“It [the Diatribe] cites Cornelius as an example of one whose prayers and alms pleased God before he was baptized or breathed on by the Holy Ghost (cf. Acts 10:4). I, too, have read Luke on the Acts; but I HAVE NEVER FOUND A SINGLE SYLLABLE TO SUGGEST THAT CORNELIUS’S WORDS WERE MORALLY GOOD WITHOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT, which is the Diatribe’s dream. On the contrary, I find that he was ‘a just man, and one that feared God’—so Luke describes him (v.2). But to call a man without the Holy Spirit a ‘just man, and one that feared God’, IS THE SAME AS TO CALL BELIAL CHRIST! Moreover, the whole argument of the passage is concerned to show that Cornelius was ‘clean’ before God: the vision sent down to Peter from heaven to reprove him bore witness to that. By such notable deeds and words does Luke call attention to the righteousness and faith of Cornelius. But, for all that, the Diatribe and its beloved Sophists, standing open-eyed under the bright light of Luke’s words and of clear fact, CONTINUE IN THEIR BLINDNESS; such is their lack of care in reading and marking the Scriptures…granted, Cornelius was NOT YET BAPTISED, AND HAD NOT YET HEARD THE WORD OF CHRIST’S RESURRECTION; but does it hence follow that HE WAS WITHOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT? On these principles, you will be saying that John the Baptist and his parents, and the mother of Christ, and Simeon, were without the Holy Spirit! Let us bid such thick darkness farewell!” (Martin Luther, “The Bondage of the Will,” pp. 246-247).
In the above quote, Luther responds to Erasmus’ claim about Cornelius being a man without the Spirit, who was called “God-fearing” and devout, in addition to being a man who prayed to God.
Let’s explore Luther’s quote and see his error. First, he states, “…I have NEVER FOUND a single syllable to suggest that Cornelius’s words were morally good without the Holy Spirit…” Contrary to Luther though, we find these words about Cornelius’s prayers in Acts 10:
“Your PRAYERS and your acts of charity have come up as a memorial offering before God” (Acts 10:4b, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
However, it is in the same chapter that we find Cornelius receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit:
“While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came down on all those who heard the message” (Acts 10:44).
Cornelius was part of this group that heard the message. If he received the Holy Spirit during Peter’s preaching, this means that, BEFORE Peter’s preaching, Cornelius didn’t have the Holy Spirit.
We find other references to attest to the coming of the Spirit on Cornelius and his household as a salvation experience:
“All the prophets testify about Him that through His name everyone who believes in Him will receive forgiveness of sins” (v.43).
We notice that, only after the coming of the Spirit, are Cornelius and his household baptized:
“Then Peter responded, ‘Can anyone withhold water and prevent these from being baptized, WHO HAVE RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT just as we have?” (Acts 10:47)
And what are we told about the necessity of possessing the Spirit?
“But if anyone DOES NOT HAVE THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST, he does not belong to Him” (Romans 8:9b).
So although Cornelius was “God-fearing,” he didn’t have the Spirit (even though he believed).
Now let me say at this moment that I believe that a person must possess the Spirit—otherwise, that person does not belong to Christ. But we have to keep in mind, too, that at the time of Cornelius’s conversion, the Gentiles had not yet received the Spirit of God. Notice that in Acts 10, when Cornelius and his household receive the Spirit, that “the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also” (Acts 10:45).
Luther makes another erring statement at the end of the above quote: “granted, Cornelius was NOT YET BAPTISED, AND HAD NOT YET HEARD THE WORD OF CHRIST’S RESURRECTION; but does it hence follow that HE WAS WITHOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT? On these principles, you will be saying that John the Baptist and his parents, and the mother of Christ, and Simeon, were without the Holy Spirit! Let us bid such thick darkness farewell!”
Luther first states his disbelief that Cornelius was not saved; the problem with this, however, is that Peter’s statement in Acts 10:47 implies that Cornelius had just received the Spirit during his preaching. How then, could Cornelius have had the Spirit PRIOR to this?
Secondly, notice that he states, “Cornelius was not yet baptized, and had not yet heard the word of Christ’s resurrection.” Yet and still, the Word was to precede faith:
“But how can they call on Him in whom THEY HAVE NOT BELIEVED? And how can they believe WITHOUT HEARING ABOUT HIM? And how can they hear WITHOUT A PREACHER?...so FAITH COMES FROM WHAT IS HEARD, AND WHAT IS HEARD COMES THROUGH THE MESSAGE ABOUT CHRIST” (Romans 10:14, 17).
So, before a person can believe, the Word must be preached to them; and, once the Word is preached, and the person hears the message, they can then call on the Name of the Lord. This is why, in Acts 10, we find Peter preaching the message of salvation (Acts 10:34-43).
So, what of Cornelius and his household? Were they “saved” prior to Acts 10? No. But the text tells us that Cornelius and his household were “God-fearers” (Acts 10:2, 22). And Luke uses this very same description of the thief on the cross in Luke 23:
“But the other [criminal] answered, rebuking him: ‘Don’t you even FEAR GOD, since you are undergoing the same punishment? We are punished justly, because WE’RE GETTING BACK WHAT WE DESERVE FOR THE THINGS WE DID, BUT THIS MAN HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG” (Luke 23:40-41).
One of the criminals (the one quoted above) told the other criminal that he needed to “fear God.” And then, what does he say? He tells the other thief that they are being punished because their deeds merit their punishment—while Jesus, the man in the middle, doesn’t deserve His punishment.
The thief on the cross who makes these remarks shows that he, unlike the other selfish thief, FEARS GOD! He has been convicted about his sin (his current punishment of death), but not only has he been convicted of his sin—he also sees the need to accept Christ. Notice, then, the God-fearing criminal’s next step:
“Then he said, ‘Jesus, REMEMBER ME when you come into Your kingdom!” (Luke 23:42)
The next step of the thief is to tell the Lord that he wanted to be where the Lord was—in other words, he wanted to go to heaven, he accepted Christ as his Savior! He told the Lord to “remember me,” which means that he was proclaiming himself to be a FOLLOWER of Christ! And the Lord’s response?
“And He [Christ] said to him, ‘I ASSURE YOU: TODAY YOU WILL BE WITH ME IN PARADISE” (Luke 23:43).
The Lord accepts his plea and promises him that he would be in Heaven with the Lord. The only way the thief on the cross could have told the Lord to remember him, is if the Lord even KNEW him! And, because he accepted Christ as his Lord in his heart, he could make this request. The Lord could remember him because he was a disciple of His!
