Bondage of the Will and the Luther-Erasmus Debate

Bondage of the Will is exhibit A in the arguments of the Reformed that Luther is really on "their" side, that we Lutherans canonize him with our lips, but in reality anathemize the doctrine he taught.

In fact, the situation is this: Luther did go further in double predestination than the Concordianists later did, but he also vehemently diasgreed with the idea of the Perseverance of the Saints, calling its proponents deluded enthusiasts. His whole theology was built, more importantly, on universal atonement.

For explication of these points relating to Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will and his debate with Erasmus, I have a number of posts:

First of all, a straight forward comparison of the Reformed vs. (Augsburg) Evangelical teaching on predestination here:

Lutheranism Between Calvinism and Arminianism

Second of all, a screed against Erasmus's position in the debate:

My Take on Erasmus

Now let's get into Luther's response in particular.

The main issue for Luther, I contend, is not the philosophical one of abstract free will, but rather that of theodicy, or the justification of God's justice:

A Florilegium on Luther's Theodicy

Here's the key quote: "Free will is taught, he contends, in the end because no other teaching seems to man's intellect to acquit God of the charge of being unjust. But to make free will the reason why some are saved and some aren't, he argues, makes God no longer God. So what theodicy does he present? That of leaving God God, but insisting that He is also the Son of Man."

I present this issue again in the writings of two other Judeo-Christian writers generally not seen as being relevant, but both of whom think and plead in ways remarkably parallel to Martin Luther and both of whom find "free will" to be utterly inadequate as a theodicy:

The Theodicy of Bondage of the Will in Novel Form

and

"How Do I Get a Gracious God?" in the Intertestamental Era

My reading of the issues is very different from the usual one in Catholic circles which sees Luther's problem as basically personal, and in the end morbid. More here:

Why the Pontificator and I Don't Agree What the Issue Is

Essential point: "As indicated in his title, Fr. Kimel thinks the crux of the issue is 'who is responsible for Luther's anfechtung [temptations to curse God and die]'? This is another outgrowth of his seeing such anfechtungen as a species of spiritual illness. Perhaps it is relevant to some other debate over Luther's anfechtung, but I don't think it is relevant to my reading of it. Why? Because I don't blame . . . "temptation"-inducing thoughts . . . on the late medieval Catholicism, on Judaism, on double predestination or any other culturally/theologically contingent phenomenon. I blame them on the facts of life that anyone can see around them. One can eliminate such thoughts only by eliminating injustice, unbelief, and immorality in the world, or else by abandoning belief in a just and good Creator who orders all things and is holy and condemns sin. . . . I don't believe free will solves the issue at all. Uriel's comfort is no comfort to those who mourn."

Next there is a sharpening of the polemical point with the Calvinists:

Luther Did Not Believe in Limited Atonement

Here's the key quote:

"Luther based his whole theology on the will of God Incarnate being for the salvation of all Adam's children. And since he also indignantly rejected Perserverance of the Saints, and clearly thought the means of grace of God Incarnate resistible by unrepentant sinners, Luther was at best a 2.5 point Calvinist, which is not much of a Calvinist at all."

And on the perseverance of the saints:

The Perseverance of the Saints: We're Right, They're Wrong

Key graf: "Luther regarded David in his year after murdering Uriah as having lost the faith, while just as clearly the Westminster divines thought the opposite. Rarely do we have such a nice and clear-cut distinction."

But isn't Luther's position different from that of the Concordianists? Well, yes, it is, something which Hermann Sasse already pointed out. See here:

TULIP and God's Universal Salvific Will -- Again

I let Dr. Sasse have the last word:

We would say, in reply to Calvin, that it is not our task to reconcile these Scripture passages in such a way as to resolve the contradiction between the God of wrath and the God of mercy, between the Judge and the Savior of the world, into a logical and consistent idea of God. We must rather acknowledge that the reality of God has two sides. We dare not gloss over the words of judgment and wrath, nor may we take the greatness and the glory away from the words of grace and mercy.

Who Is the "Man of Romans 7"?

(Previous number in this series from here)

Romans 7 has been the key passage for simul justus et peccator (at the same time justified and sinner). The famous description of Paul's in which he describes a struggle with sin:

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Is Paul speaking as an apostle here? Or was this before he believed in Christ? Or perhaps under some conviction of sin, but lacking the second blessing that would lead him to sinless perfection and victorious life that all Christians should aspire to?

Here too, Luther was aware of the fifth century debates on this topic. Here the opponent of Augustine, the mature anti-Pelagian preacher, was not Jerome, but the younger, earlier Augustine. In Luther's Lectures on Romans (written in 1515-16), he writes:

That, beginning with this passage until the end of the chapter, the apostle speaks in his own name and as a spiritual person and not at all as a carnal person, Blessed Augustine first asserts extensively and persistently in his book against the Pelagians. Hence he says in the twenty-third chapter of the first book of his Retractations, where he deals again with his exposition of this passage:

When the apostle says: We know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, I did not want to understand this as in any way spoken by the apostle in his own name, because he was already spiritual, but rather with reference to a man who is subject to the law because he is not yet under grace. In this way I earlier understood these words, but later, having read several interpreters of the divine sayings whose authority impressed me greatly, I considered them more carefully and came to see that they can also be understood with reference to the apostle
himself.

And in the second book against [the Pelagian] Julian, he writes:

Behold, it is not, as you think, some Jew who says: I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, etc., but according to Blessed Ambrose, it is the apostle Paul who speaks here in his own name.

And, a little farther on, he quotes Blessed Ambrose from his book On the Sacrament of Regeneration:

We must struggle against the flesh. Paul struggled against it. At last he says: I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind. Are you stronger than Paul? Have no confidence in the sedulous flesh and do not entrust yourself to it, since Paul exclaims: For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, no good dwells: for to will is present with me, but to accomplish that which is good is not.

