Bondage of the Will

Sections 146 through 155 of the Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther. Translated by Henry Cole. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Discussion, third part, continued. Section 146. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation for sin through faith in his blood, and so forth. Romans 3, 22 through 26. Here, Paul speaks forth very thunderbolts against free will. First, he saith, the righteousness of God without the law is manifested. Here, he marks the distinction between the righteousness of God and the righteousness of the law, because the righteousness of faith comes by grace without the law. His saying, without the law, can mean nothing else but that Christian righteousness exists without the works of the law, inasmuch as the works of the law avail nothing and can do nothing towards the attainment unto it. As he afterwards saith, therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Romans 3, 28. The same also he had said before, by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight. Romans 3, 20. From all which it is most clearly manifest, that the endeavour and desire of free will are a nothing at all. For if the righteousness of God exist without the law, and without the works of the law, how shall it not, much rather, exist without free will? Especially since the most devoted effort of free will is to exercise itself in moral righteousness, or the works of that law from which its blindness and impotency derive their assistance. This word without, therefore, abolishes all moral works, abolishes all moral righteousness, abolishes all preparations unto grace. In a word, scrape together everything you can as that which pertains to the ability of free will, and Paul will stand invincibly saying, the righteousness of God is without it. But to grant that free will can, by its endeavour, move itself in some direction, we will say, unto good works, or unto the righteousness of the civil or moral law. Yet it is not moved toward the righteousness of God, nor does God in any respect allow its devoted efforts to be worthy unto the attainment of this righteousness. For he saith that his righteousness availeth without the works of the law. If, therefore, it cannot move itself unto the attainment of the righteousness of God, what will it be profited if it move itself by its own works and endeavours unto the attainment of, if it were possible, the righteousness of angels? Here, I presume, the words are not obscure or ambiguous, nor is any place left for tropes of any kind. Here, Paul distinguishes most manifestly the two righteousnesses, assigning the one to the law, the other to grace, and declares that the latter is given without the former, and without its works, and that the former justifies not nor avails anything without the latter. I should like to see, therefore, how free will can stand or be defended against these scriptures. Section 147. Another thunderbolt is this. The apostle saith that the righteousness of God is manifested and avails unto all and upon all them that believe in Christ, and that there is no difference. Romans 3, 21-22. Here again he divides in the clearest words the whole race of men into two distinct divisions. To the believing he gives the righteousness of God, but takes it from the unbelieving. Now, no one, I suppose, will be madman enough to doubt whether or not the power or endeavour of free will be a something that is not faith in Christ Jesus. Paul then denies that anything which is not this faith is righteousness before God, and if it be not righteousness before God, it must be sin. For there is with God no medium between righteousness and sin, which can be, as it were, a neuter, neither righteousness nor sin. Otherwise the whole argument of Paul would amount to nothing, for it proceeds wholly upon this distinct division, that whatever is done and carried on by men must be in the sight of God either righteousness or sin, righteousness if done in faith, sin if faith be wanting. With men, indeed, things pass thus. All cases in which men in their intercourse with each other neither owe anything as a due nor do anything as a free benefit are called medium and neuter. But here the ungodly man sins against God, whether he eat or whether he drink, or whatever he do, because he abuses the creature of God by his ungodliness and perpetual ingratitude, and does not at any one moment give glory to God from his heart. Section 148. This also is no powerless thunderbolt, where the apostle says, All have sinned and are without the glory of God, for there is no difference. Romans 3.23. What, I pray you, could be spoken more clearly. Produce one of your freewill workmen and say to me, does this man sin in his endeavor? If he does not sin, why does not Paul accept him? Why does he include him also without difference? Surely he that saith all accepts no one in any place at any time in any work or endeavor. If therefore you accept any man for any kind of devoted desire or work, you make Paul a liar, because he includes that freewill workman or striver among all the rest and in all that he saith concerning them. Whereas Paul should have had some respect for this person and not have numbered him among the general herd of sinners. There is also that part where he saith