Reformation Subjects (16)

The articles in this section cover various subjects relating to the great Reformation of the church in the 16th century, including the major Reformers, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Knox.

"Professor Luther"

This article first appeared in a special issue of the Standard Bearer on the Reformation under Martin Luther, October 15, 2016 (vol.93, #2) and was written by one of the editors, Prof. Barrett Gritters (PRC Seminary).

Young Luther

Martin Luther’s father, Hans Luther, had designs for his son to become a lawyer, but God had determined otherwise. “There are many devices in a man’s heart; nevertheless the counsel of the Lord, that shall stand” (Prov. 19:21). As is said, “Man proposes, but God disposes.” Hans Luther devised son Martin’s way, but “the Lord directed his steps” (Prov. 16:9), first into the monastery, then into the university and seminary. In the end, Luther’s lifelong occupation was, as we would call it, seminary professor. By God’s design.

Because Hans Luther was a poor man, son Martin’s life began in poverty. The family was so poor that young Martin and his friends had to sing and beg for bread and board when they were at school away from home. But this was part of the sovereign God’s preparation of Luther for the important place he was to play in God’s reforming plans. The plan that Providence mapped out for Luther was God’s wise plan—poverty in his youth; a (probably too-strictly) disciplined home; the rigorous development of a mental discipline and work-ethic at gradeschool and university (before teaching, Luther obtained both bachelor’s and master’s degrees in philosophy); and most importantly, the God-created restlessness of a sinburdened soul that did not find peace until it rested in the sweet gospel of free grace.

After university studies and before law school began, God moved Luther to change course to the path of becoming a monk—to his father’s dismay and his friends’ great surprise. He chose the Augustinian Order of priests, both for its reputation for piety and its emphasis on learning. The rules of conduct were strict, but the standards of education were better. The Order of Augustinians had roots in the great church father Augustine, and had a strong emphasis on theology.

The long stories of Luther’s ‘conversion’ in the thunder storm, his pilgrimage to Rome, the development of his mind and heart in the gospel of free justification without works—all must be told elsewhere. Charles Terpstra’s article in this issue will mention biographies both old and new that you will want to read on cold nights this winter. What must be told here, at least briefly, is how this monk ended up in Wittenberg as a seminary professor on behalf of Reformation truth.

University of Wittenberg

In Luther’s youth, a German Elector named Frederick III founded a university in the little town of Wittenberg. This Frederick III was not that Frederick III who commissioned the writing of the Heidelberg Catechism. That Frederick was nicknamed “the Pious,” and was elector of the Palatinate. This Frederick III was Frederick “the Wise,” elector of Saxony, who died in 1525 when the other Frederick, of Heidelberg Catechism fame, was only ten years old. God used also this Frederick (“the Wise”) for Reformation causes in many ways, especially the later protection of Luther from the Roman Catholic authorities. This elector saw to it that Luther’s heresy trial was not held in Rome but in Germany; this elector refused to execute the papal bull against Luther; and this elector, after the Diet of Worms and the pope’s excommunication of him, even gave Luther refuge at the castle at Wartburg—where he stayed under a pseudonym for almost a year, translating the New Testament from Greek into German in less than ten weeks. This Frederick was truly used by God for the cause of Reformation!

This Frederick, at age thirty-eight, determined that Saxony needed another university. Little Wittenberg was too poor to support a university, but Frederick determined a way. He would see that capable priests became pastors in Wittenberg’s churches, which capable men could also teach at his new university. He founded the school in 1502, obtained Martin Luther in 1512, and Philip Melanchthon in 1518.

Luther’s appointment to the University of Wittenberg was as “Lecturer in Moral Philosophy,” which was the Roman Catholic way of saying, “Professor of Ethics.” In those days, “moral philosophy” included much more than teaching the ten commandments and the various vices and virtues of then-Roman Catholic doctrine, and certainly more than ethical dilemmas that a modern ethics course would treat. It embraced much of what we would call dogmatics, or systematic theology, with special focus on anthropology and soteriology, and required many semesters of instruction. Luther’s text was Augustine’s Enchiridion, the “handbook” of doctrine that was divided into three main parts: Faith, Hope, and Love. He taught in Wittenberg from 1512 until his death in 1546.

When we had opportunity a few summers ago to visit our friends in Giessen, Germany, we took the time to see the important Luther sites in Wittenberg, which combined have become the largest Reformation museum in the world. We toured the entire facility called Lutherhaus—the spacious convent facility where the Augustinian friars formerly lived, but was later made available to the university’s poor students, visiting preachers, and sometimes run-away nuns. On these grounds were Luther’s personal living quarters (Lutherstube), where Luther, Katie, six of their own children, an aunt, and several orphaned nieces and nephews stayed—along with several servants. We saw the pulpit Luther regularly ascended in the Stadtkirche, walked through the impressive hall and stood behind the (now) ornate desk from which he lectured to a large classrooms of students. One could not leave except with the deep sense that Luther gave his life to Christ’s church—to teaching and preaching—so that his students could be useful servants of that church.

Exemplary Professor Luther

If there were a way to prepare a newly appointed seminary professor (or to test the qualifications of one being considered for such appointment) by giving him a course on “Luther, Professor at Wittenberg,” the course could be valuable in many ways. Let me list a few of the elements that I would want to include if I would construct the course, preaching (God willing) to myself first of all.

Only with greatest reluctance did Luther accept the position of professor. It took over five years finally to bring him to be a priest in Wittenberg. He was certainly not unaware that the “pastorate” in that little town involved an appointment to the “seminary.” And it was this—not the ministry/priesthood itself, but the professorship at Wittenberg—about which he famously said, “Thus, I was drawn into the work of a teacher. If I had then known what I know now, ten horses would not have pulled me there.”1 No ambition here—fatal flaw for any servant of God.

Second, Luther was a master of the Bible. Although he did not see a copy of the entire Scripture until he came to the University, after that his life was consumed with reading God’s Word. The man God formed to begin the Reformation did not occupy his day reading about the Bible, although he certainly knew what the books said about the Bible. But he occupied himself with the Bible itself, so that he became a master of it. If a degree could be given to a man who “mastered” the Bible, Luther would have obtained it. “Dr. Martinus Luder, Master and Doctor of Holy Scripture” his diploma could have been inscribed. Listen to Prof. Luther:

You should diligently study the Word of God and by no means imagine that you know it. Let him who is able to read take a psalm in the morning, or some other chapter, and study it for a while. This is what I do. When I get up in the morning, I pray and recite the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer with the children, adding any one of the psalms…I do not want to let the mildew of the notion grow that I know them well enough.2

Luther also knew there were improper motives for reading Scripture: “For there are many who seek their personal interests in the Word, namely, how to obtain honor by it and how to enjoy a great reputation in the world, considering godliness a trade…. But woe to these.”