Back to Luther’s quote: “On these principles, you will be saying that John the Baptist and his parents, and the mother of Christ, and Simeon, were without the Holy Spirit! Let us bid such thick darkness farewell!”
Luther states that if we are to view Cornelius as being devoid of the Spirit, we have to say that “John the Baptist,” his parents, Mary the mother of Jesus, and Simeon all lacked the Spirit.
Starting with John the Baptist; we are told that John would have the Holy Spirit within himself from birth:
“For he will be great in the sight of the Lord and will never drink wine or beer. HE WILL BE FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT WHILE STILL IN HIS MOTHER’S WOMB” (Luke 1:15, HCSB).
The above words from the angel of the Lord to Zechariah tell us of John the Baptist’s birth.
Next, what about John’s parents?
“Then his father Zechariah was FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT and PROPHESIED…” (Luke 1:67)
“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped inside her, and Elizabeth WAS FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT” (Luke 1:41).
We see the Lord using Elizabeth and Zechariah as servants. We are also told in Luke 1:6 that “Both were righteous in God’s sight, living without blame according to all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.” We are not given this description with Cornelius: instead, all we’re told is that he was “God-fearing” and that he prayed to God.
What about Mary, Jesus’ mother?
“I am the Lord’s slave…may it be done to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38).
Mary calls herself “the Lord’s slave,” which means that she is a servant of God, someone who has yielded herself as a servant of righteousness. Notice, too, that the Lord is giving Mary a divine mission to fulfill—to bear the Savior of the world. With Cornelius, however, the Lord tells Cornelius to go see Peter so that he may hear the message and be saved. Cornelius’s encounter with God is salvific in nature, not missional. Before Cornelius would be an instrument for God, he first had to be saved and receive the Holy Spirit. Mary doesn’t have to receive the Spirit here—because she already has the Spirit! This is why the angel Gabriel makes the following announcement:
“THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL COME UPON YOU, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the Holy One to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35).
In addition, notice Gabriel’s opening words to Mary: “Rejoice, FAVORED WOMAN! The Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). What does the Lord say to Cornelius?
“Your prayers and acts of charity have come up as a MEMORIAL OFFERING BEFORE GOD” (Acts 10:4).
With Cornelius, God tells him that He has remembered Cornelius BECAUSE OF his acts of charity and his prayers! The emphasis seems to be on Cornelius’s deeds toward the Jewish people (as well as his prayers). With Mary, though, the Lord assigns her a task that involves the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit; and remember, in Cornelius’s case, he didn’t have the Spirit! Also, the Lord’s presence is with her. Although the angel appears to Cornelius, we never read of the Lord’s presence being with him—just his good deeds!
Last but not least, Luther points out Simeon in this group as well. Let’s look at Simeon:
“There was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon. This man was righteous and devout, looking forward to Israel’s consolation, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS ON HIM. IT HAD BEEN REVEALED TO HIM BY THE HOLY SPIRIT that he would not see death before he saw the Lord’s Messiah. GUIDED BY THE SPIRIT, he entered the temple complex” (Luke 2:25-27a).
Notice that the text tells us that the Holy Spirit “was on” Simeon. The Spirit was in his life! In addition, the Spirit was not only IN him, the Spirit had REVEALED things to him! Last but not least, the Spirit GUIDES his entrance into the temple.
According to Luke 2:25-27a, Simeon is called a “devout” and “righteous man,” but we are told something about him that we are NOT told about Cornelius: and that is that the Spirit is in him.
Back to Cornelius: Cornelius was described as “devout” and “God-fearing”; but he was without the Spirit. Even being a “good” person is not enough for salvation! A person must hear the Word of the Lord and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved!
Cornelius’s prayers involved being saved. This is why the Lord tells him to send men to Joppa to find Peter (Acts 10:5-6). With the others Luther mentions to bolster his position, however, we read of their “rightness” with the Lord; the Lord is using them for His glory, filling them with His Spirit and allowing them to speak and prophesy in His Name. These things are the OUTWORKING of the Spirit on a person’s life:
“…This is what was spoken through the prophet Joel:
‘And it will be in the last days,’ says God, ‘that I will pour out My Spirit on all humanity: then your sons and your daughters WILL PROPHESY…I will even pour out My Spirit on My male and female slaves in those days, AND THEY WILL PROPHESY” (Acts 2:16-18).
The prophecies of Simeon, Mary, Elizabeth, and Zechariah are all evidence of the Spirit’s residence within. Cornelius, however, is a God-fearer who, although feeling the Spirit’s conviction and inner guilt, has not heard the message yet and waits to receive the effects of salvation. So to place Cornelius in the same category with these others is a grave mistake.
Luther commits here what I call “The Cornelius Fumble.” Here, we see Luther’s argument break down—for, here is a man who is God-fearing without the Spirit. I will explain the importance of Cornelius in this regard soon.
Showing posts with label Bondage of the Will. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bondage of the Will. Show all posts
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
God's Just Standard
“The Diatribe gathers its second absurdity from Mistress Reason—‘human’ reason, so-called: to wit, that on my view blame must attach, not to the vessel, but to the potter, especially in view of the fact that He is a potter who creates this clay as well as moulds it. ‘Here (says the Diatribe) ‘the vessel is cast into eternal fire, a fate which it in no way deserved, except that it was not under its own control… At this point, they demand that God should act according to man’s idea of right, and do what seems proper to themselves—or else that He should cease to be God! ‘The secrets of His majesty,’ they say, ‘shall not profit him; let him render a reason why He is God, or why He wills and does that which has no appearance of justice in it… Rules must be laid down for Him, and He is not to damn any but those who have deserved it by our reckoning! In this way, Paul must presumably recall it, and allow that it has no force, and remodel it; because the Potter in question (this is the Diatribe’s explanation) makes the vessel unto dishonor on the grounds of merit preceding, just as He rejected some of the Jews by reason of unbelief, and received Gentiles by reason of their faith. But if God works in such a way as to regard merit, why do objectors grumble and complain?...what becomes of the power of the Potter to make what vessel He will, if He is controlled by merits and rules, and is not allowed to make as He would, but is required to make as He should? Respect for merit militates against power and freedom for Him to make what He will; as is proved by the case of the ‘good man of the house’ who, when the workmen grumbled and demanded their rights, replied by asserting his freedom of will in dealing with his own goods (cf. Matt. 20:15). It is these considerations that preclude the validity of the Diatribe’s gloss” (Martin Luther, Part xiii, “Of the righteousness of God in justifying and condemning sinners” in “Erasmus’ Treatment of Texts,” from “The Bondage of the Will.” Grand Rapids: Fleming H. Revell, 2007, pages 232-233. Translated by J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston).
