotionally, and changes us, which is maybe why the Bible can be difficult for us to agree upon.
Luther believed that God did not put anything in the Bible that could not be understood by the average Christian. The reason why things are in the Bible is because God thinks we should know them. So, Luther believes that if there is anything we could not understand, that God would not have put it in the Bible in the first place.
But we’re talking about an infinite God, communicating to finite creatures. Of course, we’re not going to get it all. That’s the point. We stifle questions and we discourage struggle when we seem to think everything should be easy to understand. That’s probably why the church today seems so glib to so many, even to those within the church.
3) This one is related to the one just given. Luther believes that the Holy Spirit and a humble reader is all that’s needed to read the Bible perfectly. No other help is needed, nor should any other help be sought out.
Again, the Holy Spirit and a humble reader is a great thing. You’ll go a long way on that. But no human being is perfectly open to the Spirit or the word. Luther denies that the Church Fathers could be of any help at all to those trying to read and interpret the Bible. Now the Church Fathers are often much more difficult to read than the Bible itself. That’s true. It’s something I discovered myself trying to read Clement of Alexandria in an old Church Fathers set. It’s also true that one should start with the Bible and relate well to it before picking up commentaries. But in the contemporary setting, it’s like a Saturday morning men’s Bible study I was once in. They advised me not to read commentaries and just read the Bible. Most of the men in that Bible study had less experience with the Bible than I had at the time. I had read the Bible many times - to the point that I was having trouble getting anything new out of it. A good commentary might have been a good thing at that time. It may have even given me new viewpoints or insights. These people who write commentaries often have extensive experience with the Bible. They’ve taught for many years and may even know the original languages. Those people may have had a lot to say to me. This idea that you should not look to any person or book to help you understand the Bible better is just not humane. You should avail yourself of any helps you need to understand the Scriptures. Just pick your sources carefully.
This all relates back to the idea that you don’t interpret the Bible when you read it. If that’s the way it is, we are all a bunch of little eidetikers imprinting Bible passages on our brains. It’s one reason why Erasmus had so much trouble debating with Luther. Luther had his truth already, he didn’t need any other input.
Sometime I’ll comment on Luther’s book, “On the Jews and Their Lies.” It will show, I think, another of Luther’s unfortunate ideas - that the Jews should be perpetually punished in this world for not believing in the gospel. But that’s a different book, and for another time. (It’s one of the last books I’ve planned to read for this year).
It’s not my intention to drag up a plethora of theological arguments in this essay. It may seem like it, but I’m not. The point of it is, that I’m siding a little bit on Erasmus’ side this time and criticizing Luther’s side. (I haven’t done that yet). Luther has a lot of great and important things to say, I don’t deny that. But I do believe that there has been a legacy from the Reformation Era that has not been entirely positive. That’s what I’m trying to talk about. It’s the historical consequences of what was done hundreds of years ago that interests me. We still struggle with these issues today - as if there were some kind of echo we’re not even aware of. We should try to be more aware of those echoes. How might they be leading us in directions that aren’t productive? History (and reading old books) can teach us more about that.
This is especially true for complex ideas given in works like Erasmus’ “The Freedom of the Will” and Luther’s “The Bondage of the Will.” I’m wanting to write about those two works more in depth, but after reading them I have acquired only the foggiest of outlines of what was said.
So, what follows is from my impressions of the works, though I haven’t been able to go back and get the quotes I need to make my points. I would have to read the books over again entirely, and I’m not wanting to do that. So, with those cautions, here goes.
Michael Massing in his book, Fatal Discord: Erasmus, Luther, and the Fight for the Western Mind, makes a point that Christianity has taken from Luther a kind of brash way of relating to the Scriptures. He believes that the Erasmian way of reading the Scriptures is more nuanced, focusing on cautious interpretation and a tendency to leave open, questions that seem not to be totally settled. Luther’s way seems to lead to a kind of “hot shot” Christianity (my words) which focuses on the idea that there is only one correct interpretation of Scripture, though interpretation itself is not acknowledged.
1) Luther believes that everyone not saved into the Christian Church will go to hell in the judgment.
I know that the Church has pretty much been permeated with this idea, but to my mind it’s something we can still change and would profit from changing.
Admittedly, some Scriptures seem to support this idea of universal damnation. Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by Me.” (John 14:6) But in this Scripture Christ is talking about the *Father* and a deeply personal relationship with Him. If the Lord had said, No man comes to God but by Me, I’d have a different idea. But He’s not talking about all men, and He’s not talking in general about God, He’s talking about disciples entering into a deep personal relationship. In another place, Paul says, “for there is given none other name under heaven whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12) But again, “there is given none other *name*,” doesn’t mean that those who know God apart from any name, since they’ve never been presented with one, can therefore never find God’s kindness. In the story of the rich man and Lazarus, no mention is made at all of whether Lazarus was a believer or had accepted Christ. He was saved and comforted by God because he suffered. God had mercy on him. That’s why *he* was saved.
