To put the following in context, in the first half of the sixteenth century Martin Luther (1483–1546) and Desiderius Erasmus (1466–1536) were presenting contrary views on the nature of faith and the role of the human will in salvation. Luther, although preceding Calvin (1509–1564) by 26 years, was Calvin’s theological contemporary and held to a similar deterministic soteriology as Calvin while Erasmus did not. Erasmus questioned whether the publication of Luther’s views, particularly on total depravity and predestination, would do more harm than good. Luther defended their publication in his book Bondage of the Will. In this defense, which I cite below and needs to be read in its broader context, Luther gives us his views on grace and faith. You should compare them to your own Bible reading and the studies we have done on grace in the previous chapter and on faith above. Also note the theistic determinism, intimidation, and suppression of reason in Luther’s thinking and theology. Luther defends the publication of his deterministic soteriology by responding to Erasmus as follows,
“I reply: It should be enough to say simply that God has willed their publication, and the reason of the Divine will is not to be sought, but simply to be adored, and the glory given to God, Who, since He alone is just and wise, wrongs none and can do nothing foolish or inconsiderate – however much it may seem otherwise to us. This answer will satisfy those who fear God. However, (to say a little more than I need, since there is so much more I can say), there are two considerations which require the preaching of these truths. The first is the humbling of our pride, and the comprehending of the grace of God; the second is the nature of Christian faith.
For the first: God has surely promised His grace to the humbled: that is, to those who mourn over and despair of themselves. But a man cannot be thoroughly humbled till he realises that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsels, efforts, will and works, and depends absolutely on the will, counsel, pleasure and work of Another – God alone. As long as he is persuaded that he can make even the smallest contribution to his salvation, he remains self-confident and does not utterly despair of himself, and so is not humbled before God; but plans out for himself (or at least hopes and longs for) a position, and occasion, a work, which shall bring him final salvation. But he who is out of doubt that his destiny depends entirely on the will of God despairs entirely of himself, chooses nothing for himself, but waits for God to work in him; and such a man is very near to grace for his salvation.
So these truths are published for the sake of the elect, that they may be humbled and brought down to nothing, and so saved. The rest of men resist this humiliation; indeed, they condemn the teaching of self-despair; they want a little something left that they can do for themselves. Secretly they continue proud, and enemies of the grace of God. This, I repeat, is one reason – that those who fear God might in humility comprehend, claim and receive His gracious promise.
The second reason is this: faith’s object is things not seen. That there may be room for faith, therefore, all that is believed must be hidden. Yet it is not hidden more deeply than under a contrary appearance of sight, sense and experience. Thus, when God quickens, he does so by killing; when He justifies, He does so by pronouncing guilty; when He carries up to heaven, He does so by bringing down to hell. As Scripture says in 1 Kings 2, ‘The Lord killeth and maketh alive; He bringeth down to the grave and bringeth up’ (1 Sam. 2:6). (This is no place for a fuller account of these things; but those who have read my books are well acquainted with them.) Thus God conceals His eternal mercy and loving kindness beneath eternal wrath, His righteousness beneath unrighteousness. Now, the highest degree of faith is to believe that He is merciful, though He saves so few and damns so many; to believe that he is just, though of His own will He makes us perforce proper subjects for damnation, and seems (in Erasmus’ words) ‘to delight in the torments of poor wretches and to be a fitter object for hate than for love.’ If I could by any means understand how this same God, who makes such a show of wrath and unrighteousness, can yet be merciful and just, there would be no need for faith. But as it is, the impossibility of understanding makes room for the exercise of faith when these things are preached and published; just as, when God kills, faith in life is exercised in death.” 1
Luther’s defense is marked by fallacies and unbiblical assertions. Note the unbiblical notions about faith and grace in Luther’s statements having to do with a person “waiting for God to work in him” and that “such a man is very near to grace for his salvation.” We know from our studies of Scripture on grace and faith that grace has actually come to each man in Christ and each man is called to believe in him for salvation. No one needs to wait for God to work in them in some special way according to whether or not they have been predestined or unconditionally elected to salvation. Rather, God is at work by his Spirit upon the mind and heart of the one hearing the message of the “good news” of their salvation. The Spirit is present in the “good news” that God has been gracious to them in Christ and salvation can be had through faith in him. Luther’s ideas of “waiting for God to work” and “being near to grace” are warped versions of the biblical presentations of grace and faith. The biblical presentations of faith and grace have been distorted by Luther’s fundamental deterministic doctrines of predestination and total depravity. Both grace and faith are altered from their biblical characteristics under Luther’s universal divine causal determinism. 2
Luther also says God has promised his grace “to the humbled”, which he claims his doctrine of unconditional election or predestination accomplishes. The fact that the sinner cannot know whether or not God chose them to be saved, according to Luther, humbles the sinner. That the sinner acknowledge that God chooses who is to be saved and therefore they may or may not be chosen has, according to Luther, the effect of humbling the sinner. But look what Luther has done here. Luther uses the words “to the humbled,” that is, those who come to accept Luther’s doctrine of unconditional election, rather than the biblical phrase “to the humble,” which leaves humility open to other causes and a responsibility of the sinner (Lu. 18:9-17; 1 Pet. 5:5-6). In contrast, to Luther’s statements here, there is the biblical imperative, addressed to the sinner, to humble himself and believe what is contained in the proclamation of the gospel.