He never became “old enough” to stop reading Scripture systematically and at length. When he was still fifty years old he said, “For a number of years I have now annually read through the Bible twice. If the Bible were a large, mighty tree and all its words were little branches, I have tapped at all the branches, eager to know what there was and what it had to offer.” That he read the Bible more than comments on the Bible he made clear:

The Bible is being buried by the wealth of commentaries, and the text is being neglected…. As a young man I accustomed myself to using the Bible. By frequent reading I came to know the place where a given passage is to be found. Thereafter I directed my attention to the commentators. But finally I had to disregard all of them and drown myself in the Bible, for it is better to see with your own eyes than with foreign eyes.3

Third, Prof. Luther was a man of prayer. He engaged in no study except it was preceded by and permeated with prayer. “That the Holy Scriptures cannot be penetrated by study and talent is most certain. Therefore your first duty is to begin to pray, and to pray to this effect that if it please God to accomplish something for His glory—not for yours or any other person’s—He very graciously grant you a true understanding of His words.” It must have been his pious parents at home that formed this habit in him, for even when he was younger one of his colleagues reported that Luther told him, “He who prays aright has finished his studies more than half.”4 Fervency in prayer and frequency in Scripture were at the core of Luther’s qualifications.

Fourth, what made Luther outstanding in his day was his unique view of a theological professor. He was not to write theology for theologians, spinning arguments only intellectuals could understand. Nor was the professor to keep himself in his ivory tower, aloof from the real life of the church and from his students. Luther was a man of the people, aiming his sermons at the common man and constructing his theological lectures with the welfare of the church in view. He was not, that is, a professional training more professionals, but a theologian preparing men of God to serve God and His people, “in the trenches,” as they say. So, in addition to his important formal lectures, Luther sat regularly with his students and others who lived at Lutherhaus, and talked and talked and talked. The conversations were transcribed. Six large volumes of this “Table Talk” have been published. One learns about the man by reading these, too.

When the professor reads Luther, he will certainly be entertained; but especially he will be humbled by the open piety of Professor Luther. Luther was spiritual, personal, and experiential in the right way. Like John the Baptist, he pointed his students to Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God that bore Luther’s sins away and whose righteousness became Luther’s righteousness, freely. At age thirty-three, before he posted the Ninety-five Theses in 1517, he gave truly pious counsel to a friend cast down:

Now I would like to know about the state of your soul. Have you learned to despise your own righteousness and to put your trust in the righteousness of Christ alone? Many do not know the righteousness of God which is given us abundantly and freely in Christ; but they endeavor to do good works and depend on their own efforts, their own virtue, their own merits. You were full of this great error when you were here, and I was full of it. Even now I must fight against it, and have not finished. Therefore, my beloved brother, learn Christ and Him crucified. Learn to despair of thyself and to say to Him: ‘Thou art my righteousness, but I am Thy sin. Thou hast assumed what was mine and given me what was Thine. Thou hast assumed what Thou wast not, and hast given me what I was not.’ If by our own exertions we could attain peace of conscience, why, then, did Christ die?5

There are many other traits that would make up a useful course on “Luther, Professor at Wittenberg,” but no course would be complete without pointing to Brother Luther’s boldness. Of all the men of his day who should have done it, it was left to Luther to bell the cat. And what a cat to bell! Certainly, Luther did not create battles for the sake of being a warrior. He also knew the difference between his friends and his enemies. His friends he treated courteously, charitably, even if in disagreement and intending to correct them. But his enemies he treated with the fierceness of a warrior fighting for the survival of his own town and family. When it came to conflict, he did not flinch. Never cowed into submission or intimidated, he only grew stronger in the Lord. So when a friend once warned him, “They will not stand it!” he responded, “Suppose they have to stand it?”

At greatest personal cost.

“May Christ live, and Martinus die.” 6

At one point, before the alternatives of recanting his faith or being beheaded he exclaimed: “If I had a thousand heads, I would rather have them all cut off than to revoke.”

Exemplary, indeed.

1 There are many versions of this quotation. Probably Luther said something similar in different situations. This comes from Donald K. McKim, The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 147.

2 From a sermon preached in 1530, on Luke 23:12-35, from What Luther Says (St. Louis: Concordia, 1991), 79.

3 Hugh T. Kerr, A Compend of Luther’s Theology (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1943), 16.

4 Quoted in John Louis Nuelsen, Luther: The Leader (New York: The Abingdon Press, 1917), 23.

5 Nuelsen, 46.

6 Nuelsen, 70, 71. 


The Ninety-five Theses

This article first appeared in a special issue of the Standard Bearer on the Reformation under Martin Luther, October 15, 2016 (vol.93, #2).

The Ninety-five Theses

More than anything else, what do we need in order to live happily in this world and to die in peace? Is it not the certain knowledge that our many sins, which are so great and terrible, are forgiven by God because of the death of Christ? Is it not the assurance that after this life we will go to be with Christ because not even death can separate us from His love? All who receive this gospel of salvation through Christ by a true faith have joy and comfort in life and in death. This gospel of the glory and grace of God, which assures us of our forgiveness in Christ, was lost in the Middle Ages. But our faithful God restored it to His church in the sixteenth century through many mighty men, beginning with Martin Luther and his Ninety-five Theses.  

The Evil of Indulgences  

In 1517, and for many years prior to it, the people of God were robbed of the only true comfort of the gospel by men such as John Tetzel, and indeed by the entire system of Roman Catholicism. Tetzel was a Dominican monk commissioned by Albert the Archbishop of Mainz, with the support of a bull of Pope Leo X, to preach and sell indulgences. The sale of indulgences went back hundreds of years and was supported by the medieval scholastic theologians. But it developed over time from bad to worse.

Indulgences had to do with penance, one of the seven sacraments of Rome. Jesus began His earthly ministry calling men to repent (Matt. 4:17). In the Latin Vulgate, the Greek word for “repent” was translated poenitentium agite (“do penance”) and explained to be a sacrament. Penance required three actions for one to receive remission of sins: contrition, confession (to a priest), and satisfaction (by good works). God alone could forgive the eternal punishment of sin. But the church had control over temporal punishments, including purgatory. For the church to grant a man remission of temporal punishments, to shorten his suffering in purgatory, that man had to do penance, that is, be sorry for his sin, confess it to a priest, and make satisfaction by doing good works.

Enter indulgences (letters of remission). If we could ask, “What are indulgences, Sir Tetzel?”, we would hear him say, “Well, if you give money to the church, I will give you a letter on behalf of the pope that cancels some of your punishments in purgatory (or some of the punishments of your loved one who is in purgatory!). If you do not want to be bothered with doing good works, consider this: you can purchase indulgences instead of doing good works!”

And if we could respond, “How can that be, lord Tetzel?”, he would say, “Very simply, the pope, the great Vicar of Christ, has at his disposal a vast treasury filled with the superabundant merits of Christ and the saints, and he will reckon some of them to your account, if you pay! Do you want to suffer in the flames of purgatory?! How can you in good conscience enjoy your life while your dear, deceased mother is enduring the fires of purgatory?! Buy indulgences! For as soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs.”

In 1517, in nearby Wittenberg, there was a man who was beginning to see the light of the true gospel, and he was infuriated with Tetzel. Already on October 31, 1516 Martin Luther had preached a sermon warning people not to trust in indulgences. But in the Fall of 1517 he felt the need to do something more to expose this evil, by starting a public debate to bring it to an end. He wrote ninety-five theses, succinct statements against the abuses of indulgences. By this action God lit a flame that would ignite the Reformation of His church and again put the “true treasure of the church,…the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God” (thesis 62) into the hands of His people.  