Likewise, quoting the same author [i.e. "Ambrose"] from the book On Paradise, he says:

Again, at another place of the same work, the same teacher writes: Paul, he says, is assailed and sees the law of his flesh warring against the law of his mind. Paul says: For the good which I will I do not; but the evil which I will not, that I do. And still you think that man is helped by knowledge in so far as it increases his displeasure at his trangression? etc.

And most clearly of all, he [i.e. Augustine] makes the same point in the same work [Against Julian] from the sixth chapter to the end.

Luther then goes on to demonstrate how the delight in the spiritual law and the awareness and hatred of the flesh's sinful urges is a feature not of the carnal (i.e. unregenerate) man, but of the regenerate man.

It is interesting that the Ambrose cited here is believed by modern scholars to be not the "real" Ambrose, but another man who wrote under Ambrose's name (he is called Ambrosiaster). It seems odd that Augustine was unable to tell the difference between the writings of the two, since Ambrose was an older contemporary. In fact, for good or for ill, it seems that this Ambrosiaster was a rather more influential and original theologian than the real Ambrose. If one wishes to find the cuckoo who laid the egg of Evangelicalism that Luther hatched, this Ambrosiaster would seem to be a prime candidate. It is a shame that so little is known about him.

Those who wish to read Augustine's developed anti-Pelagian exegesis of Romans 7 can find a nice assembly of texts in pp. 61-65 of Hurst's translation of Bede's anthology. But it is important to note that there is still a crucial gap between Augustine and Luther. Both believe that the sinner is just yet still subject to sinful desires. Both also believe that the sinner in Christ will prevent these desires from ripening into fruit of mortal sin.

But in this situation of being simultaneously justified and sinner, we can ask, on what basis can it be said there is no condemnation for such a person in Christ? Augustine's answer is that they are not condemned because those in Christ through the Holy Spirit rule over their covetous desires. The work of conquering the flesh cannot be done, but they do do the work of not being conquered by the flesh, and that (it appears) is the basis of their righteousness (although the ability to do so is a gift of God). The mature Luther stresses that while the saint does indeed repress the motions of the flesh, such repression is not the grounds of his acceptance with God. Rather it is faith alone which gives makes the sinner righteous, as it always was.

UPDATE: In a succeeding post, I analyze a homily by John Chrysostom here (HT: Eric Phillips) that gives us the perfectionist "you need to move from the Man of Romans 7 to the Man of Romans 8" reading of Romans 7 as being about man before the grace of the cross. One may presume this was the sort of reading Augustine had imbibed early in his Christian life and which he later repudiated.

More on Luther, Augustine, Jerome, and Paul's Epistles

Sometimes one sets out to write a long series, and then doesn't follow through. Sometimes, however, one falls into a series without really realizing it. That's what's happened in this case, where I have started a series on Luther and Augustine's commentary's on Paul's epistles. In this series the guiding principle is one I enunciated quite a while ago: "I would like to suggest that one's interpretation of a relatively small number of Biblical passages will determine one's theology."

As I've looked through Luther's commentaries on Paul's epistles, I am repeatedly struck by how aware Luther was of the important changes in approach brought in by Augustine, and how important those actual changes were in making Luther's own approach possible. I gave an example below, with circumcision, where Augustine challenged Jerome and Origen's dominant interpretation (you might also want to check out this more recent post where I discuss a passage I should have discussed earlier). I'd like to give a few more examples with the issue of calendrical festivals and the "man of Romans 7."

For calendrical festivals the difficult passage was Galatians 4:10: Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

For Augustine and Jerome, the problem here was that the church year seemed to be a similar form of observing days, months, times, and years (this passage is, of course, pay-dirt for Puritan exegetes defending the regulative principle). Augustine seems to have had some sense that since it is OK for us to observe our church year, then it should have been OK for the Jewish Christians to continue to observe their Mosaic church year. Hence he tended to think that can't be what Paul is prohibiting here. In meeting this problem, his early exposition was more ingenious than plausible. In his 1519 lectures on Genesis, Luther noted that:

St. Augustine wavers in his exposition of this passage. Yet he explains it in the light of the religious ceremonies of the Gentiles rather than in the light of those of the Jews. For he says that it is a very common error of the Gentiles that, as they conduct their affairs or look aheard to the outcomes of life and of their business concerns, they observe the days, months, seasons, and years designated by the astrologers and Chaldeans.

But as Luther notes, even Augustine couldn't really believe in this opinion, since it seems so obvious that the "times" in question should be Jewish. By contrast,

St. Jerome understands this passage simply and correctly as referring only to the Jews. "Days," he says, as Sabbaths and new moons; "months," however, as the first and seventh month; "seasons," as those in which they came to Jerusalem three times each year; "years," however, as the seventh, the year of release, and the fiftieth, which they called the year of jubilee.

Jerome also asks whether we, too, are in the clutches of the same fault, because we observe the fourth day of the week (Wednesday), the day of preparation (Friday), the Lord's Day, the forty-day fast season (Lent), Easter and Pentecost, and various seasons appointed in honor of the martyrs and differing from land to land. In answer he says, in the first place, that we do not observe the days of the Jews but observe other days.

Or, as the Didache (8:1) inimitably says:

Let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays, but do you fast on Wednesdays and Fridays.

("Well that explains it; fasting on Thursday is different -- totally -- from fasting on Friday.")

Here we see the idea that after the Resurrection, Jewish ceremonies are in some inherent sense fatal for the Christian.

But as Luther adds, Jerome has other explanations too:

Secondly that the days have been appointed, not to give greater distinction to the day on which we assemble but in order that faith in Christ may not be diminished by a disorderly assembly of the people.

Thirdly, Jerome says that actually now every day is a Lord's Day, a resurrection Sunday, a day of celebration, and the real change has been that by concession certain days have been disallowed, "for the sake of those who have more time for the world than for God." In other words, every day should be a monk's day, but as a concession to human weakness, laymen are allowed to spend non-feast days in worldly occupations.