I’ve been reading Martin Luther’s “The Bondage of the Will” with a detailed eye for the last few days. Whenever Luther provides scriptural justification for his conclusions, I’m always “zooming” in on such quotes and assessing his scriptural evidence to see if he makes sense or not. The above quote (somewhat abridged for length’s sake) shows Luther attacking “The Diatribe” (Erasmus) and his explanations of God and His work. Luther quotes Matthew 20:15 as a way to explain why God picks some men for salvation and lets others go to damnation.
But the scriptural passage of Matthew 20:15 poses problems for Luther’s argument. To see it, let’s go to Matthew 20:
1 "For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. (A) 2 After agreeing with the workers on one denarius for the day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 When he went out about nine in the morning, [a] he saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 To those men he said, 'You also go to my vineyard, and I'll give you whatever is right.' So off they went. 5 About noon and at three, [b] he went out again and did the same thing. 6 Then about five [c] he went and found others standing around, [d] and said to them, 'Why have you been standing here all day doing nothing?' 7 " 'Because no one hired us,' they said to him. " 'You also go to my vineyard,' he told them. [e] 8 When evening came, the owner of the vineyard told his foreman, 'Call the workers and give them their pay, (B) starting with the last and ending with the first.' [f 9 "When those who were hired about five [g] came, they each received one denarius. 10 So when the first ones came, they assumed they would get more, but they also received a denarius each. 11 When they received it, they began to complain to the landowner: 12 'These last men put in one hour, and you made them equal to us who bore the burden of the day and the burning heat! (C) ' 13 "He replied to one of them, 'Friend, I'm doing you no wrong. Didn't you agree with me on a denarius? (D) 14 Take what's yours and go. I want to give this last man the same as I gave you. 15 Don't I have the right to do what I want with my business? [h] Are you jealous [i] because I'm generous? (Matthew 20:1-15, Holman Christian Standard. All verses will come from this version unless otherwise stated).
The parable itself is about the Lord hiring workers in His vineyard. He agrees with them all for the SAME PRICE. Notice too, that He invited everyone He found standing around to come to work for Him: He “went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard…” (v.1); “When He went out about nine in the morning, he saw others STANDING IN THE MARKETPLACE doing nothing….” (v.3); “about noon and at three, he went out again and did the same thing. Then about five he went and found others standing around” (vv.5-6). Everyone He found doing nothing, He put them to work. He didn’t discriminate against ANYONE who wanted to work in His vineyard. Doesn’t sound like Calvinism, does it? If Calvinism were true, then the Lord would have “weeded out” some workers and left others.
At the end of this parable, the workers who worked all day complain about receiving the same pay as those who worked only one hour. Jesus’ words to the unsatisfied workers was “Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my business? ARE YOU JEALOUS BECAUSE I’M GENEROUS?’” (Matt. 20:15)
Notice that the Lord talks about doing what He wants to do with His business—however, His decision to do as He pleases is based on His “generosity,” not arbitrariness! The Lord gives to those who worked one hour THE SAME AMOUNT as those who worked all day because HE CHOSE TO give generously! The Lord withheld nothing from any party here, so the Lord Himself violated no rules of fairness. All workers were found, hired, and paid what the Lord promised them.
And the Lord does the same thing for all of us: as 2 Peter 3:9 says, He desires that “none perish, but all to come to repentance.” Because of that, the Lord is always willing to hire workers in His vineyard and pay them what He promises them (which is no more or no less than anyone else receives). But if Calvinists have it their way, God now begins to “discriminate” between who He chooses for Heaven and Hell. This, however, doesn’t make sense when you consider that all died in Adam and all have the opportunity to be made alive in Christ (Rom. 5).
I’ve been reading Martin Luther’s “The Bondage of the Will” with a detailed eye for the last few days. Whenever Luther provides scriptural justification for his conclusions, I’m always “zooming” in on such quotes and assessing his scriptural evidence to see if he makes sense or not. The above quote (somewhat abridged for length’s sake) shows Luther attacking “The Diatribe” (Erasmus) and his explanations of God and His work. Luther quotes Matthew 20:15 as a way to explain why God picks some men for salvation and lets others go to damnation.
But the scriptural passage of Matthew 20:15 poses problems for Luther’s argument. To see it, let’s go to Matthew 20:
1 "For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. (A) 2 After agreeing with the workers on one denarius for the day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 When he went out about nine in the morning, [a] he saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 To those men he said, 'You also go to my vineyard, and I'll give you whatever is right.' So off they went. 5 About noon and at three, [b] he went out again and did the same thing. 6 Then about five [c] he went and found others standing around, [d] and said to them, 'Why have you been standing here all day doing nothing?' 7 " 'Because no one hired us,' they said to him. " 'You also go to my vineyard,' he told them. [e] 8 When evening came, the owner of the vineyard told his foreman, 'Call the workers and give them their pay, (B) starting with the last and ending with the first.' [f 9 "When those who were hired about five [g] came, they each received one denarius. 10 So when the first ones came, they assumed they would get more, but they also received a denarius each. 11 When they received it, they began to complain to the landowner: 12 'These last men put in one hour, and you made them equal to us who bore the burden of the day and the burning heat! (C) ' 13 "He replied to one of them, 'Friend, I'm doing you no wrong. Didn't you agree with me on a denarius? (D) 14 Take what's yours and go. I want to give this last man the same as I gave you. 15 Don't I have the right to do what I want with my business? [h] Are you jealous [i] because I'm generous? (Matthew 20:1-15, Holman Christian Standard. All verses will come from this version unless otherwise stated).
The parable itself is about the Lord hiring workers in His vineyard. He agrees with them all for the SAME PRICE. Notice too, that He invited everyone He found standing around to come to work for Him: He “went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard…” (v.1); “When He went out about nine in the morning, he saw others STANDING IN THE MARKETPLACE doing nothing….” (v.3); “about noon and at three, he went out again and did the same thing. Then about five he went and found others standing around” (vv.5-6). Everyone He found doing nothing, He put them to work. He didn’t discriminate against ANYONE who wanted to work in His vineyard. Doesn’t sound like Calvinism, does it? If Calvinism were true, then the Lord would have “weeded out” some workers and left others.
At the end of this parable, the workers who worked all day complain about receiving the same pay as those who worked only one hour. Jesus’ words to the unsatisfied workers was “Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my business? ARE YOU JEALOUS BECAUSE I’M GENEROUS?’” (Matt. 20:15)
Notice that the Lord talks about doing what He wants to do with His business—however, His decision to do as He pleases is based on His “generosity,” not arbitrariness! The Lord gives to those who worked one hour THE SAME AMOUNT as those who worked all day because HE CHOSE TO give generously! The Lord withheld nothing from any party here, so the Lord Himself violated no rules of fairness. All workers were found, hired, and paid what the Lord promised them.