“The True Treasure of the Church…”  

Luther’s Ninety-five Theses are a doctrinal treasure, yet at the same time still strangely Roman Catholic. The theses are like a diamond mined out of the earth, but still in need of refinement. Luther himself later lamented about “how weak I was, and in what a fluctuating state of mind, when I began this business. I was then a monk and a mad papist, and so submersed in the dogmas of the Pope that I would have readily murdered any person who denied obedience to the Pope.”1 At this early date, the dawn of the Reformation, “Luther had as yet no idea of reforming the Catholic Church.”2

In the Ninety-five Theses he does not condemn indulgences as such, only the abuse of them; he does not talk about justification by faith alone; he still believes in purgatory; and he still acknowledges the power and authority of the pope. For example, he writes in thesis 71, “Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences be anathema and accursed.”3 In thesis 16, “Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ the same as despair, fear, and assurance of salvation.” Again, in thesis 50, “Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence preachers, he would rather that the basilica of St. Peter were burned to ashes than built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep.” Luther gave the pope the benefit of the doubt that he had good motives for selling indulgences.

Yet when we read the Ninety-five Theses with the benefit of knowing the doctrinal development that followed, we can see the diamond clearly enough. We see here “the mighty working of an earnest mind and conscience intensely occupied with the problem of sin, repentance, and forgiveness, and struggling for emancipation from the fetters of tradition.”4 Luther cuts through the system of his day, and lays his finger on the heart of the matter, when he writes in thesis 62, “The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God.” The true treasure is not an invisible treasury of extra merits that the pope can grant to those who pay. But the true treasure is the holy glad tidings of the grace of God in granting full remission of sins to all who repent and turn to Christ. For, as he writes in thesis 36, “Any truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without indulgence letters”; and in thesis 37, “any true Christian, whether living or dead, participates in all the blessings of Christ and the church; and this is granted him by God, even without indulgence letters.”

One historian writes,

Luther’s Theses stated that even the Pope had no special powers beyond those declaratory powers given to all the priesthood. God was placed once more into the foreground as “the Lord over life and death.” Once the soul had left this life, asserted Luther, no Catholic canon controlled it any longer. Religion was once more restored to a personal relationship between man and God, a spiritual inner attitude in man known only to God, between which the clergy with their sacerdotal system could not intervene.5

Thus, in reply to Tetzel’s audacious claim, Luther wrote in thesis 28, “It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone.”  

“The Entire Life of Believers…”

Furthermore, Luther criticizes the outward show of religion in regard to penance and indulgences. In the first three theses, he writes,

When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” [Matt. 4:17], he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance. This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy. Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortifications of the flesh.

Luther was appalled at what he observed among his people in Wittenberg: the bold waving around of indulgence letters and the claim of being forgiven, while continuing in awful sins. Already on February 24, 1517 Luther preached a sermon at Wittenberg in which he “deplored the fact that people were regarding sin so lightly and that they seemed to have so little fear of punishment. He added that indulgences should perhaps be called an Ablass,6 because they permitted people to sin.”7 Luther emphasized the true meaning of repentance: when Jesus said “repent,” He meant that the entire life of believers must be an ongoing repentance, a constant changing of the mind followed by those outward mortifications of the flesh required, for example, by the apostle in Colossians 3:5.

Followed also by good works! Luther warned that “papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest the people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good works of love” (thesis 41). “Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences” (thesis 43). “Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God’s wrath” (thesis 45). Luther was not only zealous for the true doctrine of the gospel, but also for the Christian life of good works.  

The Relevance of the Theses  

Clearly, then, the Ninety-five Theses are powerfully relevant to us today. They call us to remember what our true treasure is, “the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God” in Jesus Christ. Let us not put more value on money and what money can buy! Let us not put trust in what money can buy, as so many customers of the indulgence market did. We have a marvelous treasure in the gospel of Christ. We have the full and free remission of our sins by faith in Christ. We have the blessed assurance that after this life we are not headed to purgatory, but have a place in glory with Christ.

Moreover, the theses call us to a life of repentance and good works. Let us not be deceived. Let us not think that we can go through the motions of outward religion, sitting in church on Sunday, saying a prayer before we eat, and so on, while also indulging our sinful desires and laying up for ourselves treasures on earth. Luther shouts to us down the corridors of history, “The entire life of believers is to be one of repentance! He who gives to the poor does better than he who has an empty show of religion!”

Still more, the theses call us to take our stand on the Word of God, and to be always reforming. We do well to examine regularly, in the light of Holy Scripture, the system of doctrine and life that we call our own. We who are church leaders, let us examine whether we are preaching the Word of God faithfully, or perpetuating and developing errors. Errors develop. The idea of indulgences went from bad to worse until it became a monstrous evil. Let us learn from Luther how to be courageous, to stand and speak the truth, if need be, in the midst of overwhelming opposition.

On October 31, 1517 Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-five Theses to the church door in Wittenberg. Although no public debate took place in Wittenberg, as Luther had proposed in the introduction to his theses, loud voices from the Romish side strongly condemned them. But God used them to kindle a flame that would purify His church and once again display the diamond of the gospel that had been hidden for so long. Surely, the anniversary of this event, known to us as Reformation Day, is worthy of remembering and celebrating in profound thankfulness to God every year.   

1 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. VII, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1950), 157.

2 Schaff, 144.

3 All quotations of the theses are from Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, Ed. Timothy F. Lull, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), 21-29.

4 Schaff, 158.

5 E. G. Schwiebert, Luther and His Times: The Reformation from a New Perspective. (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1950), 320.

6 German word meaning “indulgence” but in the sense of “permission, tolerance.”

7 Schwiebert, Luther and His Times, 313.


Luther and Scripture

This article first appeared in a special issue of the Standard Bearer on the Reformation under Martin Luther, October 15, 2016 (vol.93, #2).

Luther and Scripture

Martin Luther would be unknown to us if it were not for Scripture. The Spirit did not write the name “Martin Luther” in Scripture as He did the name “Moses” or “Malachi.” But the Spirit wrote the Scriptures in Martin Luther, giving to him the convictions that made him the historical giant that he was, and propelling him into the spotlight of the ecclesiastical and national scene in sixteenth-century Germany. Without Scripture and the profound impact it had on his life, Martin Luther was just another man that time, like an ever-rolling stream, would silently bear away. Sure, he was a brilliant man, industrious in character and dynamic in personality; but that alone would not have made him known.

We never would have heard of Luther if it were not for Scripture. Scripture made Luther, Luther. It made him the man that the two most powerful and recognizable figures of the world of his day—the pope and emperor Charles V—had to deal with. It made him the pivotal figure of whom all secular historians must give an account in recounting the shaping of the sixteenth century. It made him the dear father we Reformed believers remember as a token of God’s covenant faithfulness.

Instead of presenting Luther’s doctrine of Scripture by drawing from Luther’s writings on the subject of Scripture, we will draw from Luther’s life. What Luther did with the Scriptures tells us as much of his view of the Scriptures as what he wrote about them.

Martin Luther joyfully lived in Scripture. It was his Delight.

Martin Luther boldly struck with Scripture. It was his Hammer.