Luther adds that in his time, there are far too many feast days. Not until the end of his commentary on this passage, though, does he hit the crucial issue of justification:

Circumcision as well as feast days contributed nothing at all to righteousness. Nor did the other things which [Paul] recounts in greater detail in Col. 2:16. Accordingly, they were not to be observed as necessary, certainly no more than our feast days confer righteousness on us when we observe them or other burdensome traditions. But our righteousness comes from faith in Christ, which is not produced by ceremonies but freely makes use of ceremonies out of love for God and one's neighbor . . .

In his 1535 Lectures, however, he puts this point right up front. After discussing the controversy of what days exactly were the Galatians observing, he writes:

But Paul is instructing the conscience. Therefore he is speaking, not about the Gentile practice of observing days, etc. [as Augustine might think], something that pertains only to the body, but about the Law of God and the observance of days, months, etc., according to the Law of Moses. In other words, he is speaking [as Jerome realized] about religious days, months, and seasons, which the Galatians were observing, on the basis of instruction by the false apostles, as a means of obtaining justification.

He then answers the question which Jerome had asked:

Here someone may say: "If the Galatians sinned in observing days and seasons, why is it not sinful for you to do the same?" I reply: We observe the Lord's Day, Christmas, Easter, and similar holidays in a way that is completely free. We do not burden consciences with these observances; nor do we teach, as did the false apostles, and as do the papists, that they are necessary for justification or that we can make satisfaction for our sins through them.

He then refers to a famous incident in church history, when the second-century bishop of Rome, Victor, excommunicated the Anatolian Christians for observing Easter on a different day. This debate and St. Irenaeus's remonstance against Pope Victor's actions, were important for the Augsburg Confession's discussion of church traditions in Article 26 (scroll down to lines 44-45). Luther comments:

It was the utmost madness to hand the churches of the East over to the devil on account of such a trifle [i.e. the date of Easter]. Therefore this knowledge about the observance of days and seasons was rare, even among great men. Jerome did not have it, and Augustine would not have understood it if he had not been troubled and provoked by the Pelagians.

I wonder what particular passages from Augustine Luther is referring to here. Perhaps he means the texts from Augustine's letters and On Christian Doctrine, which he and the Augsburg Confession liked to cite. In the Confession (again in article 26, lines 16-17), Melanchthon writes:

Thirdly, traditions brought great danger to consciences; for it was impossible to keep all traditions, and yet men judged these observances to be necessary acts of worship. . . . [But] Augustine also forbids that men's consciences should be burdened with such observances, and prudently advises [in his letter to] Januarius that he must know that they are to be observed as things indifferent; for such are his words.

Luther liked to cite Augustine's On Christian Doctrine III.9. In a discussion of signs and what they signified, Augustine wrote:

In these times, since there has been revealed to us a clear sign of our liberty in the Resurrection of the Lord, we are not heavily burdened with the use of certain signs whose meaning we understand; rather we have a few in place of many, which the teaching of the Lord and the Apostles has transmitted to us, and these are very easy to perform, very sublime in implication, and most upright in observance. Such are the sacrament of Baptism and the celebration of the Body and Blood of the Lord.

But even in the late Enchiridion (chapter 81), Augustine still referred to his old astrological interpretation of Galatians 4:10:

Certain things we may suppose to be trifling if the view of Scripture did not show them to be more serious. Who would think that the observation of days and months and years and seasons may be a grave sin -- as those people observe them, who are willing or unwilling to begin anything on certain days or months or years because according to worthless human teachings they reckon such times lucky or unlucky -- unless we weighed the seriousness of this evil from the anxiety of the Apostle, who tells such people, I am anxious about you, that my work for you may have been wasted (Gal. 4:11) .

So how did Luther read Galatians 4:10? He had to accept Jerome's insight that it is exactly Jewish dates which are in question, thus rejecting Augustine's astrology fixation. But he then had to find a proper explanation (in place of Jerome's patently inadequate ones) for why observing Jewish dates were bad without invalidating the Christian observance of the church year. Here Augustine's writings on circumcision, that focused on the intent of the observance, were crucial. But on the dating issue, Luther had to travel most of the distance himself.

Next up: "The Man of Romans 7"

Is Circumcision Sinful in Itself for a Christian?

I have been focusing on the issue of Luther's interpretation of Paul in a number of recent posts. One reason is that I don't think philosophy, world views, or deep structures of thought have much to do with the history of Christian doctrine. Instead, as I said here, "I would like to suggest that one's interpretation of a relatively small number of [Biblical] passages will determine one's theology." For example, is Romans 7 about Paul before he believed in Christ, or after? That, not nominalism, or any other philosophical idea, is going to shape your view of sanctification of the believer.

Another question no one has asked is: how come the Catholic monk William of Rubruck had such a different view of fermented mare's milk from the Eastern Orthodox? To put it differently, what was Latin theology doing right in its understanding of culture, that Greek theology was doing wrong? (Background for this question here).

The answer lies in Augustine and Jerome's debate over circumcision and the interpretation of the passages on circumcision in Galatians. Paul says in Galatians 2:3, that he did not have Titus circumcised, but in Acts 16:3 he did have Timothy circumcised. Jerome and Augustine had a great debate over this question. Jerome contended that just as Paul's conflict with Peter in Galatians 2:11 must have been a kind of play-acting, because for Jerome (and following him Erasmus) Peter as an apostle could not sin and was beyond attack, just so, Paul's circumcision in Acts 16:3 must have been a pretence, and "deceitfully" should have been added into the text there. That is, Paul fooled the Jews into thinking he had circumcised Timothy, because once Christ had come circumcision was fatal. (Luther sums up Jerome and Origen's view point with the adage, "But after Christ the ceremonial laws were fatal"; see Luther's Works, vol. 26, Lectures on Galatians, p. 123.)