In the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector there is no hint of a predestined response of salvation. Granted, the tax collect does “utterly despair of himself,” but it is not the despair of the lack of assurance that results from not knowing whether he has been chosen by God to receive mercy from Jesus. The humility here is not the result of coming to accept a doctrine of unconditional election, rather, Jesus makes a pronouncement that tells us about the dynamic that is play. People either exalt or humble themselves. They are responsible for their pride or humility.
“I tell you, this one [the tax collector] went down to his house justified rather than the other, because everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Lu. 18:9-17, CSB)
And in 1 Pet. 5:5-6 we read,
“All of you clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because
God resists the proud
but gives grace to the humble.
Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, so that he may exalt you at the proper time…” (CSB)
God works by his “mighty hand” to humble. But he does not effectually cause humility in certain persons on the basis of their being chosen for salvation by God. Pride and humility are the responsibility of the persons themselves. Many other instances can be cited of humility, as well as pride, being the responsibility of the individual. And even when God must do the humbling, or it is attributed to him, this too only affirms God’s inactions with persons which presupposes the free will nature of man. (See Ex. 10:3; Deut. 8:2ff.; 1 Sam. 2:7 (Hannah’s prayer); 2 Chron 32:26 (Hezekiah), 33:23 (Amon/Mannaseh); 1 Kings 21:28-29 (Ahab); 2 Kings 22:18-20 (Josiah); Prov. 3:34, Phil. 2:8 (Jesus); James 4:10; 1 Pet. 5:6).
Luther’s misunderstandings of grace and faith are caused by deeper misconceptions about God’s sovereignty as deterministic which requires salvation to be viewed as a divine election or choosing that is unconditional. The conjunction of these errors removes the ground and hope of salvation from the sinner. He is merely left “near the grace of God” and cannot know whether the grace of God (i.e., salvation) applies to him. Without an assurance of God’s salvific disposition regarding him, he “waits for God to work in him.” Of course, God never will work in him if he is not among the elect. His waiting, for who knows what, will be in vain. All this lack of assurance and delay in salvation is caused by their theistic determinism and doctrine of unconditional election. (Note: The Calvinist will avail himself of the convenient rationalization that only the elect will care about their souls and are willing to do this waiting! These people can have some confidence that they are among the elect. Nevertheless, we see how wrong-headed the whole scheme becomes due to their theistic determinism.)
Luther concludes, “So these truths are published for the sake of the elect, that they may be humbled and brought down to nothing, and so saved.” So ultimately, this is the way God saves his elect ones – he has them learn of the Calvinist doctrines, especially unconditional election. Then, that doctrine, rather than raising questions about their salvation, so humbles the elect individual that they are brought down to nothing. And at that point they become saved. So, the way to salvation, or the way to know whether you are one of the elect or not, is through acceptance and belief in the Calvinist doctrines (i.e., TULIP), especially unconditional election. I suppose you will have one of two responses to that doctrine. You will either be humbled by it and believe in Jesus and thereby come to know you are among the elect, or, you will not be humbled by it, reject it, and thereby know you were not among the elect. Note that the later person could have never been humbled by it because they were not chosen by God to be saved. Note also the former person could have done nothing other than accept the doctrine, been humbled by it, and be saved because they were predestined to do so by God. I do not think, and I hope I have convinced you of this in previous chapters, that this is not the way or means of salvation we find in Scripture.
We can agree with the Calvinist’s concern here of humbling the sinner and having them see their helplessness and need for forgiveness of sin and a salvation which only God can provide. But are these doctrines what Scripture teaches as the way to humility, the sense of sin, and one’s need for God’s salvation? Or are these doctrines the over-reaction to the need to counter the teachings of the Roman Catholic church which devolved into works righteousness? Were these doctrines read into the biblical text influenced by a zeal to eliminate all hints of works righteousness and salvation based on merit, so that even faith succumbed to these influences? Were a limited number of passages interpretively strained by the desire to glorify God above and beyond or despite what God himself has revealed as the way he would glorify himself? Is there a kind of spiritual pride in thinking that we must have a theology that crushes man’s spirit to the point of despair so that nothing whatsoever of the human being can be involved in a man’s salvation, not even faith?