Martin Luther humbly stood under Scripture. It was his Authority.

If we are truly sons and daughters of the Reformation, the same must be said of us.

Luther’s Delight

While Luther did address the topic of the inspiration of Scripture and other related doctrines, his writings abound in exhaustive treatments of the value of Scripture. Luther knew from experience that Scripture is not a book of dead letters for a few elevated clerics to pour over in vain study, but the very Word of God, revealing the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ as sweetness to the soul of every believer. “How sweet are thy words unto my taste, yea sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Ps. 119:103). Luther’s life proves he delighted in Scripture as sweetness to his soul.

First, Scripture continually delivered him from spiritual unrest and even depression. Often, but especially in his early years as a monk in the Augustinian monasteries, true peace of heart and comfort of conscience were painfully elusive. He grew up in the medieval religious system that was established on and that played on fear—the fear of failing to be a good enough monk in establishing his own righteousness by the law, and thus incurring the inexpressibly terrifying wrath of God in purgatory and hell. Profoundly painful were the inner torments of miserable Martin’s bitter soul.

But how the Scriptures filled his soul with rapturous delight! In 1513, God’s wonderful providence brought Luther to the university in Wittenberg to lecture from the Scriptures. Although he was initially apprehensive that a spiritually sick man could teach others, Luther began to pour over the Scriptures for class lectures, and it was in that personal study that God showed him the gospel of peace in Jesus Christ. He began with the Psalms. How sweet was Psalm 22:1, “My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?” Luther could not immediately penetrate to the meaning. Those had to be the words of Christ, he thought. Christ had to have experienced the agony of God’s judgments in hellish torments, a suffering far worse than anything Martin himself had ever endured. Why else would Christ cry like that? But why did God punish and forsake the sinlessly perfect Christ? How could…? Ah… then the disquieted monk was given to see the gospel of grace: Christ had taken Martin Luther’s sins and the curse due to Martin Luther for them. God forsook Christ for Martin Luther.

Near the end of his commentary on the first verse of Psalm 22, Luther, speaking from experience, writes,

I have dwelt a little at length upon these things, in order that I might commend unto you more highly the grace of faith and the mercy of God, and that you might have a more full knowledge of Christ. For by this verse those are instructed who are exercised in the depths of the abyss of death and hell, and they are here furnished with an antidote against despair.1

Second, that Luther delighted in Scripture is witnessed by his motivation to begin and complete the incredibly difficult and historically monumental work of translating Scripture into German. After the Diet of Worms where Luther made his famous stand in 1521, he spent some time hiding in the Wartburg Castle and there began his project. His New Testament was finished quickly and published in 1522. However, the whole Bible was not completed and published as one volume until 1534. The work was as challenging as any work could be. To a friend Luther remarked, as only he could,

We are sweating over the work of putting the Prophets into German. God, how much of it there is, and how hard it is to make these Hebrew writers talk German! They resist us, and do not want to leave their Hebrew and imitate our German barbarisms. It is like making a nightingale leave her own sweet song and imitate the monotonous voice of a cuckoo, which she detests.2

Sweat and all, Luther pressed on determined to put a German Bible in the hands of the people. Had he never tasted Scripture’s sweetness, Luther would have abandoned the project. But he was determined to have others share his delight in the Word of God read and preached.

Third, Luther’s delight in Scripture as the Word of God was in part what energized him later in life to reject the teaching and antics of the radicals and revolutionaries like Thomas Munster and the Zwickau Prophets, who claimed to have special gifts of prophesy and continued revelations from the Spirit. This was a deeply personal matter with Luther, for if in the deep despair of his younger days he had to look beyond the living, objective Word of God in Scripture in expectation of some special, private revelation from the Spirit or had to look to his own spirit within, he would have found nothing but darkness.

Finally, it should be noted that the reason Luther was able to draw from Scripture delightful sweetness for his soul was that Luther believed all of Scripture testified of Christ. Luther read Christ; but his great service to the church was that he entered the pulpit and preached Christ. A half-year before he died, Luther preached a sermon on John 5:39ff. that was so well received in the city of Halle that the city council presented him with a golden cup. In the sermon he reveals the secret to profitable Bible-reading and preaching: “Therefore he who would correctly and profitably read Scripture should see to it that he finds Christ in it; then he finds life eternal without fail.”3

Luther delighted in reading, teaching, and preaching Scripture, because he found the sweetness of the gospel of Christ there.

Luther’s Hammer

If anyone in church history could swing a hammer it was Martin Luther. His primary hammer was not what he may have used to post his theses to Wittenberg’s church door on October 31, 1517. His hammer was Scripture: “Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?” (Jer. 23:29). Because his voluminous writings were faithful explanations of the truth of divine Scripture, the powerful Word of God was communicated through those writings, making them many hammers to break in pieces the rock of Roman Catholic false doctrine lodged in the hearts of men. Luther’s writings were not like the fluff of many Christian publishing houses today. His writings infuriated the pope, served as kindling for the enemies’ fires, and continually jeopardized his safety. But the Reformer kept taking the hammer of God’s Word, swinging away in the service of the truth that salvation is of grace alone and, therefore, through faith alone in Christ alone.

With his Ninety-five Theses of 1517 Luther smashed into pieces the lie of papal authority and the efficacy of indulgences captured in Tetzel’s famed jingle, “As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs.” This was only the beginning.

With his “Address to the Christian Nobility” of 1520 Luther hammered away at the Romish doctrine of papal authority and infallibility, the sole authority of the Romish church to interpret Scripture, and the corruption of the distinction between clergy and laity. With the heavy “Babylonian Captivity of the Church” written also in 1520, Luther pounded away at the entire system of works-righteousness by smashing to pieces the Roman Catholic idea of the sacerdotal system and the sacraments—in particular the accursed idolatry that is the mass, so central to the life and work of the priests and of all the people. It is said that even Erasmus read this tract and declared that the breach with Rome was irreparable. Luther’s commentary on Galatians, published in 1535, was another heavy-hitting piece of writing.

Not every blow fell upon the rock of Rome. The erroneous theology of the aforementioned Erasmus also took a pounding. Erasmus was not one of the fathers of the Reformation, but a Dutch scholar of the Renaissance merely looking for some moral reform in the church. In response to Erasmus’ treatise in support of natural man’s free will, Luther published a careful point-for-point refutation in 1525 entitled On the Bondage of the Will. This was a work Luther reckoned to be among his greatest. It contains some of Luther’s doctrine of Scripture, including the perspicuity of Scripture, the authority of Scripture, and the rule of interpreting Scripture that requires taking the words in their grammatical and literal sense unless circumstances plainly forbid it. But especially, this work contains one Scripture passage after another, carefully explained and applied as a continual hammering against the heresy of free will and in praise of sovereign grace.

Additionally, Luther had to bring the hammer of Scripture down upon the practices of the Anabaptist radicals and revolutionaries in the Peasants’ War of 1524-1525.