By contrast in the Galatians 2:11 passage, Augustine wrote, "It is intolerable to suppose that there was pretense in Paul, for he confirms with an oath that he is speaking the truth" (cited in Lectures on Galatians, pp. 107-08, from Augustine, Expositio epistolae ad Galatas, 15). Similarly he argued that circumcision was "not to be withdrawn from Jewish practice as if abominable and reprehensible" (Bede the Venerable: Excerpts from the Works of Saint Augustine on the Letters of the Blessed Apostle Paul, p. 219). As the place of my citation shows, the series of letters between Jerome and Augustine debating this this issue was well known in the Middle Ages, and was referred to by Luther as early as his Lecture on Romans.

Here is Augustine arguing against Jerome:

It is I, Paul, telling you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. (Gal. 5:2)
Di he deceive Timothy, then, and make Christ of no benefit to him [Acts 16:3]? Or, if it was done deceitfully, was it then no hindrance? But [Paul] did not specify, and say either if you have yourselves circumcised truly, or deceitfully, but without limiting it he said, if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you.

As you want to make room for your interpretation, so that want us to supply the words 'deceitfully' [to Acts 16:3], so I am not demanding unreasonably that you also allow me to intepret the words if you have yourselves circumcised as being addressed to people who wanted to have themselves circumcised because they supposed that they could not be saved by Christ otherwise. [Or as Luther would say, they made it part of justification.] To those circumcised in this state of mind, with this desire and intention, Christ was of no benefit, as [Paul] clearly states elsewhere: 'If righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.' He also makes this declaration which you yourself have quoted: 'You who are seeking to be justified by the law have been cut off from Christ; you have falled from grace.' Surely he was rebuking those who were trusting in themselves, not those who were legitimately observing the [commandments] out of respect for the One who commanded them, not those who understood both why they were commanded -- to foreshadow the truth -- and how long they should endure [i.e. only until the Christ came].

. . .

I say, then, that circumcision of the foresking, and other things of this kind, were divinely given to the earlier people through the covenant that we call 'old', to represent the future things that were to be fulfilled through Christ. When [the future things] had come, these were left for Christians to read solely for the purpose of understanding the prophecies that had gone before. They did not necessarily have to be carried out so that the revelation of faith, which was represented here as to come in the future, may come, as if it was still being awaited.

But although these things were not to be imposed on the Gentiles, they were not to be withdrawn from Jewish practice as if abominable and reprehensible. Slowly and gradually, then, all this observance of prefigurations was to be ended by the passionate preaching of the grace of Christ, the only means believers have of knowing that they are justified and saved -- not by those prefigurations of things once future, but then already coming and present, as at the calling of those Jews whom the Lord's physical presence and the period of the apostles found in this state [i.e. circumcised]. This was enough to suggest that [this observance] was not to be avoided as abominable and similar to idolatry, but that it had no further use, lest it be supposed necessary -- as though salvation came from it and could not exist without it -- as heretics supposed. [The heretics, Judaizers in this case], while wishing to be both Jews and Christians, could be neither Jews nor Christians (Hurst, trans., pp. 218-19).

And here is Luther writing about their debate:

But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek (Gal. 2:3)
. . .
Thus Paul did not reject circumcision as something damnable; nor did he by any word or deed compel the Jews to give it up For in 1 Cor 7:18 he says: Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. But he did rejected circumcision in the sense of something necessary for righteousness . . . Nevertheless when Jews who were believers but were still weak and zealous for the Law heard the statement that circumcision was not necessary for righteousness, they could not take it to mean anything else than that for this reason circumcision was altogether useless and damnable. . . In the same way we today do not reject fasting and other pious practices as something damnable, but we do teach that by these practices we do not obtain the forgiveness of sins. When the common people hear this, they immediately conclude that we are condeming good works. And the papists abet this impression of the people through their sermons and books . . .

. . .

Jerome and Augustine engage in a bitter controversy over this passage. The term "was not compelled" supports Augustine's case. But Jerome did not understand the issue. The issue here is not, as Jerome supposes, what Peter or Paul did about circumcising or not circumcising. Therefore Jerome is amazed that Paul had the authority to denounce in Peter what he had himself done [i.e. observe on occasion the Jewish law]; for, he says, Paul circumcised Timothy and lived as a Gentile among Gentiles but as a Jew among Jews. Jerome imagines that what is at issue here is not very important; therefore he concludes that neither Peter nor Paul had sinned, but he imagines that both had covered things up with a "white lie." As a matter of fact, however, this entire controversy of theirs was, and is, serious business; it deals with the gravest of issues. Therefore it was not a matter of covering things up.

The basic issue was this: Is the Law necessary for justification, or is it not? Paul and Peter are in controversy here over this particular hteme, on which the whole of Christian doctrine depends. Paul was too responsible a person to launch such a public attack on Peter in the presence of the entire church of Antioch on account of some trivial issue. He is attacking him on account of the basic doctrine of Christianity. For when there were no Jews present, Peter ate with Gentiles; but when the Jews arrived, he withdrew. Paul rebukes him because by his pretense he was compelling the Gentiles to do as the Jews did. The whole emphasis lies on the phrase "you are compelling." But Jerome did not see this.

Therefore Paul did not require that anyone who wanted to be circumcised should remain uncircumcised, but he did want to know that circumcision was not necessary for salvation. Paul wanted to remvoe this compulsion. Therefore he allowed the Jews to observe the Law as an obligation; but he always taught both Jews and Gentiles that in their conscience they should be free from the Law and circumcision, just as the patriarchs and all the Old Testament saints were free in their conscience and were justified by faith, not by circumcision or the Law

In fact, Paul might have permitted Titus to be circumcised; but when he saw that they wanted to compel him, Paul refused . . . (Lectures on Galatians, p. 84-85)

As one can thus see, Augustine had already gotten the debate on circumcision to a point pretty close to where Luther took it. One may presume, therefore, that readers in the medieval church had the chance to assimilate the Augustianian view of circumcision and hence religious culture (as I've termed adiaphora here). In this view, the issue is not such rituals in themselves, but whether they are done for salvation or not. This laid part (not all, but part) of the groundwork for Luther's reading of Jerome, and moreover, accustomed Luther to thinking that great figures in the church like Jerome could go badly wrong.