that they are without the glory of God. You may understand the glory of God here two ways, actively and passively. For Paul writes thus from his frequent use of Hebraisms. The glory of God, understood actively, is the glory by which God glories in us. Understood passively, it is that glory by which we glory in God. But it seems to me proper to understand it now passively. So the faith of Christ is, according to the Latin, the faith which Christ has. But according to the Hebrew, the faith of Christ is the faith which we have in Christ. So also the righteousness of God signifies, according to the Latin, the righteousness which God has. But according to the Hebrews, it signifies the righteousness which we have from God and before God. Thus also the glory of God we understand according to the Latin, not according to the Hebrew, and receive it as signifying the glory which we have from God and before God, which may be called our glory in God. And that man glories in God who knows to a certainty that God has a favor unto him and deigns to look upon him with kind regard, and that whatever he does pleases God, and what does not please him is borne with by him and pardoned. If, therefore, the endeavor or desire of free will be not sin but good before God, it can certainly glory. And in that glorying say with confidence, This pleases God, God favors this, God looks upon and accepts this, or at least bears with it and pardons it. For this is the glorying of the faithful in God, and they that have not this are rather confounded before God. But Paul here denies that these men have this, saying that they are all entirely without this glory. This also experience itself proves. Put the question to all the exercises of free will to a man, and see if you can show me one who can honestly and from his heart say of any one of his devoted efforts and endeavors, This pleases God. If you can bring forward a single one, I am ready to acknowledge myself overthrown, and to cede to you the palm. But I know there is not one to be found. And if this glory be wanting, so that the conscience dares not say to a certainty and with confidence, This pleases God, it is certain that it does not please God. For as a man believes, so it is unto him. Because he does not to a certainty believe that he pleases God, which nevertheless it is necessary to believe. For to doubt of the favor of God is the very sin itself of unbelief, because he will have it believed with the most assuring faith that he is favorable. Therefore I have convinced them upon the testimony of their own conscience that free will, being without the glory of God, is with all its powers, its devoted strivings and endeavors, perpetually under the guilt of the sin of unbelief. And what will the advocates of free will say to that which follows, being justified freely by his grace? Romans 3.24 What is the meaning of the word freely? What is the meaning of by his grace? How will merit and endeavor accord with freely given righteousness? But perhaps they will say here that they attribute to free will a very little indeed, and that which is by no means the merit of worthiness, meritum condignum. These, however, are mere empty words, for all that is sought for in the defense of free will is to make place for merit. This is manifest, for the diatribe has throughout argued and expostulated thus. If there be no freedom of will, how can there be place for merit? And if there be no place for merit, how can there be place for reward? To whom will a reward be assigned if justification be without merit? Paul here gives you an answer, that there is no such thing as merit at all, but that all who are justified are justified freely. That is, that this is ascribed to no one but to the grace of God. And when this righteousness is given, the kingdom and life eternal are given with it. Where is your endeavoring now? Where is your devoted effort? Where are your works? Where are your merits of free will? Where is the profit of them all put together? You cannot here make, as a pretense, obscurity and ambiguity. The facts and the works are most clear and most plain. But be it so that they attribute to free will a very little indeed, yet they teach us that by that very little we can attain unto righteousness and grace. Nor do they solve that question, Why does God justify one and leave another, in any other way than by asserting the freedom of the will, and saying, Because the one endeavors and the other does not? And God rewards the one for his endeavoring, and despises the other for his not endeavoring, lest if he did otherwise he should appear to be unjust. And notwithstanding all their pretense, both by their tongue and pen, that they do not profess to attain unto grace by the merit of worthiness, meritum condignum, nor call it the merit of worthiness, yet they only mock us with a term, and hold fast their tenet all the while. For what is the amount of their pretense that they do not call it the merit of worthiness, if nevertheless they assign unto it all that belongs to the merit of worthiness, saying that he in the sight of God attains unto grace who endeavors, and he who does not endeavor does not attain unto it? Is this not plainly making it to be the merit of worthiness? Is it not making God a respecter of works, of merits, and of persons, to