Man’s word, even when vehemently expressed, as Luther’s often was, is straw. God’s Word is the Hammer. Luther’s writings were like hammers because they were consciously and clearly grounded in the divinely inspired Word of God. One Luther scholar said of him,

We know of no man’s writings that are more saturated with Scripture than those of this great champion of the Bible. Typical is his impatient exclamation in a writing against a papal antagonist: “Give me Scripture, Scripture, Scripture. Do you hear me? Scripture.” We repeat: the permeation of Luther’s writings by both the letter and spirit of Scripture is one of his outstanding characteristics as an author.4

Luther’s Authority

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable…” (II Tim. 3:16). Luther found Scripture profitable for sweet comfort in his personal life and profitable for destroying the strongholds of Satan in the church. But Scripture is only profitable because it is “God-breathed,” possessing the authority of God Himself. The most important truth of Scripture believed by Luther was the truth of Scripture’s absolute, underived, unquestionable authority. Especially this conviction made Luther, Luther. Two examples of Luther’s submission to and confidence in the authority of Scripture stand out in his life.

The first is the Leipzig Debate. Before Luther was officially excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church, his teachings were challenged and debates were arranged. At Leipzig he engaged in an important debate in 1522 with a university professor named John Eck, a brilliant and formidable foe. The debate was about indulgences, but Luther went deeper and made papal authority the fundamental issue. He recognized that indulgences are based upon an erroneous doctrine of papal authority. During the debate Eck appealed to the decisions of church councils, to the decretals of the pope, and to history. It was not that Luther rejected the authority of church councils or the authority of lawfully ordained officebearers or the testimony of history. But because Scripture is the inspired and infallible Word of God, it has supreme authority, such that to it the pope himself must submit. Thus Luther appealed to Scripture. In the course of the debate Luther declared,

A simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council without it. As for the pope’s decretal on indulgences I say that neither the Church nor the pope can establish articles of faith. These must come from Scripture. For the sake of Scripture we should reject pope and councils.5

By far, the most memorable event in Luther’s life was his famous stand before the ecclesiastical and civil powers at the Diet of Worms in 1521. He was the number-one heretic on the most-wanted list of the church and the state. Luther knew his life was in jeopardy. He came to the Diet of Worms and was asked to recant and renounce his writings. He would gladly have thrown any of his works into the fire—his hammers into the sea—if it could be proved that they were in contradiction of Scripture. Standing before the emperor himself, Luther declared those familiar words,

Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of people and councils for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen.6

The humble monk had no fear before these earthly powers because he stood under the supreme authority of Scripture as the final arbiter of truth. To stand under the authority of Scripture is to stand under the protection of the Almighty.

Sola Scriptura.

1 Martin Luther, Complete Commentary on the first Twenty-Two Psalms, (accessed September 13, 2016).

2 Martin Luther, “Prefaces to the Books of the Bible” in Luther’s Works, American Edition, vol. 35 (Philadelphia, PA: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 229.

3 Cited in Ewald M. Plass, What Luther Says (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 69-70.

4 Plass, xv.

5 Cited in Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010), 103.

6 Bainton, 180.  


Luther, Erasmus, and the Bondage of the Will (2)

This article first appeared in the November 1, 2001 issue of the Standard Bearer (vol.78, No.3), the second part of an article that began in a special Reformation issue on Martin Luther. It was written by Prof. Russell Dykstra, professor of Church History and New Testament in the Protestant Reformed Seminary.

Luther, Erasmus, and the Bondage of the Will (2)

Luther's Bondage of the Will was a thorough refutation of the notion of a free will in fallen man as set forth by the world-renowned Desiderius Erasmus in his refined discourse entitled On the Freedom of the Will. This was the crucial issue in Luther's mind. He praised Erasmus because he alone among Luther's opponents had recognized that the doctrine of free will was "the grand turning point of the cause." Luther wrote, "You, and you alone saw, what was the grand hinge upon which the whole turned" (Section 168).*

As noted in the first part of this article (October 15, 2001 issue), Erasmus desired that the discussion be conducted peacefully. He affirmed his belief in Scripture, but insisted that at issue was the interpretation of Scripture. He claimed that Luther stood virtually alone in his position among theologians going back to the ancient fathers.

Erasmus' arguments in support of the doctrine of free will are mainly these:

1.The fact that God commands implies that man has the ability to obey the commands. 

2.If man does not have the free will to obey God and/or to believe, then God is unjust to demand it of man. 

3.Erasmus denies that natural man can only do evil. Even the pagans, he insists, do good.

4.Erasmus maintains that natural man's will is weak, but not powerless. Man's will needs grace to accomplish the good. He distinguishes several kinds of grace supposedly given to man to assist him.

5.Perhaps the most important element in Erasmus' apology for free will is that man can merit with God.

How, then, does Luther answer this brilliant scholar and defender of free will? In a word, Luther devastates Erasmus' arguments. First of all, Luther contemns Erasmus' efforts, so much so that he considered not even answering it. Writes Luther, "On so great a subject, you say nothing but what has been said before: therefore, you say less about, and attribute more unto 'Free-will,' than the Sophists have hitherto said and attributed." Luther contends that all these arguments have often been refuted. He adds, "I greatly feel for you for having defiled your most beautiful and ingenious language with such vile trash" (Introduction).

As to the dispute itself, Luther addresses Erasmus' desire that these discussions ought to be conducted without fighting. Luther points out that this is not the way of the history of the church, or of the spread of the gospel, because

[t]he world and its god cannot and will not bear the Word of the true God: and the true God cannot and will not keep silence. While, therefore, these two Gods are at war with each other, what can there be else in the whole world, but tumult?

Therefore, to wish to silence these tumults, is nothing else, than to wish to hinder the Word of God, and to take it out of the way.... And as to myself, if I did not see these tumults, I should say the Word of God was not in the world (Section 19).

Luther identifies the central issue, and its unspeakable importance. It is essential, he writes, "for a Christian to know, whether or not the will does any thing in those things which pertain unto Salvation. Nay, let me tell you, this is the very hinge upon which our discussion turns." That, because it involves knowing what God's power does, and thus knowing God Himself. If there is anyone who yet thinks that the issue of a free will is of no importance for the Christian faith, he must hear Luther:

But if I know not the distinction between our working and the power of God, I know not God Himself. And if I know not God, I cannot worship Him, praise Him, give Him thanks, nor serve Him; for I shall not know how much I ought to ascribe unto myself, and how much unto God (Section 7).

As to the term "free-will," Luther prefers that the term never be used, because it deceives people with "the most destructive mockery." It implies that men have the power of free choice in the matter of salvation, when the opposite is true. If the term must be used, Luther would have all to remember that man has

as to his goods and possessions the right of using, acting, and omitting, according to his "Free-will"; although, at the same time, that same "Free-will" is overruled by the Free-will of God alone, just as He pleases: but that, God-ward, or in things which pertain unto salvation or damnation, he has no "Free-will," but is a captive, slave, and servant, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan (Section 26).

Luther answers the charge that he is opposed by the church of all ages, which would mean, if Luther is correct, that God allowed His church to be in error for centuries. First of all, Luther asserts that Augustine is very much in his corner, a fact that Luther demonstrates repeatedly. Secondly, he points out that the church, externally considered, from Israel to Luther's day, often did err. Yet, he insists that the church of God and the members are hidden, and that God was pleased to preserve His saints even through those times. The calling, therefore, is to try the spirits. This every Christian can and must do because, on the one hand, he has the Spirit, and, on the other hand, the Scriptures are clear. Luther demonstrates this by quoting copiously from Scripture itself. He asks rhetorically, "[I]f the Scripture be obscure or ambiguous, what need was there for its being sent down from heaven?" Then he turns the argument back on Erasmus—"And why do you also, Erasmus, prescribe to us a form of Christianity, if the Scriptures be obscure to you!" (Section 36).