And the Lord does the same thing for all of us: as 2 Peter 3:9 says, He desires that “none perish, but all to come to repentance.” Because of that, the Lord is always willing to hire workers in His vineyard and pay them what He promises them (which is no more or no less than anyone else receives). But if Calvinists have it their way, God now begins to “discriminate” between who He chooses for Heaven and Hell. This, however, doesn’t make sense when you consider that all died in Adam and all have the opportunity to be made alive in Christ (Rom. 5).
Commands for the Helpless
“…if I ask how it is proved that the existence of ‘free-will’ in man is indicated and implied wherever the phrases ‘if thou art willing,’ ‘if thou shalt do,’ ‘if thou shalt hear,’ are used, she will say, ‘BECAUSE THE NATURE OF WORDS AND USE OF LANGUAGE AMONG MEN SEEM TO REQUIRE IT.’ Therefore, she bases her judgment of things and words that are of God upon the CUSTOMS AND CONCERNS OF MEN; and what is more perverse than that, when the former are HEAVENLY and the latter EARTHLY? Thus in her stupidity she betrays herself as thinking of God only as of man.
But what if I prove that the nature of words and use of language, even among men, is not always such as to make it an act of mockery to say to the impotent, ‘if thou art willing,’ ‘if thou shalt do,’ ‘if thou shalt hear’? How often do parents thus play with their children, bidding them to come to them, or do this or that, only in order that it may appear HOW IMPOTENT THEY ARE, and that they may be compelled to call for the help of the parent’s hand? How often does a faithful physician tell an obstinate patient to do or stop doing things that are impossible or injurious to him, so as to bring him by experience of himself to a knowledge of his disease or weakness, to which he cannot lead him by any other course?...If now, God, as a Father, deals with us as with His sons, with a view to showing us the impotence of which we are ignorant; or as a faithful physician, with a view to making known to us our disease; or if, to taunt His enemies, who proudly resist His counsel and the laws He has set forth (by which He achieves this end most effectively), He should say: ‘do,’ ‘hear,’ ‘keep,’ or: ‘if thou shalt hear,’ ‘if thou art willing,’ ‘if thou shalt do; it can be fairly concluded from this that therefore we can do these things freely, or else God is mocking us? Why should not this conclusion follow rather: therefore, God is trying us, that by His law He may bring us to a knowledge of our impotence, if we are His friends? Or else, He is really and deservedly taunting and mocking us, if we are His proud enemies? For this, as Paul teaches, is the intent of divine legislation (cf. Rom. 3:20, 5:20; Gal. 3:19, 24)” (Martin Luther, “The Bondage of the Will,” pp. 152-153).
The above quote from Martin Luther is the summary of his rebuttal to Erasmus’ claim of commands as an indication of expectation from God to mankind.
I agree with him—the Law was to show mankind his inability to keep it. However, there is more to the Law than just the fact that it shows us our inability to keep every jot and tittle of it. The Law was also given with the purpose of the Law being fulfilled.
Let’s look at Romans 3:
19 Now we know that whatever the law says (AC) speaks to those who are subject to the law, (AD) [g] so that every mouth may be shut and the whole world may become subject to God's judgment. (AE) [h] 20 For no flesh will be justified [i] in His sight by the works of the law, (AF) for through the law [comes] the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:19-20, Holman Christian Standard Bible)
In Romans 3:9-18, Paul has used Old Testament references from the book of Psalms to show that man is guilty before God. But what is man guilty of? Transgressing God’s Law—because “the law…speaks to those who are subject to the law.” Every person on the face of the earth is subject to God’s judgment because all sinned in Adam:
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, (S) and death through sin, (T) in this way death spread to all men, (U) because all sinned. (Rom. 5:12, HCSB)
Because all of mankind sinned (in that Adam represented mankind, and sinned in the Garden), man is guilty of transgressing God’s Law.
And this act of transgression is important because it shows us that “the whole world” is “subject to God’s judgment” (Rom. 3:19). We read these words in Romans 3:23-24—
23 For all have sinned (AN) and fall short of the [l] glory of God. 24 They are justified freely by His grace (AO) through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. (Rom. 3:23-24, HCSB)
The entire world, EVERY person, is guilty of transgressing God’s Law, of disobeying God’s commands, of rebellion against God.
And if man is considered “guilty” for disobeying God’s commands, then this implies that man had a DUTY to KEEP the Law!
Paul says this about the law in Romans 3:31—
31 Do we then cancel the law through faith? Absolutely not! (BA) On the contrary, we uphold the law. (Rom. 3:31, HCSB)
So we “uphold” the law, not abolish it. The word in the Greek for “uphold” in Romans 3:31 is “histanomen,” which means “to uphold or sustain the authority or force” of something. To uphold the Law, then, means that we sustain the authority of the Law, we continue to honor the Law as the revelation of God to us.
So, contrary to popular thought, we don’t do away with the Law; for Jesus Himself said in Matthew 5,
“Don’t assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I DID NOT COME TO DESTROY BUT TO FULFILL. For I assure you: Until Heaven and earth pass away, NOT THE SMALLEST LETTER OR ONE STROKE OF A LETTER WILL PASS FROM THE LAW UNTIL ALL THINGS ARE ACCOMPLISHED. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches people to do so will be called least in the kingdom of Heaven. But WHOEVER PRACTICES AND TEACHES THESE COMMANDMENTS WILL BE CALLED GREAT IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. For I tell you, unless YOUR RIGHTEOUSNESS SURPASSES THAT OF THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:17-20).
In verses 21ff, the Lord Jesus begins to give a new interpretation of the Law, NOT a new Law itself! If the Law was simply to show us our inability, but not to give us rules to live our lives by, then why would Jesus go into such a long discourse about the Spirit of the Law instead of the “letter”?
And what about the Lord’s words to the Pharisees in Matthew 23?
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You pay a tenth of mint, dill, and cumin, yet you have neglected THE MORE IMPORTANT MATTERS OF THE LAW—JUSTICE, MERCY, AND FAITH. These things should have been done WITHOUT NEGLECTING THE OTHERS” (Matt.23:23).
In this verse, the Lord doesn’t tell the Pharisees that keeping the Law is a BAD thing—rather, He tells them that there were OTHER things of the Law that they neglected! They should have practiced justice, mercy, and faith WHILE KEEPING THE OTHER PORTIONS OF THE LAW!!