say that one is devoid of grace from his own fault because he did not endeavor after it, but that another, because he did endeavor after it, has attained unto grace, unto which he would not have attained if he had not endeavored after it? If this be not the merit of worthiness, then I should like to be informed what it is that is called the merit of worthiness. In this way you may play a game of mockery upon all words, and say it is not indeed the merit of worthiness, but is in effect the same as the merit of worthiness. The thorn is not a bad tree, but is in effect the same as a bad tree. The fig is not a good tree, but is in effect the same as a good tree. The diatribe is not indeed impious, but says and does nothing but what is impious. Section 149. It has happened to these asserters of free will, according to the old proverb, Striving dire scyllas' rock to shun, they gainst Charybdis' headlong run. For devotedly striving to dissent from the Pelagians, they begin to deny the merit of worthiness, whereas by the very way in which they deny it, they establish it more firmly than ever. They deny it by their word and pen, but establish it in reality, and in heart sentiment. And thus they are worse than the Pelagians themselves, and that on two accounts. First, the Pelagians plainly, candidly, and ingenuously asserted the merit of worthiness, thus calling a boat a boat, and a fig a fig, and teaching what they really think, whereas our free will friends, while they think and teach the same thing, yet mock us with lying words and false appearances, as though they dissented from the Pelagians, when the fact is quite the contrary. So that with respect to their hypocrisy, they seem to be the Pelagians strongest opposers, but with respect to the reality of the matter, and their heart tenet, they are twice-dipped Pelagians. And next, under this hypocrisy, they estimate and purchase the grace of God at a much lower rate than the Pelagians themselves. For these assert that it is not a certain little something in us by which we attain unto grace, but whole, full, perfect, great, and many devoted efforts and works, whereas our friends declare that it is a certain little something, almost a nothing, by which we deserve grace. If therefore there must be error, they err with more honesty and less pride, who say that the grace of God is purchased at a great price, and who account it dear and precious, than those who teach that it may be purchased at that which is very little and inconsiderable, and account it cheap and contemptible. But, however, Paul pounds both in pieces in one mortar, by one word, where he saith that all are justified freely, and again that they are justified without the law, and without the works of the law. And he who asserts that the justification must be free in all who are justified, leaves none accepted who work, deserve, or prepare themselves. He leaves no work which can be called merit of congruity or merit of worthiness. And by the one hurling of this thunderbolt he dashes in pieces both the Pelagians with their whole merit, and the Sophists with their very little merit. For a free justification allows of no workmen, because a free gift and a work preparation are manifestly in opposition to each other. Moreover, the being justified through grace will not allow of respect unto the worthiness of any person, as the Apostle saith also afterwards, Chapter 11, If by grace, then it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace. Romans 11.6. He saith the same also. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. Romans 4.4. Wherefore, my Paul stands an invincible destroyer of free will, and lays prostrate two armies by one word. For if we be justified without works, all works are condemned, whether they be very little or very great. He accepts none, but thunders alike against all. Section 150. Here you may see the yawning inconsiderateness of all our friends, and what it profits a man to rely upon the ancient fathers, who have been approved through the series of so many ages. Were they not also all alike, blind to? Nay, rather, did they not disregard the most clear and most manifest words of Paul? Pray, what is there that can be spoken clearly and plainly in defence of grace against free will, if the argument of Paul be not clear and plain? He proceeds with a glow of argument, and exalts grace against works, and that in words the most clear and most plain, saying that we are justified freely, and that grace is no more grace if it be sought by works. Thus most manifestly excluding all works in the matter of justification, to the intent that he might establish grace only, and free justification. And yet we in all this light still seek after darkness, and when we cannot ascribe unto ourselves great things and all things, we endeavour to ascribe unto ourselves a something in degree, a very little, merely that we might maintain our tenet that justification through the grace of God is not free and without works. As though he who declares that greater things and all things profit us nothing unto justification, does not much more deny that things in degree, and things very little, profit us nothing also. Particularly when he has settled the point that we are justified by grace alone, without any works whatever, and therefore without