Luther and Allegorical Interpretation

Back in the Middle Ages, everyone used allegory for interpretation. They used it to avoid the plain meaning of Scripture. Luther realized that allegory was used for that purpose and called on all to avoid allegory. Since then, all good Christians have used the historico-grammatical method of Bible interpretation. Allegory is just bad.

This fairy-tale version of Lutheran Bible interterpretation is wide-spread, like many other fairy-tales of the Reformation. And like many fairy-tales, it does have some grains of truth. Luther's attitude to allegory is best described as ambivalent. The key fact, however, is that his Scriptural interpretation was governed by the rule of faith, not by a reified historico-grammatical method.

After finishing his discussion of the Flood in his Lectures on Genesis, Luther pulls back and discusses allegory:

I have often asserted that I take no delight in allegories. Nevertheless, I was so enchanted by them in my youth that under the influence of the examples of Origen and Jerome, whom I admired as the greater theologians, I thought that everything had to be turned into allegories. Augustine, too, makes frequent use of allegories.

But while I was following their examples, I finally realized that to my own great harm I had followed an empty shadow and had left unconsidered the heart and core of the Scriptures. Later on, therefore, I began to have a dislike for allegories. They do indeed give pleasure, particularly when they have some delightful allusions. Therefore I usually compare them to pretty pictures. But to the same extent that the natural color of bodies surpasses the picture . . . the historical narrative surpasses the allegory (p. 150)

After noting that the Anabaptists also used allegories and preferred the obscure books (the Revelation and the book 4 Esdras found in the Apocrypha), he writes: he who either fabricates allegories without discrimination or follows such as are fabricated by others is not only deceived but also most seriously harmed, as these examples show. Hence allegories either must be avoided entirely or must be attempted with the utmost discrimination and brought into harmony with the rule in use by the apostles . . . (pp. 150-51).

He then adds:

Yet these remarks must not be understood to mean that we condemn all allegories indiscriminately , for we observe that both Christ and the apostles occasionally employ them. But they are such as are conformable to the faith, in accordance with the rule of Paul, who enjoins in Rom. 12:6 that prophecy or doctrine should be conformable to the faith.

When we condemn allegories, we are speaking of those that are fabricated by one's own intellect and ingenuity, without the authority of Scripture. The others, which are made to agree with the analogy of the faith, not only embellish doctrine but also gives comfort to consciences (p. 151).

Luther then notes that what is objectionable about the allegories in Augustine, Origen, and Jerome, is that the meaning of the allegories is not about the faith, but about "philosophical ideas," and are hence useless for faith or morals. For example Augustine compares the creation of man and woman to reason and emotion, with the idea that reason should control emotion. Luther asks "what is the value of this fabrication?" because the idea that sin adheres only in the "lower functions" and not in man's reason was an idea he combatted all his life. The allegory was bad not because it was an allegory, but because it had the wrong point.

Citing the 1198 bull of Pope Innocent III, which in language from Gen. 1:16 compared the sun to the Pope and the moon to all temporal authorities, he exclaims "Oh such audacious insolence and such villainous desire for power!" (p. 151). But after citing the New Testament's allegorical use of the old, he writes:

Thus if someone should state that Christ is the sun and the church the moon, illuminated by the grace of Christ, he might be in error; nevertheless, his error is such that it rests, not on an incorrect basis but on a solid one. But where the pople declares that the sun is the papal office and the moon is the emperor, then not only is the application silly and foolish, but even the basis is evil and wicked. Such allegories are thought out and devised, not by the Holy Spirit but by the devil, the spirit of lies (p. 156).

Note that Luther was similarly contemptuous of bad theology drawn from careful attention to grammatical points. Earlier he noted that the Latin translation of For the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth (Gen. 8:21) has "inclined to evil" (in malum prona) not simply evil. The scholastics then built on this a large discussion of how certain faculties remain impaired by the fall. Luther comments: If the sophists [i.e. scholastics] were as friendly toward the sacred teaching handed down through the apostolic and prophetic writings as they are to their own teachers, who maintain the free will and the merit of works, they surely would not have permitted something so slight as one little word to lead them from the truth (p. 122).

And in discussing Hebrew meanings he frequently notes that the letter of the text must be interpreted according to the analogy of faith, not the other way around. After discussing Rabbinical interpretations of "continually judge" in Genesis 6:3, which based on the verb forms treat it as "sheath" (thus "My Spirit will not be confined as in a sheath"), he writes: But the Jews make fools of these modern [Christian] Hebraists by convincing them that Holy Scripture cannot be understood except by means of grammatical rules and their minute system of pointing. Therefore no meaning is so preposterous that they would not defend and garnish it with their fusty rules of grammar.

But tell me, what language has there ever been that men have successfully learned to speak as a result of grammatical rules? Are not rather [even] those language that adhere most closely to rules, such Greek and Latin, nevertheless learned by using them [in speech]? Therefore how great a folly it is in the instance of the sacred language, where theological and spiritual matters are treated, to disregard the particular character of the subject matter and to arrive at the sense on the basis of grammatical rules! (pp. 14-15)

. . . Prime consideration ought to be give to usage, for from it the grammarian derives his knowledge.

I dwell on these matters at such great length in order to warn you not to follow such silly intepreters when you come across them and not to admire their ideas as some sort of extraordinary wisdom. Luther then compares the distortions of the words of institution advanced by Zwinglian grammarians (and today we could undoubtedly advance the distortions of Scripture advanced to defend women's ordination), asking: No one in his right mind would put up with this inclination to distort the meaning in the case of the stories of Terence or the eclogues of Vergil. Are we going to tolerate it in the church? (p. 15)

To understand the meaning of Scripture the Spirit of Christ is needed. But we know that until the end of the world this is the same Spirit who was before all things. Through God's mercy we boast of having this Spirit; and through Him we have faith, a modest understanding of the Scriptures, and a knowledge of other things that are necessary for godliness. And so we do not invent any new understanding, but we adhere to the analogy both of the Holy Scriptures and of the faith (pp. 15-16).