And Paul talks about Christ’s fulfillment of the Law and what that means for the believer:
“What the law could not do since it was limited by the flesh, GOD DID. He condemned sin in the flesh by sending His own Son in flesh like ours under sin’s domain, and a sin offering, IN ORDER THAT THE LAW’S REQUIREMENT WOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED IN US WHO DO NOT WALK ACCORDING TO THE FLESH BUT ACCORDING TO THE SPIRIT. For those whose lives are according to the flesh think about the things of the flesh, but those whose lives are according to the Spirit, about the things of the Spirit…for the mind-set of the flesh is hostile to God because IT DOES NOT SUBMIT itself to God’s law, for it is unable to do so. Those whose lives are in the flesh are unable to please God. YOU, HOWEVER, ARE NOT IN THE FLESH, BUT IN THE SPIRIT, SINCE THE SPIRIT OF GOD LIVES IN YOU” (Rom. 8:3-5,7-9a).
The word for “accomplished” in Romans 8:4 is “plerothe,” which is the subjunctive form of ‘pleroo,” which means “to fulfill.” We mentioned earlier in this post that Jesus talks about Himself fulfilling the Law in Matthew 5:17 (not abolishing the Law). Those of us who are in Christ, then, fulfill the Law first, because we have Christ’s righteousness (2 Cor. 5:21); secondly, according to Romans 8, we have the Spirit in us; and the way to please God is to walk according to the Spirit, which is the only way that the Law will be fulfilled in us.
I won’t go into more proof against Luther’s position. But I will say that, everywhere in Paul’s letters, he constantly used the Old Testament to exhort the people of God. If the Old Testament was to be done away with (and not only the letter), then why, according to Scripture, are we urged to walk according to the Spirit and fulfill the Spirit of the Law (which gives life) instead of the letter? It seems then, since “His [Christ]divine power has given us EVERYTHING REQUIRED FOR LIFE AND GODLINESS, through the knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and goodness” (2 Peter 1:3), then we have no excuse to walk according to God’s requirements. To just say that the Law shows me my inability to keep it still leaves me without any indication of God’s expectation. Surely, then, God expects me to do more than just ACCEPT that I cannot keep the Law…
But what if I prove that the nature of words and use of language, even among men, is not always such as to make it an act of mockery to say to the impotent, ‘if thou art willing,’ ‘if thou shalt do,’ ‘if thou shalt hear’? How often do parents thus play with their children, bidding them to come to them, or do this or that, only in order that it may appear HOW IMPOTENT THEY ARE, and that they may be compelled to call for the help of the parent’s hand? How often does a faithful physician tell an obstinate patient to do or stop doing things that are impossible or injurious to him, so as to bring him by experience of himself to a knowledge of his disease or weakness, to which he cannot lead him by any other course?...If now, God, as a Father, deals with us as with His sons, with a view to showing us the impotence of which we are ignorant; or as a faithful physician, with a view to making known to us our disease; or if, to taunt His enemies, who proudly resist His counsel and the laws He has set forth (by which He achieves this end most effectively), He should say: ‘do,’ ‘hear,’ ‘keep,’ or: ‘if thou shalt hear,’ ‘if thou art willing,’ ‘if thou shalt do; it can be fairly concluded from this that therefore we can do these things freely, or else God is mocking us? Why should not this conclusion follow rather: therefore, God is trying us, that by His law He may bring us to a knowledge of our impotence, if we are His friends? Or else, He is really and deservedly taunting and mocking us, if we are His proud enemies? For this, as Paul teaches, is the intent of divine legislation (cf. Rom. 3:20, 5:20; Gal. 3:19, 24)” (Martin Luther, “The Bondage of the Will,” pp. 152-153).
The above quote from Martin Luther is the summary of his rebuttal to Erasmus’ claim of commands as an indication of expectation from God to mankind.
I agree with him—the Law was to show mankind his inability to keep it. However, there is more to the Law than just the fact that it shows us our inability to keep every jot and tittle of it. The Law was also given with the purpose of the Law being fulfilled.
Let’s look at Romans 3:
19 Now we know that whatever the law says (AC) speaks to those who are subject to the law, (AD) [g] so that every mouth may be shut and the whole world may become subject to God's judgment. (AE) [h] 20 For no flesh will be justified [i] in His sight by the works of the law, (AF) for through the law [comes] the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:19-20, Holman Christian Standard Bible)
In Romans 3:9-18, Paul has used Old Testament references from the book of Psalms to show that man is guilty before God. But what is man guilty of? Transgressing God’s Law—because “the law…speaks to those who are subject to the law.” Every person on the face of the earth is subject to God’s judgment because all sinned in Adam:
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, (S) and death through sin, (T) in this way death spread to all men, (U) because all sinned. (Rom. 5:12, HCSB)
Because all of mankind sinned (in that Adam represented mankind, and sinned in the Garden), man is guilty of transgressing God’s Law.
And this act of transgression is important because it shows us that “the whole world” is “subject to God’s judgment” (Rom. 3:19). We read these words in Romans 3:23-24—
23 For all have sinned (AN) and fall short of the [l] glory of God. 24 They are justified freely by His grace (AO) through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. (Rom. 3:23-24, HCSB)
The entire world, EVERY person, is guilty of transgressing God’s Law, of disobeying God’s commands, of rebellion against God.
And if man is considered “guilty” for disobeying God’s commands, then this implies that man had a DUTY to KEEP the Law!
Paul says this about the law in Romans 3:31—
31 Do we then cancel the law through faith? Absolutely not! (BA) On the contrary, we uphold the law. (Rom. 3:31, HCSB)
So we “uphold” the law, not abolish it. The word in the Greek for “uphold” in Romans 3:31 is “histanomen,” which means “to uphold or sustain the authority or force” of something. To uphold the Law, then, means that we sustain the authority of the Law, we continue to honor the Law as the revelation of God to us.
So, contrary to popular thought, we don’t do away with the Law; for Jesus Himself said in Matthew 5,
“Don’t assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I DID NOT COME TO DESTROY BUT TO FULFILL. For I assure you: Until Heaven and earth pass away, NOT THE SMALLEST LETTER OR ONE STROKE OF A LETTER WILL PASS FROM THE LAW UNTIL ALL THINGS ARE ACCOMPLISHED. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches people to do so will be called least in the kingdom of Heaven. But WHOEVER PRACTICES AND TEACHES THESE COMMANDMENTS WILL BE CALLED GREAT IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. For I tell you, unless YOUR RIGHTEOUSNESS SURPASSES THAT OF THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:17-20).