the law itself in which are comprehended all works, great and little, works of congruity and works of worthiness. Go now then and boast of the authorities of the ancients, and depend on what they say, all of whom you see to a man disregarded Paul, that most plain and most clear teacher. And as it were purposely shunned this morning star, yea this sun rather, because being wrapped up in their own carnal reason, they thought it absurd that no place should be left to merit. Section 151. Let us now bring forward that example of Abraham, which Paul afterwards adduces. If, saith he, Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness. Romans 4 2-3. Mark here again, I pray you, the distinction of Paul, where he is showing the twofold righteousness of Abraham. The one is of works, that is moral and civil. But he denies that he was justified by this before God, even though he were justified by it before men. Moreover, by that righteousness he hath whereof to glory before men, but is all the while himself without the glory of God. Nor can any one here say that they are the works of the law or of ceremonies, which are here condemned, seeing that Abraham existed so many years before the law. Paul plainly speaks of the works of Abraham, and those his best works. For it would be ridiculous to dispute whether or not any one were justified by evil works. If therefore Abraham be righteous by no works whatever, and if both he himself and all his works be left under sin, unless he be clothed with another righteousness, even with the righteousness of faith, it is quite manifest that no man can do anything by works toward his becoming righteous. And moreover, that no works, no devoted efforts, no endeavors of free will avail anything in the sight of God, but are all judged to be ungodly, unrighteous, and evil. For if the man himself be not righteous, neither will his works or endeavors be righteous. And if they be not righteous, they are damnable, and merit wrath. The other righteousness is that of faith, which consists not in any works, but in the favor and imputation of God through grace. And mark how Paul dwells upon the word imputed, how he urges it, repeats it, and inculcates it. Now saith he, To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Romans 4, 4-5. According to the purpose of the gift of God. Then he adduces David, saying the same thing concerning the imputation through grace. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin, and so forth. Romans 4, 6-8. In this chapter he repeats the word impute above ten times. In a word he distinctly sets forth, him that worketh, and him that worketh not, leaving no medium between them. He declares that righteousness is not imputed to him that worketh, but asserts that righteousness is imputed to him that worketh not, if he believe. Here is no way by which free will, with its devoted efforts and endeavors, can escape or get off. It must be numbered with him that worketh, or with him that not. If it be numbered with him that worketh, you hear that righteousness is not imputed unto it. If it be numbered with him that worketh not, but believeth in God, righteousness is imputed unto it. And then it will not be the power of free will, but the new creature by faith. But if righteousness be not imputed unto it, being him that worketh, then it becomes manifest that all its works are nothing but sin, evils, and impieties before God. Nor can any sophist here snarl and say that although man be evil, yet his work may not be evil. For Paul speaks not of the man simply, but of him that worketh, to the very intent that he might declare in the plainest words that the works and devoted efforts themselves of man are condemned, whatever they may be, by what name soever they may be called, or under what form soever they may be done. He here also speaks of good works, because the points of his argument are justification and merits. And when he speaks of him that worketh, he speaks of all workers and of all their works, but more especially of their good and meritorious works. Otherwise his distinction between him that worketh and him that worketh not will amount to nothing. Section 152. I here omit to bring forward those all-powerful arguments drawn from the purpose of grace, from the promise, from the force of the law, from original sin, and from the election of God, of which there is no one that would not of itself utterly overthrow free will. For if grace come by the purpose of God, or by election, it comes of necessity, and not by any devoted efforts or endeavor of our own, as I have already shown. Moreover, if God promised grace before the law, as Paul argues here, and in his epistle to the Galatians also, then it does not come by works or by the law. Otherwise it would be no longer a promise. And so also faith, if works were of any avail, would come to nothing, by which nevertheless Abraham was justified before the law was given. Again, as the law is the strength of sin, and only discovers sin, but does not take it away, it brings the conscience in guilty before God. This is what Paul means when he saith, The law worketh wrath. Romans 4.15. How then can it be possible that righteousness should be obtained by the law? And if we derive no help from the law, how can we derive any help from the power of free will