But, to grant that free will can, by its endeavor, move itself in some direction, we will say, unto good works, or unto the righteouness 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 until the attainment of this righteousness: for He says, that His righteousness avails 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 endeavors, 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 mainfestly the two righteousnesses, assigning the one of 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. Portion of Section 146; from the book "Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther But if they must whether or no, give some power to men, let them teach, that it is to be called by some other term than free will; especially since we know and clearly see, that the people are miserably deceived and seduced by that term, taking and understanding it to signify something far different from that which theologians mean and undertstand by it, in their discussions. For the term, free will, is by far too grand, copious, and full; by which, the people imagine is signified (as the force and nature of the term requires) that power, which can freely turn itself as it will, and such a power as is under the influence of, and subject to no one. Whereas, if they knew that it was quite otherwise, and that by that term scarcely the least spark or degree of power was signified, and that utterly ineffective of itself, being the servant and bond slave of the devil, it would be be at all surprising if they should stone us as mockers and deceivers, who said one thing and meant something quite different; no, who left it uncertain and unintelligible what we meant. For "he who speaks sophistically (the wise man says) is hated," and especially if he does so in things pertaining to godliness, where eternal salvation is at stake. Section 26 Portion of "The Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther
Posted on: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 19:03:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015