In verses 21ff, the Lord Jesus begins to give a new interpretation of the Law, NOT a new Law itself! If the Law was simply to show us our inability, but not to give us rules to live our lives by, then why would Jesus go into such a long discourse about the Spirit of the Law instead of the “letter”?
And what about the Lord’s words to the Pharisees in Matthew 23?
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You pay a tenth of mint, dill, and cumin, yet you have neglected THE MORE IMPORTANT MATTERS OF THE LAW—JUSTICE, MERCY, AND FAITH. These things should have been done WITHOUT NEGLECTING THE OTHERS” (Matt.23:23).
In this verse, the Lord doesn’t tell the Pharisees that keeping the Law is a BAD thing—rather, He tells them that there were OTHER things of the Law that they neglected! They should have practiced justice, mercy, and faith WHILE KEEPING THE OTHER PORTIONS OF THE LAW!!
And Paul talks about Christ’s fulfillment of the Law and what that means for the believer:
“What the law could not do since it was limited by the flesh, GOD DID. He condemned sin in the flesh by sending His own Son in flesh like ours under sin’s domain, and a sin offering, IN ORDER THAT THE LAW’S REQUIREMENT WOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED IN US WHO DO NOT WALK ACCORDING TO THE FLESH BUT ACCORDING TO THE SPIRIT. For those whose lives are according to the flesh think about the things of the flesh, but those whose lives are according to the Spirit, about the things of the Spirit…for the mind-set of the flesh is hostile to God because IT DOES NOT SUBMIT itself to God’s law, for it is unable to do so. Those whose lives are in the flesh are unable to please God. YOU, HOWEVER, ARE NOT IN THE FLESH, BUT IN THE SPIRIT, SINCE THE SPIRIT OF GOD LIVES IN YOU” (Rom. 8:3-5,7-9a).
The word for “accomplished” in Romans 8:4 is “plerothe,” which is the subjunctive form of ‘pleroo,” which means “to fulfill.” We mentioned earlier in this post that Jesus talks about Himself fulfilling the Law in Matthew 5:17 (not abolishing the Law). Those of us who are in Christ, then, fulfill the Law first, because we have Christ’s righteousness (2 Cor. 5:21); secondly, according to Romans 8, we have the Spirit in us; and the way to please God is to walk according to the Spirit, which is the only way that the Law will be fulfilled in us.
I won’t go into more proof against Luther’s position. But I will say that, everywhere in Paul’s letters, he constantly used the Old Testament to exhort the people of God. If the Old Testament was to be done away with (and not only the letter), then why, according to Scripture, are we urged to walk according to the Spirit and fulfill the Spirit of the Law (which gives life) instead of the letter? It seems then, since “His [Christ]divine power has given us EVERYTHING REQUIRED FOR LIFE AND GODLINESS, through the knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and goodness” (2 Peter 1:3), then we have no excuse to walk according to God’s requirements. To just say that the Law shows me my inability to keep it still leaves me without any indication of God’s expectation. Surely, then, God expects me to do more than just ACCEPT that I cannot keep the Law…
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Not Enough
“So it is right to say: ‘If God does not desire our death, it must be laid to the charge of our own will if we perish’; this, I repeat, is right IF YOU SPOKE OF GOD PREACHED. For HE DESIRES THAT ALL MEN SHOULD BE SAVED, in that HE COMES TO ALL BY THE WORD OF SALVATION, AND THE FAULT IS IN THE WILL WHICH DOES NOT RECEIVE HIM; as He says in Matt. 23: ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not!’ (v.37). But why the Majesty DOES NOT REMOVE OR CHANGE THIS FAULT OF WILL IN EVERY MAN (for it is not in the power of man to do it), or WHY HE LAYS THIS FAULT TO THE CHARGE OF THE WILL, WHEN MAN CANNOT AVOID IT, IT IS NOT LAWFUL TO ASK; and though you should ask much, YOU WOULD NEVER FIND OUT; as Paul says in Rom. 11: ‘Who art thou that repliest against God?’ (Rom. 9:20)” (Martin Luther, “The Bondage of the Will,” translated by J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston. Grand Rapids: Fleming H. Revell, 2007, page 171).
Luther gives the skeptic a lot to think about. I’ve been reading his work, “The Bondage of the Will,” for the last day and I’ve constantly encountered his attacks against Erasmus, that the imperatives of Scripture (spoken by God Himself) are really just duties that man must fulfill—and yet, man cannot fulfill them. The purpose of the duties then, is not to assume that man can do them, but to show man how helpless he really is. But this part really shocked me in his work. It is here that Luther admits the universality of the gospel and the universal opportunity for salvation. This, in and of itself, is totally foreign to the determinist view. Notice that Luther states it plainly, “He [God] desires that ALL MEN SHOULD BE SAVED…” These are the words of 2 Peter 3:9—
“The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting ANY TO PERISH, but ALL TO COME TO REPENTANCE” (2 Pet. 3:9, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
Luther also admits another biblical truth when he says, “He comes to ALL by the word of salvation, and the fault is in the will which does not receive Him…” First, the Lord does come to all by the word of salvation, for Romans 10 tells us,
“But how can they CALL on Him in whom they have not BELIEVED? And how can they BELIEVE without HEARING about Him? And how can they HEAR without a PREACHER?” (Rom. 10:14, HCSB)
In order to believe, a person has to hear the Word; and in order to hear the Word, someone must preach the Good News of the Gospel.
But did all believe? NO—
“But all did not obey the gospel” (Rom. 10:16, HCSB).
So everyone did not believe. But in order to believe, a person must hear. If everyone did not believe, that means that everyone DID NOT HEAR, right? Wrong:
“But I ask, ‘Did they not hear?’ YES, THEY DID:
Their voice has gone out to ALL THE EARTH, and their words to the ENDS OF THE INHABITED WORLD” (Rom. 10:18, HCSB).
But yes, all heard the message!
So it seems that Luther is biblical with these responses. While most determinists would disagree, I would say that Luther is adhering to sound biblical doctrine.
But I think his remark about the will is fascinating: “…and THE FAULT IS IN THE WILL WHICH DOES NOT RECEIVE HIM…” Luther actually blames the will for not receiving Christ (who he just admitted comes to everyone and provides equal opportunity for all in salvation).
Suddenly, though, we find that Luther slips back into his “determinist” mold once more: “But why THE MAJESTY does not remove or change this fault of will in every man (for it is not in the power of man to do it), or why HE lays this fault to the charge of the will, when man cannot avoid it, it is not lawful to ask...”