It is worth noting that Luther demands logical consistency in the formulation of doctrine. He shreds Erasmus' arguments by exposing the contradictions found throughout. He notes that Erasmus' definition of free will is hopelessly vague and thus open to various interpretations. Erasmus claims that man has a will able to choose the good without grace, and in other places maintains that man can will nothing good without the grace of God. Writes Luther, "Hence then, Erasmus, outstripping all others, has two 'Free-wills'; and they, militating against each other!" (Section 48).

What then of the many conditional statements in Scripture adduced by Erasmus—"If thou wilt hear" or "if thou wilt do"? Do these prove that man has a free will to do or to hear? Or is it so, that by these God mocks man, because man cannot obey them anyway? Luther rejects those conclusions. He writes, "Why is this not rather drawn as a conclusion—therefore, God tries us, that by His law He might bring us to a knowledge of our impotency, if we be His friends; or, He thereby righteously and deservedly insults and derides us, if we be His proud enemies" (Section 52).

Similarly, Luther dismisses the Pelagian error that the various commandments of God imply that man has the ability to keep them.

And this is the place, where I take occasion to enforce this my general reply:—that man, by the words of the law, is admonished and taught what he ought to do, not what he can do: that is, that he is brought to know his sin, but not to believe that he has any strength in himself. Wherefore, friend Erasmus, as often as you throw in my teeth the Words of the law, so often I throw in yours that of Paul, "By the law is the knowledge of sin,"—not of the power of the will. Heap together, therefore, out of the large Concordances all the imperative words into one chaos, provided that, they be not words of the promise but of the requirement of the law only, and I will immediately declare, that by them is always shewn what men ought to do, not what they can do, or do do (Section 56).

Furthermore, Luther takes pains to show that Erasmus proves too much. If all these conditional sentences and commands indicate that man can will to do what God enjoins, it necessarily follows that the same statements prove that man can actually do what God commands. Repeatedly Luther reminds Erasmus of the necessary implications—there is no need for the Spirit or grace of God to work in man. He can keep the commandments; he can save himself. Indeed, there is no need even of Christ or the cross.

Luther is quick to remind Erasmus that the Scriptures present a very different picture, namely, "a man, who is not only bound, miserable, captive, sick, and dead, but who, by the operation of his lord, Satan, to his other miseries, adds that of blindness: so that he believes he is free, happy, at liberty, powerful, whole, and alive" (Section 58).

The question naturally arises, why then do some believe and obey, and others do not, if all men are in bondage. Luther asserts that this is due to the "SECRET AND TO BE FEARED WILL OF GOD, who, according to His own counsel, ordains whom, and such as He will, to be receivers and partakers of the preached and offered mercy" (Section 64). Even the conditional sentences must be understood in light of predestination. Writes Luther,

"If thou wilt": that is, if thou be such with God, that he shall deign to give thee this will to keep the commandments, thou shalt be saved. According to which manner of speaking, it is given us to understand both truths—that we can do nothing ourselves; and that, if we do any thing, God works that in us (Section 68).

Luther takes on the giant—the issue of merit. Luther rejects Erasmus' conclusion that the promises of reward prove that the will can merit with God. He reminds Erasmus that the promises are exactly that—gracious promises of what God will do. In addition, he points out that these are promises to God's people, and the promise is no longer to the supposed free will of fallen man, but to men "raised above 'Free-will' in grace, and justified" (Section 69).

As far as anyone ever being worthy of reward, that is impossible, Luther maintains. For if "Free-will" cannot of itself will good, but wills good by grace alone, (for we are speaking of "Free-will" apart from grace and inquiring into the power which properly belongs to each) who does not see, that that good will, merit, and reward, belong to grace alone (Section 70).

On the other hand, Luther draws the logical consequence that if it be allowed that man can by free will choose the good, then God is "robbed of His power and wisdom to elect." He adds:

Nay, we shall at length come to this: that men may be saved and damned without God's knowing anything at all about it; as not having determined by certain election who should be saved and who should be damned; but having set before all men in general His hardening goodness and long-suffering, and His mercy shewing correction and punishment, and left them to choose for themselves whether they would be saved or damned (Section 81).

Not only so, but Luther points to other considerations which absolutely rule out the possibility of a free will in man, namely, God's sovereignty and His foreknowledge. God is omnipotent, otherwise "He would be a ridiculous God." At the same time, God "knows and foreknows all things, and neither can err nor be deceived." The "inevitable consequence" is that there is no such thing as a free will. Luther recognizes that this is an offense to man, "that the God, who is set forth as being so full of mercy and goodness, should, of His mere will, leave men, harden them, and damn them, as though He delighted in the sins, and in the great and eternal torments of the miserable." Luther's response?

And who would not be offended? I myself have been offended more than once, even unto the deepest abyss of desperation; nay, so far, as even to wish that I had never been born a man; that is, before I was brought to know how healthful that desperation was, and how near it was unto grace (Section 94).

But that man should be offended does not lead Luther to tamper with the truth of Scripture. God is sovereign and omniscient. Man is not free, though his sins are his own, not God's, for man is not forced to sin.

Having demolished the arguments of Erasmus, Luther contends for the grace of God against free will. He demonstrates the truth from Scripture that all men are depraved, guilty, and incapable of doing or willing good. Man's salvation is all of grace. Man merits nothing. His righteousness is from Christ, imputed freely and by grace.

Hence Luther reveals the seriousness of the matter when he writes, "And I would also, that the advocates for 'Free-will' be admonished in this place, that when they assert 'Free-will,' they are deniers of Christ. For if I obtain grace by my own endeavours, what need have I of the grace of Christ for the receiving of my grace?" (Section 157). And again, "And thus, while you establish 'Free-will,' you make Christ void, and bring the whole Scripture to destruction. And though you may pretend, verbally, that you confess Christ; yet, in reality and in heart, you deny Him" (Section 159).

So far Luther, defender of the irresistible, saving grace of God in Christ. * All quotations from The Bondage of the Will are taken from the translation by Henry Cole, printed by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1976.

1. Luther's Works, vol. 26, pp. 403, 404, "Lecture on Galatians 4:9."

2. Luther's Works, vol. 31, p. 40, "Heidelberg Disputation, Thesis 16." An excellent analysis of the "Heidelberg Disputation" is found in Gerhard O. Forde, On Being a Theologian of the Cross (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans: 1997).

3. Luther's Works, vol. 34, p. 114, "Theses Concerning Faith, 69, 70."

4. Forde, On Being a Theologian of the Cross, p. 63.

5. Luther, The Bondage of the Will, ed. J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston (London: James Clarke: 1957), pp. 103, 104

6. Luther's Works, vol. 31, p. 40, "Heidelberg Disputation, Thesis 25, 26." Quoted from Forde, On Being a Theologian of the Cross, pp. 103-110.