And then there are the troubling practical questions these doctrines raise. Are you truly among the elect? Can you know this? How would you know it? Are the elect saved in any different way that the non-Calvinist claims any sinner is saved? If there is no practical difference in what a Calvinist or non-Calvinist tells the sinner as to how to be saved, then what difference does this doctrine of unconditional election make? (Acts 2:21; 16:30, 31) Do you need to know if you are one of the elect? If not, how will you be saved and be assured you are saved? Does unconditional election really produce humility, or does it merely produce a lack of knowledge of God’s love and desire to save you? And as the elect are brought “down to nothing,” is faith still a necessity for salvation? If so, who does the believing, the sinner, or does God cause the elect to believe? It must be the latter because recall Luther telling us that,
“…a man cannot be thoroughly humbled till he realises that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsels, efforts, will and works, and depends absolutely on the will, counsel, pleasure and work of Another – God alone. As long as he is persuaded that he can make even the smallest contribution to his salvation, he remains self-confident and does not utterly despair of himself, and so is not humbled before God; but plans out for himself (or at least hopes and longs for) a position, and occasion, a work, which shall bring him final salvation.”
And for Luther, “powers,” “will” and “the smallest contribution to his salvation” would include faith.
In our discussion of faith, we affirmed that salvation is the work of God alone. That salvation is “all of God.” But in saying this we are not disingenuous or deceptive as most Calvinists must find themselves to be. We made it clear that faith is the sinner’s response to God’s work of salvation. And as such the sinner has a “response-ability.” The sinner is able to believe because the Spirit of God accompanies the gospel message, and we know it is the desire of God that the sinner believe because he invites him to do so. God cannot lie or be duplicitous in calling the sinner to faith while not having elected them to salvation. Also, God enables the sinner to believe, but he does not cause the sinner to believe. The sinner may resist the Spirit and reject the message. And finally, the very definition of the gospel is “good news.” Therefore, it remains that kind of “news” to everyone who hears it. (Rom. 10:9, 13)
The Bible testifies to the fact that the sinner is responsible for believing in Jesus or rejecting him. In contrast, we see here what the Calvinistic Reformers mean when they say salvation is “all of God.” They include faith in that “all of God,” and this is so that the sinner can “utterly despair of himself” in the matter of his salvation. What does this despairing of oneself lead to if every aspect of one’s salvation depends “entirely on the will of God?” Luther says it leads to “waiting for God to work in him” and being “very near to grace for his salvation.” I say it leads to doubt as to one’s relationship with God and God’s salvific will and disposition towards you. It leads to doubt as to whether God loves you or not. Given this horrific doctrine, one cannot answer the most fundamental and important question we all need answered, that is, “Does God love me?” Unconditional election or deterministic predestination leads to ignorance of God’s salvific disposition towards you and therefore his love for you. And it ultimately leads to depression and despair. Even Luther admits this. He wrote the following about his own theology.
“Doubtless it gives the greatest possible offence to common sense or natural reason, that God, Who is proclaimed as being full of mercy and goodness, and so on, should of his own mere will abandon, harden and damn men, as though he delighted in the sins and great eternal torments of such poor wretches. It seems an iniquitous, cruel, intolerable thought to think of God; and it is this that has been a stumbling block to so many great men down the ages. And who would not stumble at it? I have stumbled at it myself more than once, down to the deepest pit of despair, so that I wished I had never been made a man.” 3
Calvin too called his own doctrine of predestination and its corollary of reprobation a “horrible” or “dreadful” decree. There is no “good news” in Calvinist soteriology. There is just “news” about God having chosen who will be saved and who will not. You may be unalterably among one or the other of these groups.
Hence, Luther makes the object of faith nebulous. Contrary to faith having as its object in Jesus Christ and God’s saving grace being made available in Him, Luther states that “faith’s object is things not seen.” I submit that on Calvinism it is also things not known! If the object of Luther’s faith can even be said to be the God of the Bible, that God is made to be an unknown “God” as far as Luther’s soteriology is concerned. For Luther, “the highest degree of faith” is found in not knowing God’s saving disposition towards you. This is the secret decree of election. Contrary to this, biblical faith is rooted in what can assuredly be known of God and his salvific disposition towards us “in Christ.” Reformed Calvinism makes the salvation that is available to all due to Christ being publically lifted up on the cross (Jn. 12:32) a “mystery” and reduces faith to merely hoping that God has chosen me to be saved.
1 Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will, trans, J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, (Grand Rapids: Revell, 1957), 101.
2 This is Dr. William Lane Craig’s description of Calvinism. See “Chapter 4 – Why the Calvinist Views of Sovereignty and Salvation are Certainly False.”
3 Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will, trans, J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, (Revell, 1957), 217.
The Truth of the Gospel 