Here, though, Luther blames “The Majesty,” God Himself, for the spiritual “defect” of man’s will, as well as the fact that the Lord “blames” the will (when He has the power to change the will).
Let me just say here that this is the classic Calvinist position. Calvinists attempt to blame God for man’s will being inclined to sin. But where did the first inclination for sin come from, as Roger Olson asks? It did not come from God, but MAN! Remember the account of Genesis 3 with the serpent? The moment the serpent told Eve that she and Adam would be “as gods” when they ate of the fruit, she and Adam both ate the forbidden fruit. The first inclinations of sin came from Adam and Eve.
But Luther blames God for not “removing” or “changing” the faulty will, if not for blaming the will itself; and the charge that smacks God the most is when Luther says “when man cannot avoid it.” In Luther’s eyes, man is UNABLE to rescue himself from his sad, spiritual state; and God, the ONLY one who can help him, REFUSES to do so.
In effect, God is guilty of “overlooking” man in his state of spiritual need—while man is given no answer (according to Luther) regarding the reason for God’s passivity. It is with this horrible attack on the character and nature of God that Roger Olson comes to us with the same sharpness of Luther against Erasmus:
“His God specializes in domination, control, and self-glorification even though the eternal infliction of unimaginable torment on persons who were selected for hell before they were born or did anything good or bad. That they supposedly ‘deserve it’ does NOTHING TO GET GOD OFF THE HOOK GIVEN THAT HIS GOD SAVES UNCONDITIONALLY. Clearly, He could save everyone. He chooses not to. Why? TO APPEAL TO MYSTERY RIGHT AT THAT POINT IS UNFAIR. IT SMACKS OF OBFUSCATION AND EVASION. GOD’S CHARACTER IS AT STAKE. SOMETHING MUST BE SAID ABOUT THAT; the good and necessary consequence of…unconditional double predestination is GOD’S MORALLY AMBIGUOUS CHARACTER unless he can say something about God’s goodness and love that at least opens up an avenue of thought allowing reconciliation of God’s goodness as loving-kindness with this account of his sovereignty” (Roger E. Olson, in his response to Paul Helm, “Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views,” edited by Bruce Ware, page 58).
Luther does what burns Olson most—he makes a claim about God not freeing everyone from the bondage of the will—and then says that of such things, “it is not lawful to ask.” And then quotes Romans 9:20 (“Who art thou that REPLIES AGAINST GOD?”) as a way to evade answering the question!
I agree with Olson. When it comes to the issue of salvation, evading questions CANNOT be tolerated! If the Lord came for the entire world (as Luther states above), and uses the Word as the vehicle by which to reach mankind (whom He gave an intellect, reason, and will), then why the Lord doesn’t free everyone and save them all does require an answer. If there is none given, then God is made to look like an arbitrary Creator and Savior—for then, He only dies and saves SOME of the creation He made. And if God doesn’t save all, and ONLY HE can save them, God then looks malicious and malevolent.
We can see this concept of responsibility in the parable of the Good Samaritan:
25 Just (BF) then an expert in the law (BG) stood up to test (BH) Him, saying, "Teacher, (BI) what must I do to inherit eternal life?" (BJ) 26 "What is written in the law?" He asked him. "How do you read it?" 27 He answered: Love the Lord your God (BK) with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; (BL) and your neighbor as yourself. (BM) (BN)
28 "You've answered correctly," He told him. "Do this and you will live." (BO)
29 But wanting to justify himself, (BP) he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" (BQ)
30 Jesus took up [the question] and said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him, beat him up, and fled, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down that road. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 In the same way, a Levite, when he arrived at the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan (BR) on his journey came up to him, and when he saw [the man], he had compassion. (BS) 34 He went over to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil (BT) and wine. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 The next day [k] he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, 'Take care of him. When I come back I'll reimburse you for whatever extra you spend.' 36 "Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?" 37 "The one who showed mercy (BU) to him," he said. Then Jesus told him, "Go and do the same." (Luke 10:25-37, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
Jesus tells the Parable of the Good Samaritan to answer the question regarding neighbors, but the Lord shows us something in this parable: that we are “our brother’s keeper.” When the Lord asked the lawyer, “Which of these three do you think PROVED TO BE A NEIGHBOR TO THE MAN WHO FELL INTO THE HANDS OF THE ROBBERS?”, He was asking the lawyer, “Who did the RIGHT THING,” or that which is good.
In the above parable, the priest and the Levite, those who claimed to be “religious” and “God-fearing” proved to be none of that at all! Here is a man who was helpless, a man who was robbed, beaten, and left “half-dead”—and yet, the priest and Levite felt no compassion towards him.
And I think the Lord shows us that compassion and concern are what love is all about. And if the Lord took time to tell this story, and show the goodness of compassion and concern, why would He do so if, as the Calvinists say, the Lord Himself would turn around and choose to rescue only a FEW “helpless, dead” men along the road leading to Hell? If they had it their way, the Lord would be the “priest” passing by, as though He was too busy into “saving a few” that He wouldn’t have time to save one or two more! And yet, we find that Scripture refers to the Lord as being “ABUNDANT in mercy” and having “GREAT love” toward mankind (Ephesians 2:4, HCSB), not to mention “the immeasurable riches of His grace” (Eph. 2:7, HCSB).
While Luther could escape the Roman Catholic Church, he could not escape the clutches of determinism. It seems as if he traded one “tradition” for another…
Luther gives the skeptic a lot to think about. I’ve been reading his work, “The Bondage of the Will,” for the last day and I’ve constantly encountered his attacks against Erasmus, that the imperatives of Scripture (spoken by God Himself) are really just duties that man must fulfill—and yet, man cannot fulfill them. The purpose of the duties then, is not to assume that man can do them, but to show man how helpless he really is. But this part really shocked me in his work. It is here that Luther admits the universality of the gospel and the universal opportunity for salvation. This, in and of itself, is totally foreign to the determinist view. Notice that Luther states it plainly, “He [God] desires that ALL MEN SHOULD BE SAVED…” These are the words of 2 Peter 3:9—
“The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting ANY TO PERISH, but ALL TO COME TO REPENTANCE” (2 Pet. 3:9, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
Luther also admits another biblical truth when he says, “He comes to ALL by the word of salvation, and the fault is in the will which does not receive Him…” First, the Lord does come to all by the word of salvation, for Romans 10 tells us,
“But how can they CALL on Him in whom they have not BELIEVED? And how can they BELIEVE without HEARING about Him? And how can they HEAR without a PREACHER?” (Rom. 10:14, HCSB)
In order to believe, a person has to hear the Word; and in order to hear the Word, someone must preach the Good News of the Gospel.