The critical verse for me is in I Timothy 4:10, where it says, “We trust in the living God, which is the savior of all men, but specially of those that believe.” Sure, God is “especially” saving those who believe; believers have all kinds of advantages; but he’s also the savior of those who are righteous and who fear Him, even if they have never been exposed to the gospel.
The story of the Roman captain, Cornelius, in Acts (chapter 10) is another Scripture that comes to mind here. God is no respecter of persons. There is no partiality with God.
But why does it matter? I know people who have rejected God simply because it appears He’s going to send people to endless torments who have never done anything grossly wrong in their lives. It makes it look like God is not aware of nuances of judgment that should probably be applied. If God is going to treat murderers and chocolate eaters in exactly the same way, how can anyone trust in Him in the first place? Christ in the gospels seems to have been acutely aware of factors leading towards and away from judgment. Christians should be of that same sort of mind themselves (and rescue those who are moving towards it).
Luther says then that we just have to trust God, that the predestined will be saved and those not predestined will be lost. He thinks that this just adds to the mystery of God and God’s ways. But I think that’s a cop out. I think Christians should admit that they are on a level playing field with those that don’t believe (at least before God), and that such people should be respected and listened to, as well. Sometimes unbelievers can believe things in error, but believers should give assent to them when what they say is the truth, regardless of whether what they say comes wrapped up in Biblical verses. God is the Savior of all men. If He isn’t, then what does Paul mean here in I Timothy 4:10?
2) Now again, I should probably go back to “The Bondage of the Will” and look again at Luther’s arguments. But to do that, I’d probably have to reread the whole book. So here’s what I *think* Luther was saying.
Luther thinks that one takes the Bible entirely at face value, no interpretation is needed. There are no tropes in the Bible.
Now obviously the Bible is a unique document. It speaks directly to people where they are at. And it is open to almost anyone, even to, or especially to, the average person. There is nothing esoteric about the Bible. It is generally understandable to almost anyone who carefully reads it.
That is not to say, however, that the Bible is an easy book. It raises many questions, sometimes especially for new readers, as any pastor would admit.
The Bible is also great literature. It challenges us in many ways, not always in the same way for any two readers. The Bible stretches us intellectually, spiritually, and emotionally, and changes us, which is maybe why the Bible can be difficult for us to agree upon.
Luther believed that God did not put anything in the Bible that could not be understood by the average Christian. The reason why things are in the Bible is because God thinks we should know them. So, Luther believes that if there is anything we could not understand, that God would not have put it in the Bible in the first place.
But we’re talking about an infinite God, communicating to finite creatures. Of course, we’re not going to get it all. That’s the point. We stifle questions and we discourage struggle when we seem to think everything should be easy to understand. That’s probably why the church today seems so glib to so many, even to those within the church.
3) This one is related to the one just given. Luther believes that the Holy Spirit and a humble reader is all that’s needed to read the Bible perfectly. No other help is needed, nor should any other help be sought out.
Again, the Holy Spirit and a humble reader is a great thing. You’ll go a long way on that. But no human being is perfectly open to the Spirit or the word. Luther denies that the Church Fathers could be of any help at all to those trying to read and interpret the Bible. Now the Church Fathers are often much more difficult to read than the Bible itself. That’s true. It’s something I discovered myself trying to read Clement of Alexandria in an old Church Fathers set. It’s also true that one should start with the Bible and relate well to it before picking up commentaries. But in the contemporary setting, it’s like a Saturday morning men’s Bible study I was once in. They advised me not to read commentaries and just read the Bible. Most of the men in that Bible study had less experience with the Bible than I had at the time. I had read the Bible many times - to the point that I was having trouble getting anything new out of it. A good commentary might have been a good thing at that time. It may have even given me new viewpoints or insights. These people who write commentaries often have extensive experience with the Bible. They’ve taught for many years and may even know the original languages. Those people may have had a lot to say to me. This idea that you should not look to any person or book to help you understand the Bible better is just not humane. You should avail yourself of any helps you need to understand the Scriptures. Just pick your sources carefully.
This all relates back to the idea that you don’t interpret the Bible when you read it. If that’s the way it is, we are all a bunch of little eidetikers imprinting Bible passages on our brains. It’s one reason why Erasmus had so much trouble debating with Luther. Luther had his truth already, he didn’t need any other input.
Sometime I’ll comment on Luther’s book, “On the Jews and Their Lies.” It will show, I think, another of Luther’s unfortunate ideas - that the Jews should be perpetually punished in this world for not believing in the gospel. But that’s a different book, and for another time. (It’s one of the last books I’ve planned to read for this year).
It’s not my intention to drag up a plethora of theological arguments in this essay. It may seem like it, but I’m not. The point of it is, that I’m siding a little bit on Erasmus’ side this time and criticizing Luther’s side. (I haven’t done that yet). Luther has a lot of great and important things to say, I don’t deny that. But I do believe that there has been a legacy from the Reformation Era that has not been entirely positive. That’s what I’m trying to talk about. It’s the historical consequences of what was done hundreds of years ago that interests me. We still struggle with these issues today - as if there were some kind of echo we’re not even aware of. We should try to be more aware of those echoes. How might they be leading us in directions that aren’t productive? History (and reading old books) can teach us more about that.