7. Luther's Works, vol. 24, pp. 264, 265, "Sermon on John 15:17, 18."

8. Quoted from Leaver, Luther on Justification, p. 81, note 55.

9. Luther's Works, vol. 29, p. 224, "Lectures on Hebrews (10:19)."

10. Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: Broadman Press: 1988), p. 54.

11. Luther's Works, vol. 51, p. 282, "Sermon on the Sum of the Christian Life."

12. Luther's Works, vol. 14, pp. 37, 38, "Sermon on Psalm 117."

13. Luther's Works, vol. 54, p. 340, "Table Talk."


Luther, Erasmus, and the Bondage of the Will (1)

This article first appeared in the October 15, 2001 issue of the Standard Bearer (vol.78, No.2) in a special Reformation issue on Martin Luther and was written by Prof. Russell Dykstra, professor of Church History and New Testament in the Protestant Reformed Seminary.

Luther, Erasmus, and the Bondage of the Will (1)

Certainly the single best-known work of Martin Luther is The Bondage of the Will. This masterpiece deserves the honorable position it holds not only in the body of Luther's works, but also in the writings of all the Reformers. It sets forth the truth of God's sovereignty in salvation, and eliminates any possibility that man contributed to his own salvation. This is the heart of Luther's theology. This is the heart of the great Reformation. And this is the heart of the Reformed truth still today.

That The Bondage of the Will should be written is obviously due to the sovereign providence of God. Early on in the conflict Luther came to the conviction that Rome's teaching on man's will was wrong, and he set forth his views in brief. Already in 1518 in the Heidelberg Disputation Luther affirmed that "since the fall of Adam, or after actual sin, free will exists only in name, and when it does what it can it commits sin." This was one of the forty-one articles condemned by Pope Leo X in 1520. In response, Luther wrote An Assertion of all the Articles of Martin Luther Condemned by the Latest Bull of Leo X.¹ In this work Luther is even stronger. He writes,

So it is necessary to retract this article. For I was wrong in saying that free choice before grace is a reality only in name. I should have said simply: free choice is in reality a fiction, or a name without reality. For no one has it in his power to think a good or a bad thought, but everything (as Wycliffe's article condemned at Constance rightly teaches) happens by absolute necessity.

And so it might have remained, were it not for God sovereignly directing the events of the Reformation, and forcing Luther to develop this truth more fully and explicitly.The means God used to bring this about was primarily one man, namely, Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam. Erasmus was an older contemporary of Luther who is sometimes wrongly associated with the Reformation. He was a world-renowned Renaissance scholar whom God used in various ways to serve the cause of the Reformation. Erasmus prepared a scholarly Greek text of the New Testament which was widely used by the Reformers. He was vociferous in his criticism of the immorality and ignorance of the clergy of his day. He was a man of high reputation, very much interested in the church being reformed morally, and to that end he promoted education and scholarship. When Luther's works spread like wildfire across Europe, the world watched intently to see whether Erasmus would throw his support to Luther's cause.

Luther and Erasmus were acquainted with each other before the conflict. A half a year before he posted the ninety-five theses in Wittenberg, Luther wrote in a personal letter:

I am at present reading our Erasmus, but my heart recoils more and more from him. But one thing I admire is, that he constantly and learnedly accuses not only the monks, but the priests, of a lazy, deep-rooted ignorance.

Only, I fear he does not spread Christ and God's grace sufficiently abroad, of which he knows very little. The human is to him of more importance than the divine....

And, in a portent of what was to come, he added, "Those who ascribe something to man's freedom of will regard those things differently from those who know only God's free grace."

Yet Luther coveted the support of Erasmus for his cause, and wrote a flattering letter to Erasmus in 1519, obviously hoping to establish some relationship with the elder scholar. Erasmus' reply to Luther was cordial. He began, "Best greetings, most beloved brother in Christ. Your letter was most welcome to me, displaying a shrewd wit and breathing Christian spirit." However, if Luther was hoping that Erasmus would commit himself to Luther's cause, he would be disappointed. Erasmus stated to Luther that he kept himself "as far as possible neutral, the better to assist the flower of learning."

It would become increasingly evident that Erasmus and Luther were committed to two different, and even antagonistic, causes. The decisive issue would be the doctrine at the heart of the Reformation—the doctrine of sovereign grace. The debate arose in connection with Luther's rejection of a free will in fallen man. Erasmus reacted against that (in 1524) with a work entitled A Diatribe or Discourse on Free Will in which he defended the ability of fallen man to will the good, rejecting Luther's position. Luther's classic work, The Bondage of the Will, was written over against Erasmus. Erasmus, on his part, was furious, and turned against Luther and the Reformation completely.

There is value in examining the arguments that Erasmus used to defend the view of a free will in man. They are relevant because of the fact that The Bondage of the Will was a painstaking refutation of Erasmus' work. Secondly, Erasmus' work is a good representation of the theology of the Romish church against which Luther battled. Thirdly, Erasmus' arguments are significant because they have been pressed into service by Arminians of every stripe and are used even to the present day.

Even the tone of Erasmus' work on the free will of man is one adopted by enemies of sovereign grace throughout history. He wishes to "pursue the matter without recrimination"; he divulges that he has "an inner temperamental horror of fighting." In fact, he does not like to make "assertions" of what is correct, preferring rather that merely a discussion be held on the topic.

Concerning Scripture, Erasmus maintains that "there are some secret places in the Holy Scriptures into which God has not wished us to penetrate more deeply...." In fact, he is convinced that we ought not "through irreverent inquisitiveness rush into those things which are hidden, not to say, superfluous," among which matters is "whether our will accomplishes anything in things pertaining to eternal salvation."

Erasmus uses every trick at his disposal. He avows his own commitment to Scripture, but notes that the real issue is the proper interpretation of Scripture. He condemns Luther by association, putting Luther's views in the same camp as those previously condemned by the church—the heretical Manichaeans and the pre-reformer Wyclif. He calls as witnesses nearly all the ancient church fathers, as well as the medieval scholars, because they had used the term free will. But he fails to distinguish between those fathers who were discussing freedom of choice in things natural (what to wear or eat) versus those who were discussing spiritual choices (to sin or do good). 

His basic arguments for the free will of fallen man will sound very familiar to anyone familiar with the arguments of the enemies of sovereign grace. First, Erasmus insists that the fact that God commands implies that man has the ability to obey the commands. Since God commands men to repent, to turn to Him, man can will to do it. He treats promises that are in a conditional form in the same way. 

Secondly, and related to the above, Erasmus maintains that God is unjust and cruel if He punishes sinners who could not will to love and obey God. So fallen man must have free will. In that connection, he teaches that God's predestination is based on foreknowledge—God foreknew who would rebel and who would obey, and on that basis made His choice.

Thirdly, Erasmus denies that natural man can only do evil. Even the pagans, he avers, do good.

Fourthly, Erasmus maintains the (semi-Pelagian) position that natural man's will is weak, but not powerless. Man's will needs grace to accomplish the good. He distinguishes several kinds of grace supposedly given to man to assist him. According to Erasmus, the reason why Scripture sometimes speaks of the whole work of salvation belonging to God is not to teach that man actually does nothing, but only "to avoid a dangerous arrogance" in man.