Back to allegory:

Luther accepts the allegory, first advanced by Philo, that compares the proportions of the ark (300x50x30) in Gen. 6:15 to the human body lying on the ground:

These facts are later applied to the body of Christ, that is, to the church, which has an entrance, namely Baptism, through which the clean and the unclean enter without distinction. Even though the church is small, it is nevertheless the ruler of the world; and the world is preseved on its account, in the same way as the unclean animals were preserved in the ark. Others have applied [the dimensions] also to the body of Christ, which had a wound in its side, just as the ark had a window. These allegories, if not actually scholarly, are nevertheless harmless, inasmuch as they contain no error; and one may use them -- except in debates -- for the sake of embellishment (p. 68).

Elsewhere he writes of this allegory:

This thought is not unscholarly. Nor is it unattractive. I am most pleased that it is conformable to the faith . . . If one devises allegories in this manner, therefore, they are nevertheless not ungodly or offensive, even though they may be somewhat inappropriate (p. 156).

What about the raven and the dove which Noah releases? Luther first notes that scholars have allegorized the raven as a carrion eating bird who thus symbolizes fleshly, Epicurean characters who indulge in carnal sins. He then comments: The thought is indeed good, but it is not fully satisfactory; for the allegory is merely moral and philosophical, the sort that Erasmus has been accustomed to fabricate, somewhat after the pattern of Origen.

We for our part should look for a theological allegory (p. 158).

He then proposes at great length (pp. 157-164) this allegory: the raven is the ministry of the Law. Ravens are black, with an unpleasant voice, and so is the preaching of the Law grim and sad. Nor does it return with anything in its mouth; the Law by itself cannot make Christians. Yet still God sends out the Law to the world, just as Noah sent out the raven. And just as "papists, priests, and monks" feed on purgatory and memorial masses for the dead, so too, Luther argues, do raven feed on corpses.

By contrast the dove is the ministry of the Gospel, which is a clean and harmless bird. The first dove is the prophets of Israel who spoke of the Christ to come. The seven days are the time of the Law, before Christ. The dove being sent out the second time is the New Testament apostles bearing the word of God, symbolized by the olive branch. This dove's returning in the evening shows the Gospel being proclaimed in the last days, with no new doctrine to be expected. The dove being sent the third time, and not returning likewise means that once the Gospel is proclaimed, "there is nothing left to do, and no new doctrine is expected."

Luther closes his section on allegory with this admonition:

I urge you with all possible earnestness to be careful to pay attention to the historical accounts. But wherever you want to make use of allegories, do this: follow closely the analogy of the faith, that is, adapt them to Christ, the church, faith, and the ministry of the Word. In this way it will come to pass that even though the allegories be not altogether fitting, they nevertheless do not depart from the faith. Let this foundation stand firm, but let the stubble perish (1 Cor. 3:12-15).

Not altogether a ringing endorsement, but not a blanket condemnation either.

What Mattered Most to Luther

In 1528, Luther wrote his Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper. In the third part of this he offered what he said was his final confession of faith, "lest any persons during my lifetime or after my death appeal to me or misuse my writings to confirm their error, as the sacramentarian and baptist fanatics are already beginning to do." He structured this confession according to the creed, affirming the three articles and then anathemizing the contemporary views that denied these articles. While there is nothing new here for those familiar with the Lutheran confessions (especially the Smalcald articles) I found this a very useful summary of the faith that the mature Luther lived and died by. I have summarized the main points of this under the rubrices of the Nicene Creed (slightly rearranged) in red (cf. Luther’s Works, vol. 37, pp. 360-372):

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

After summarizing the Trinity and the incarnation, Luther anathemizes the ancient heresies on this teaching: the Arians (who denied the full divinity of the Son), the Macedonians (who denied the full divinity of the Holy Spirit), the Sabellians (who like the Oneness or "Apostolic" Pentecostal churches today taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are only modes of one God).

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man,

Luther anathemized the ancient heresies that taught the incarnation of the Father or the Spirit, and the Apollinarians who taught that Christ had a true human body, but not a true human soul. He also anathemized the Nestorians who separated Christ’s human and divine natures into two persons.

and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

After summarizing the doctrine of original sin, here Luther anathemized "all doctrines which glorify our free will, as diametrically contrary to the help and grace of our Savior Jesus Christ." He also anathemized all old and new Pelagians "who will not admit original sin to be sin, but make it an infirmity or defect."He also anathemized "all monastic orders, rules, cloisters, religious foundations, and all such things" since they have been "founded and perpetuated with the idea that by these ways and works men may seek and win salvation" and so are a "notorious, abominable blasphemy and denial of the unique aid and grace of our only Savior." He admitted though that many great saints had lived in them, even "as the elect of God are misled by them even at this time, yet finally by faith in Jesus Christ have been redeemed and have escaped." (On this see more here).

Such orders might be salvaged, though, if they made themselves useful by teaching boys and girls.

Finally Luther confessed that there were only three "holy orders and true religious institutions": the office of priest, the estate of marriage, and civil government. Above them all is "the common order of Christian love" which "serves every needy person in general with all kinds of benevolent deeds."

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets.

After summarizing how the Father’s giving us creation and the Son’s giving of himself for our sins would profit us nothing with the Holy Spirit help us understand this grace, receive it, preserve it, use it to our advantage, , impart it to others, and increase and extend it. Luther confessed that the Holy Spirit works inwardly and outwardly -- "inwardly by means of faith and other spiritual gifts, outwardly through the gospel, baptism, and sacrament of the altar."

I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins;

He thus anathemizes all the Anabaptists (i.e. Baptists) and Donatists, who claim that the gospel or baptism are invalid "if some have received it without faith or otherwise misused it."

In the same way, he confesses that in the sacrament of the altar "the true body and blood of Christ are orally eaten and drunk in the bread and wine." This is true only by the "Word and ordinance of God" regardless of the man’s belief or unbelief. But those who change God’s Word and ordinance and misinterpret it (i.e. the Reformed and Baptists) have only bread and wine.