alone? Moreover, since we all lie under the same sin and damnation of the one man Adam, how can we attempt anything which is not sin and damnable? For when he saith all, he accepts no one, neither the power of free will, nor any workman, whether he work or work not, attempt or attempt not, he must of necessity be included among the rest in the all. Nor should we sin or be damned by that one sin of Adam if the sin were not our own, for who could be damned for the sin of another, especially in the sight of God? Nor is the sin ours by imitation, or by working, for this would not be the one sin of Adam, because then it would not be the sin which he committed, but which we committed ourselves. It becomes our sin by generation, but of this in some other place. Original sin itself therefore will not allow of any other power in free will but that of sinning and going on unto damnation. These arguments, I say, I omit to bring forward, both because they are most manifest and most forcible, and because I have touched upon them already. For if I wished to produce all those parts of Paul which overthrow free will, I could not do better than go through it with a continued commentary on the whole of his epistle, as I have done on the third and fourth chapters, on which I have dwelt thus particularly that I might show all our free will friends their yawning inconsiderateness, who so read Paul in these all clear parts as to see anything in them but these most powerful arguments against free will, and that I might expose the folly of that confidence which they place in the authority and writings of the ancient teachers, and leave them to consider with what force the remaining most clear arguments must make against them if they should be handled with care and judgment. Section 153. As to myself, I must confess, I am more than astonished that, when Paul so often uses those universally applying words, all, none, not, not one, without, thus they are all gone out of the way, there is none that doeth good, no not one, all are sinners and condemned by the one sin of Adam, we are justified by faith without the law, without the works of the law, so that if anyone wished to speak otherwise so as to be more intelligible he could not speak in words more clear and more plain. I am more than astonished I say how it is that words and sentences contrary and contradictory to these universally applying words and sentences have gained so much ground, which say some are not gone out of the way, are not unrighteous, are not evil, are not sinners, are not condemned, there is something in man which is good and which endeavors after good, as though that man, whoever he be, who endeavors after good, were not comprehended in this one word all, or none, or not. I could find nothing even if I wished it to advance against Paul or to reply in contradiction to him, but should be compelled to acknowledge that the power of my free will together with its endeavors is comprehended in those all's and none's of whom Paul here speaks, if that is no new kind of grammar or new manner of speech were introduced. Moreover if Paul had used this mode of expression once or in one place only there might have been room for imagining a trope or for taking hold of and twisting some detached terms, whereas he uses it perpetually both in the affirmative and in the negative, and so expresses his sentiments by his argument and by his distinctive division in every place and in all parts, that not the nature of his words only and the current of his language, but that which follows and that which precedes, the circumstances, the scope, and the very body of the whole disputation all compel us to conclude according to common sense that the meaning of Paul is that out of faith of Christ there is nothing but sin and damnation. It was thus that we promised we would refute free will so that all our adversaries should not be able to resist, which I presume I have affected, even though they shall not so far acknowledge themselves vanquished as to come over to my opinion or to be silent, for that is not in my power, that is the gift of the Spirit of God. Section 154. But however, before we hear the evangelist John, I will just add the crowning testimony from Paul, and I am prepared, if this be not sufficient, to oppose Paul to free will by commenting upon him throughout. Where he divides the human race into two distinctive divisions, flesh and spirit, he speaks thus, they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh, but they that are after the spirit do mind the things of the spirit. Romans 8.5. As Christ also does, that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. John 3.6. That Paul here calls all carnal who are not spiritual is manifest both from the division itself and the opposition of spirit to flesh, and from the very words of Paul himself where he adds, but ye are not in the flesh but in the spirit, if so be that the spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Romans 8.9. What else is the meaning of, but ye are not in the flesh but in the spirit, if so be that the spirit of Christ dwell in you, but that those who have not the spirit are necessarily in the flesh. And if any man be not of Christ, what else is he but of Satan? It is manifest, therefore, that those who are devoid of the spirit are in the flesh and under Satan. Now let us see what his opinion is concerning the endeavor and the power of free will in the carnal who are in the flesh. They cannot please God. Again, the carnal mind is death. Again, the carnal mind is enmity against God. And again, it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. Romans 8.5-8. Here, let the advocate for free will answer me. How can that endeavor towards good, which is death, which cannot please God, which is enmity against God, which is not subject to God and cannot be subject to him? Nor does Paul mean to say that the carnal mind is dead and inimical to God, but that it is death itself, enmity itself, which cannot possibly be subject to the law of God or please him, as he had said just before. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did, and so forth. Romans 8.3. But I am very well acquainted with that fable of origin concerning the threefold affection, the one of which he calls flesh, the other soul, and the other spirit, making the soul, that medium affection, vertical either way, towards the flesh or towards the spirit. But these are merely his own dreams. He speaks them forth only, but does not prove them. Paul here calls everything flesh, that is, without the spirit, as I have already shown. Therefore, those most exalted virtues of the best men are in the flesh, that is, they are dead, and at enmity against God. They are not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be, and they please not God. For Paul does not only say that such men are not subject, but that they cannot be subject. So also Christ saith, An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Matthew 7.17. And again, How can ye being evil speak that which is good? Matthew 12.34. Here you see, we not only speak that which is evil, but cannot speak that which is good. And though he saith in another place that we who are evil know how to give good gifts unto our children, Matthew 6.11, yet he denies that we do good, even when we give good gifts, because those good gifts which we give are the creatures of God. But we ourselves, not being good, cannot give those good gifts well. For he is speaking unto all men, nay, even unto his own disciples, so that these two sentiments of Paul, that the just man liveth by faith, Romans 1.17, and that whatsoever is not of faith is sin, Romans 14.23, stand confirmed, the latter of which follows from the former. For if there be nothing by which we are justified but faith only, it is evident that those who are not of faith are not justified. And if they be not justified, they are sinners. And if they be sinners, they are evil trees, and can do nothing but sin, and bring forth evil fruit. Wherefore, free will is nothing but the servant of sin, of death, and of Satan, doing nothing, and being able to do or attempt nothing but evil. Section 155. Add to this that example, Romans 10.24, taken out of Isaiah, I was found of them that sought me not, I was made manifest unto them that asked not for me. He speaks this with reference to the Gentiles, that it was given unto them to hear and know Christ, when before they could not even think of him, much less seek him or prepare themselves for him by the power of free will. From this example it is sufficiently evident that grace comes so free that no thought concerning it or attempt or desire after it precedes. So also Paul, when he was Saul, what did he do by that exalted power of free will? Certainly, in respect of reason, he intended that which was best and most meritoriously good. But by what endeavors did he come unto grace? He did not only not seek after it, but received it, even when he was furiously maddened against it. On the other hand, he saith of the Jews, the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained unto the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained unto the law of righteousness. Romans 9, 30-31. What has any advocate for free will to mutter against this? The Gentiles, when filled with ungodliness and every vice, received righteousness freely, from a mercy showing God. While the Jews, who followed after righteousness with all their devoted effort and endeavor, are frustrated. Is this not plainly saying that the endeavor of free will is all in vain, even when it strives to do the best, and that free will of itself can only fall back and grow worse and worse? Nor can anyone say that the Jews did not follow after righteousness with all the power of free will. For Paul himself bears this testimony of them, that they had a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. Romans 10, 2. Therefore, nothing which is attributed to free will was wanting to the Jews, and yet it attained unto nothing, nay, unto the contrary of that after which they strove. Whereas there is nothing in the Gentiles which is attributed to free will, and they attained unto the righteousness of God. And what is this but a most manifest example from each nation, and a most clear testimony of Paul, proving that grace is given freely to the most undeserving and unworthy, and is not attained unto by any devoted efforts, endeavors, or works, either small or great, of any men, be they the best and most meritorious, or even of those who have sought and followed after righteousness with all the ardor of zeal. End of section 155