But did all believe? NO—
“But all did not obey the gospel” (Rom. 10:16, HCSB).
So everyone did not believe. But in order to believe, a person must hear. If everyone did not believe, that means that everyone DID NOT HEAR, right? Wrong:
“But I ask, ‘Did they not hear?’ YES, THEY DID:
Their voice has gone out to ALL THE EARTH, and their words to the ENDS OF THE INHABITED WORLD” (Rom. 10:18, HCSB).
But yes, all heard the message!
So it seems that Luther is biblical with these responses. While most determinists would disagree, I would say that Luther is adhering to sound biblical doctrine.
But I think his remark about the will is fascinating: “…and THE FAULT IS IN THE WILL WHICH DOES NOT RECEIVE HIM…” Luther actually blames the will for not receiving Christ (who he just admitted comes to everyone and provides equal opportunity for all in salvation).
Suddenly, though, we find that Luther slips back into his “determinist” mold once more: “But why THE MAJESTY does not remove or change this fault of will in every man (for it is not in the power of man to do it), or why HE lays this fault to the charge of the will, when man cannot avoid it, it is not lawful to ask...”
Here, though, Luther blames “The Majesty,” God Himself, for the spiritual “defect” of man’s will, as well as the fact that the Lord “blames” the will (when He has the power to change the will).
Let me just say here that this is the classic Calvinist position. Calvinists attempt to blame God for man’s will being inclined to sin. But where did the first inclination for sin come from, as Roger Olson asks? It did not come from God, but MAN! Remember the account of Genesis 3 with the serpent? The moment the serpent told Eve that she and Adam would be “as gods” when they ate of the fruit, she and Adam both ate the forbidden fruit. The first inclinations of sin came from Adam and Eve.
But Luther blames God for not “removing” or “changing” the faulty will, if not for blaming the will itself; and the charge that smacks God the most is when Luther says “when man cannot avoid it.” In Luther’s eyes, man is UNABLE to rescue himself from his sad, spiritual state; and God, the ONLY one who can help him, REFUSES to do so.
In effect, God is guilty of “overlooking” man in his state of spiritual need—while man is given no answer (according to Luther) regarding the reason for God’s passivity. It is with this horrible attack on the character and nature of God that Roger Olson comes to us with the same sharpness of Luther against Erasmus:
“His God specializes in domination, control, and self-glorification even though the eternal infliction of unimaginable torment on persons who were selected for hell before they were born or did anything good or bad. That they supposedly ‘deserve it’ does NOTHING TO GET GOD OFF THE HOOK GIVEN THAT HIS GOD SAVES UNCONDITIONALLY. Clearly, He could save everyone. He chooses not to. Why? TO APPEAL TO MYSTERY RIGHT AT THAT POINT IS UNFAIR. IT SMACKS OF OBFUSCATION AND EVASION. GOD’S CHARACTER IS AT STAKE. SOMETHING MUST BE SAID ABOUT THAT; the good and necessary consequence of…unconditional double predestination is GOD’S MORALLY AMBIGUOUS CHARACTER unless he can say something about God’s goodness and love that at least opens up an avenue of thought allowing reconciliation of God’s goodness as loving-kindness with this account of his sovereignty” (Roger E. Olson, in his response to Paul Helm, “Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views,” edited by Bruce Ware, page 58).
Luther does what burns Olson most—he makes a claim about God not freeing everyone from the bondage of the will—and then says that of such things, “it is not lawful to ask.” And then quotes Romans 9:20 (“Who art thou that REPLIES AGAINST GOD?”) as a way to evade answering the question!
I agree with Olson. When it comes to the issue of salvation, evading questions CANNOT be tolerated! If the Lord came for the entire world (as Luther states above), and uses the Word as the vehicle by which to reach mankind (whom He gave an intellect, reason, and will), then why the Lord doesn’t free everyone and save them all does require an answer. If there is none given, then God is made to look like an arbitrary Creator and Savior—for then, He only dies and saves SOME of the creation He made. And if God doesn’t save all, and ONLY HE can save them, God then looks malicious and malevolent.
We can see this concept of responsibility in the parable of the Good Samaritan:
25 Just (BF) then an expert in the law (BG) stood up to test (BH) Him, saying, "Teacher, (BI) what must I do to inherit eternal life?" (BJ) 26 "What is written in the law?" He asked him. "How do you read it?" 27 He answered: Love the Lord your God (BK) with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; (BL) and your neighbor as yourself. (BM) (BN)
28 "You've answered correctly," He told him. "Do this and you will live." (BO)
29 But wanting to justify himself, (BP) he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" (BQ)
30 Jesus took up [the question] and said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him, beat him up, and fled, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down that road. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 In the same way, a Levite, when he arrived at the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan (BR) on his journey came up to him, and when he saw [the man], he had compassion. (BS) 34 He went over to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil (BT) and wine. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 The next day [k] he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, 'Take care of him. When I come back I'll reimburse you for whatever extra you spend.' 36 "Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?" 37 "The one who showed mercy (BU) to him," he said. Then Jesus told him, "Go and do the same." (Luke 10:25-37, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
Jesus tells the Parable of the Good Samaritan to answer the question regarding neighbors, but the Lord shows us something in this parable: that we are “our brother’s keeper.” When the Lord asked the lawyer, “Which of these three do you think PROVED TO BE A NEIGHBOR TO THE MAN WHO FELL INTO THE HANDS OF THE ROBBERS?”, He was asking the lawyer, “Who did the RIGHT THING,” or that which is good.
In the above parable, the priest and the Levite, those who claimed to be “religious” and “God-fearing” proved to be none of that at all! Here is a man who was helpless, a man who was robbed, beaten, and left “half-dead”—and yet, the priest and Levite felt no compassion towards him.
And I think the Lord shows us that compassion and concern are what love is all about. And if the Lord took time to tell this story, and show the goodness of compassion and concern, why would He do so if, as the Calvinists say, the Lord Himself would turn around and choose to rescue only a FEW “helpless, dead” men along the road leading to Hell? If they had it their way, the Lord would be the “priest” passing by, as though He was too busy into “saving a few” that He wouldn’t have time to save one or two more! And yet, we find that Scripture refers to the Lord as being “ABUNDANT in mercy” and having “GREAT love” toward mankind (Ephesians 2:4, HCSB), not to mention “the immeasurable riches of His grace” (Eph. 2:7, HCSB).
While Luther could escape the Roman Catholic Church, he could not escape the clutches of determinism. It seems as if he traded one “tradition” for another…
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)