And I believe in one holy, Christian, and apostolic Church.

In this church, which is "the community or number or assembly of all Christians in all the world," the bishops are not heads or lords, or bridegrooms, but servants, friends, and stewards."

This Christian church exists not only in the realm of the Roman church or pope, but in all the world." It is "physically dispersed among pope, Turks, Persians, Tartars, but spritually gathered in one gospel and faith."He anathmizes the Roman hierarchy saying "the papacy is assuredly the true realm of Antichrist" as prophesied in Matthew 24 and 2 Thessalonians 2; although the Turk (i.e. Islam) and all other heresies are also part of this abomination.

In this Christian faith alone is the forgiveness of sins, "for in it are the found the gospel, baptism, and the sacrament of the altar" not to speak of Christ and his Spirit and God. "Outside this Christian church there is no salvation or forgiveness of sins but everlasting death and damnation" and this is so despite all works of holiness that might appear. This forgiveness of sins comes not just once but frequently, as often as needed, until death.

Luther therefore commends private confession as a "precious, useful thing for souls" as long as no one is compelled to do so or to enumerate all ones sins as opposed to "those which oppress him most grievously."

Luther anathemizes papal pardons and indulgences as "a blasphemous deception" which "desecrates and nullifies the general forgiveness" and bases satisfaction for sins on the works of man and merits of saints, rather than on Christ alone.

But prayers for the dead are no sin, if offered freely without paid requiem masses and vigils and all the rest of the "devil’s annual fair." (See more below.)

Purgatory could of course be possible, but there is nothing about it in Scripture, so Luther anathemizes it, saying "It too was certainly fabricated by goblins." There is another purgatory (that of the suffering in the hour of death) "but it would not be proper to teach anything about it in the church" or establishe endowments or vigils for it.

Luther notes with pleasure how others have criticized the invocation of saints and likewise anathemizes it. "Christ alone should be invoked as our Mediator."

Unction might be practiced as in the Scriptures (Mark 6 and James 5), "but to make a sacrament out of it is nonsense." If any wish to visit the sick, pray for, and admonish them, and also annoint with oil, let them be free to do so in the name of God."

Neither is there any need to make sacraments out of marriage and the office of the priesthood. These orders are sufficiently holy in themselves. So too, penance is nothing else than the practice and the power of baptism."

Yet what Luther anathemizes "as the greatest of all abominations" is the mass itself "when it is preached or sold as a sacrifice or good work, which is the basis on which all religious foundations and monasteries now stand." Looking back on his youth, the crime that most tormented his conscience was his participation as a "holy monk" in this trade that "so horribly angered, tortured, and plagued my dear Lord."

Accordingly he advised people to abandon such foundations and monasteries and vows and come into the three true Christian orders, and so escape "these abominations of the mass and this blasphemous holiness, i.e. ‘chastity, poverty, and obedience,’ by whcih men imagine they are saved." Viriginity was once an excellent thing, but now being "used to deny the aid and grace of Christ" it is abominable; although viriginity, widowhood, and chastity can well be maintained "without these blasphemous abominations."

"Images, bells, eucharistic vestments, church ornaments, altar lights, and the like I regard as things indifferent. Anyone who wishes may omit them." Scriptural and historical illustrations are useful for teaching and he says "I have no sympathy with the iconoclasts."

and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

Here Luther denies those who teach the devils will also be restored to salvation.

He concludes by asking: "I pray that all godly hearts will bear me witness of this, and pray for me that I may persever firmly in this faith to the end of my life. For if in the assault of temptation or the pangs of death I should say something different – which God forbid – let it be disregarded; henceforth I declare publicaly that it would be incorrect, spoken under the devil’s influence. In this may my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ assist me: blessed be He for ever, Amen."

Originally posted to Here We Stand

"Perseverance of the Saints": We're Right, They're Wrong

In the comment box to my post "Lutheranism between Calvinism and Arminianism" [as originally posted at Here We Stand--unfortunately the comments have been deleted], Dave H. has claimed that the "perseverance of the saints" is another area in which Lutherans have manufactured bogus differences from the Calvinists and that we actually believe the same thing: the "perseverance of the elect."

Actually, by citing confessions, this is one area where the difference between the two confessions is especially clear.

The issue is, can someone who has sincerely and truly put his faith in Christ, lose his salvation while yielding to grave sin? Calvinists say no, Lutherans say yes. Practically this leads us to the following questions: 1) if someone whose faith seemed sincere and true falls away from the faith, must we believe that his faith was in fact hypocritical, however true it seemed at the time? Calvinists say yes and Lutherans say no (i.e. no, it is not true in all cases; certainly Lutherans do admit the existence of false believers); and 2) if someone first puts his faith in Christ, then falls away into knowing, grave sin, but finally returns to the faith, can we believe that that person’s original faith was maintained through his period of falling away, such that saving faith was at that time compatible with grave sin? Calvinists say yes we must so believe, while Lutherans say, no we mustn’t so believe.

Note that the issue is not: Do the elect of God ever fall into grave sin after first believing? (Calvinists and Lutherans, constrained by obvious facts, both admit the possibility, but we Lutherans teach that should that happen the elect will, if truly elect, be brought back to saving faith by the Holy Spirit before death).

Here is the relevant passage from our confessions, from the chapter of the Smalcald Articles, "Of the False Repentance of the Papists" by Martin Luther himself:

On the other hand, if certain sectarians would arise . . . . they say, besides [the cruder "once saved, always saved" idea that Luther excoriates first], that if any one sins after he has received faith and the Spirit, he never truly had the Spirit and faith: I have had before me many such insane men, and I fear that in some such a devil is still remaining.

It is, accordingly, necessary to know and to teach that when holy men, still having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving with it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery, murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed from them. For the Holy Ghost does not permit sin to have dominion, to gain the upper hand so as to be accomplished, but represses and restrains it so that it must not do what it wishes. But if it does what it wishes, the Holy Ghost and faith are certainly not present. For St. John says, 1 John 3, 9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, ... and he cannot sin. And yet it is also the truth when the same St. John says, 1, 8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

C.F.W. Walther in Thesis X of his The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel (pp. 210-221) adds a further citation from a letter by Luther in 1536, in which he wrote:

When a person sins against his conscience, that is, when he knowingly and intentionally acts contrary to God, as, for instance, an adulterer or any other criminal, who knowingly does wrong, he is, while consciously persisting in his intention, without repentance and faith and does not please God. . . . Faith and the worship of God are delicate affairs; a very slight wound inflicted on the conscience may drive out faith and prayer. Every tried Christian frequently is put through this experience (cited on p. 217).

By contrast, here is the relevant passage from one of their confessions, the Westminster Confession, Article 17 "Of the Perseverance of the Saints":

1. They, whom God has accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

[Section 2 speaks of this perseverance being the result of God’s will and covenant, etc.]

3. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein: whereby they incur God's displeasure, and grieve His Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.

The approved Biblical proof texts given in the footnotes specifically reference Peter’s denial, and especially David’s adultery and murder. Hence it is clear that Luther regarded David in his year after murdering Uriah as having lost the faith, while just as clearly the Westminster divines thought the opposite. Rarely do we have such a nice and clear-cut distinction.

Why is this issue so important? It is important because it gets to the nature of faith. For a Roman Catholic, faith is mere assent to facts about salvation on the grounds that the church teaches them, and is hence compatible with mortal sin. (You can be an adulterer or drunk and still assent to Christ’s divinity, transubstantiation, etc. Such faith is real but Catholics believe this "faith" does not by itself save.)

By contrast Calvinists and Lutherans both do teach that faith is not just factual belief, but also involves trust and reliance upon the person and teaching in which one has faith. This trust and reliance comes from the Holy Spirit but is empirically verifiable, that is, it is visible both to the believer by introspection (he knows he trusts Christ) and to the outsider (his trust in Christ produces good works). Thus for a Lutheran, a theologically orthodox adulterer or drunk does not and cannot in fact have real faith, but only a mere historical faith or belief, which does not save.

But while Calvinists in theory agree with us on this issue, in fact they deny this with their doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. The Calvinist must admit that many saints are in fact in the period when their saving faith has lost its "evidence" and thus has no empirical evidence. Similarly they must admit that many who have subjective and objective evidence of faith will later be shown to be hypocrites all along, by the fact that they later fell away. In the last analysis, this article of the "perseverance of the saints" reduces Calvinist "faith" to a mysterious X which sometimes produces effects, but sometimes lives in the person’s life without any subjective or objective evidence at all, and which can moreover be indetectably counterfeited by false faith. Allowing the first possibility even in theory, let alone in the life of Biblical saints, is utterly unacceptable to the Christian and evangelical understanding of faith, and to allow the second is to open the door to constant doubt of faith.

Originally posted at Here We Stand

Moses, Luther, and Natural Law

Last night I finished "How Christians Should Regard Moses" (in Timothy Lull’s anthology Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings from LW, 35: 161-174). I loved it. But in it Luther says some seemingly very un-Lutheran things that are rather close to controversial issues today.

How should Christians regard Moses? In three ways: 1) as the lawgiver to the Jews. Luther is very clear, that even the 10 Commandments are not inherently binding on Christians: "Where [Moses] gives commandment we are not to follow him except in so far as he agrees with the natural law" (Lull, p. 147). The Law of Moses in its original form is addressed to the Jews as a nation, not Christians. "Moses is the Sachsenspiegel [the medieval German law code] for the Jews" (p. 141). 2) as a preacher of Christ and the Gospel promises. This is the best thing and is for all. 3) powerful examples of faith and unbelief. We follow one and avoid the other.

In the course of discussing no. 1, however, Luther says, "I keep the commandments which Moses has given, not because Moses gave commandment, but because they have been implanted in me by nature" (Lull, p. 142) Not only that, he extends this natural implantation to the first table: "[Moses] has commanded that we should have one God, that we should trust and believe in him, that we should not swear by his name; that we should honor father and mother; not kill, steal [etc.]. . . . Nature also has these laws. Nature also provides that we should call upon God. The Gentiles attest to this fact. For there never was a Gentile who did not call upon his idols, even though these were not the true God. . . Therefore it is natural to honor God, not steal, [etc.] and what Moses commands is not new" (Lull, p. 142).

Now if you are wondering what the fuss is, let me draw the implications out for you. 1) Luther believes there is a natural knowledge of God - - of the obligation to trust and believe in one God, no less - - in all people. Of course this natural knowledge apart from Christ does not save, but it is remarkable enough to find Luther admitting this, when so many Lutherans are convinced the denial of even this weak and beggarly natural knowledge of God is the key to being truly and confessionally Lutheran.

2) Luther seems to allow "civic religion," said to be the besetting sin of the Reformed. Observe: the law of Moses is the temporal law of a particular nation, which we might adopt in so far as it agrees with nature. All ten commandments (excepting only the Saturday sabbath law and the prohibition of images–see pp. 139-140 and 147) are in fact natural, known and acknowledged by all people. Therefore, there is no Lutheran reason why Britain, for example, couldn’t legislate monotheism and anti-blasphemy laws. In doing so, Britain’s temporal authority would not saved any one’s soul (this legal knowledge does not include Christ), but they would not be doing anything beyond or outside of the temporal kingdom’s sphere (remember the spiritual content of Moses is not in first table of the laws, but rather in the promises of Christ).

Now I know, certain schools of Calvinism actually hold what Luther (rightly) denied, that the laws of Moses are binding on us. This kind of (true) theocracy would be unLutheran (thank God!). But a public law that there is one God, that we should be believe and trust in him, and not blaspheme His name - - in passing such a law the temporal authorities would just be "doing what comes naturally."

Originally posted at Here We Stand