Yet perhaps the most important element in Erasmus' apology for free will is that man must merit something with God. Repeatedly he returns to this. He writes, "How is it that we hear so much of reward if there is no such thing as merit?" That was the bedrock on which the whole Romish system was built—man can merit with God. And did Luther know it!

In his conclusion, Erasmus offers a compromise position to Luther. Erasmus is willing to reduce the contribution of man's will to the absolute minimum. He writes:

For in my opinion free choice could be so established as to avoid that confidence in our merits and the other dangers which Luther avoids.... 

On this more accommodating view, it is implied that a man owes all his salvation to divine grace, since the power of free choice is exceedingly trivial in this regard and this very thing which it can do is a work of the grace of God who first created free choice and then freed it and healed it.

So far Pelagius/Erasmus/Arminius.

How, then, did Luther answer this brilliant scholar and defender of free will? In a word, Luther devastated Erasmus' arguments. However, the details of Luther's powerful refutation will have to wait until the next issue.

1. This was written in Latin. A similar, though not identical, defense in German was published in 1521, with the title (translated) The Defense and Explanation of All the Articles of Dr. Martin Luther which were Unjustly Condemned by the Roman Bull. This is available in English in Luther's Works, (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press), vol. 32.


Martin Luther Addresses Youth

This article first appeared in the March 15, 1984 issue of the Standard Bearer (vol.60, No.12) ad was written for the rubric "Strength of Youth" by Rev. R. Cammenga.

Martin Luther Addresses Youth

Martin Luther knew people. Like the Lord Whom he served, he could be "touched with the feeling of the infirmities" of God's people. He could weep with the sorrowing. He could laugh with the joyful. He could pity the distressed and downcast. He could sympathize with the believer who struggled with the guilt of his sin. Luther knew people because he knew himself. He never stood aloof from Gods people in his office as minister of the gospel, because Luther knew himself to be but a man among men. He identified with the people of God in their struggles, burdens, temptations, and sins.

Identifying with God's people, Luther identified with the youth. He understood youth. He understood youth because he himself had been a youth. He had himself experienced the enthusiasm and vigor of young manhood. He had himself gone through the struggles that mold the boy into the mature man of God. He had faced the temptations that confront young men, and, like every young man, had more than once fallen into those temptations. 

Besides, Luther knew youth as a parent. Luther, along with his beloved wife, Katie, raised a family of children and teenagers. He knew the challenges and the frustrations, the joys and the sorrows of bringing up young men and women.

And Luther knew youth as a pastor. He was, of course, the outstanding leader of the Protestant Reformation. He was a man whose time was constantly demanded by all the work that belonged to reforming and rebuilding the church. He was, besides, a theological professor, engaged in the training of prospective ministers of the gospel. But in addition to all this, Luther was also a simple pastor—and then a pastor who had a care not only for the sheep, but for the lambs of the flock. 

In this article, we want to witness Luther's pastoral concern for the youth in the church, and hear what Luther has to say to the youth. 

Luther's first concern was with parents and with the responsibility of parents to bring forth and train their children. The strength of youth depended on godly parents carrying out their calling in the church. In "A Sermon On Keeping Children In School" Luther exhorted the congregation:

He has not given you your children and the means to support them simply so that you may do with them as you please, or train them to get ahead in the world. You have been earnestly commanded to raise them for God's service . . . .

It must exactly be a motive with God-fearing parents, Luther insisted, that out of love and concern for the welfare of their children they support the cause of the reform of the church. In the same sermon as quoted above, he asked the rhetorical question, "But how will you raise them (your children) for God's service if the office of preaching and the spiritual estate have fallen into oblivion?" 

In the rearing of their children, Luther warned that parents must not destroy and stifle, but direct the natural enthusiasm of youth. Luther reacted to the suffocating tendencies of monasticism and the medieval schools. In one place, commenting onEcclesiastes 11:9, he said:

Solomon is, therefore, the best of teachers of youth. He does not forbid joys and pleasures, as those foolish teachers, the monks, did. For this is nothing else than making young people into stumps and, as even Anselm, the most monkish of monks, said, trying to plant a tree in a narrow pot. So the monks confined their pupils as though in a cage and forbade them to see or talk with people, with the result that they learned and experienced nothing, even though there is nothing more dangerous to youth than solitude. The mind needs to be trained with good sense and ideas, so that people are not corrupted by association and contact with evil men, since according to the body they have to live in the very midst of such things. Therefore one must see and hear the world, so long as there is a good teacher present.

This, of course, must not be understood to mean that young people must be given a free rein, be allowed to do as they please.

Therefore one must be indulgent with youth, and must let them be happy and do everything with a happy spirit. Yet one must see to it that they are not corrupted by the desires of the flesh. For carousals, drinking-bouts, and love affairs are not the happiness of the heart, but rather make the spirit sad.

Over against the disrespect and disobedience to parents that characterized already the young people of Luther's day, Luther insisted on the calling of the young people of the church to honor and obey their parents. There is probably no calling which the young people so need to be reminded of today. Commenting on the account in Genesis 23 of Abraham's prostrating himself before the children of Heth at the time he made his request of them for the Cave of Machpelah for a burying-place, Luther said:

These are commendable customs of humility, respect, and courtesy; they should be especially praised and presented to our youth, so that it may accustom itself to them and rid itself of its habitual boorishness.

In another place he wrote:

Therefore I urge and earnestly beseech all young men (young women, too) to shun and detest this sin and to accustom their hearts to respect their parents and to that end to implore God's help with unceasing prayers.

In many places Luther called the children and young people to receive the instruction of their parents and the church. The parents and the church must not only give this instruction, but this instruction must be willingly and eagerly received by the youth.

Doctrine. . . must be constantly repeated on account of the adolescents and the tender youth, who are the seed-bed of the church, that they may learn that they must stand firmly and remain where God speaks, and that they may accustom themselves to those obligations which are commanded by God. . . .

More than once Luther stated his conviction that the permanence of the Reformation depended on the coming generation. If the youth were not instructed and called to stand for the truth of the Word of God represented by the Reformation, the Reformation would vanish like the morning dew. 

Especially did Luther call the young people of the church to a serious life of holiness. Time and again he exhorted them to keep the commandments of God and to flee "fleshly lusts, which war against the soul." Luther is honored for his insistence on the truth of justification, justification by faith alone apart from our own works. But Luther's teaching of justification by faith alone did not overthrow the life of good works to which the child of God is called. Justification has its great goal in sanctification, a life lived in obedience to all the commandments of God's law. 

In a stirring passage, Luther calls the young people to holiness, and at the same time points out to them that there is nothing that so grieves godly parents as the unholiness of their children.

For there are very great and intense emotions that God has created in the whole nature of things and has implanted in parents toward their offspring. And if at any time their hearts are wounded by grief or sorrow on account of a misfortune suffered by their children, this is a very real plague and a poison for their lives. Therefore, parents are easily killed, if not by the sword, then by sorrow and grief. I myself have seen that many very honorable parents were slain by godless children because of sadness of heart. Young people neither consider nor understand this. But children should be taught and warned, lest they become murderers of mothers and murderers of fathers; for an exceedingly horrible judgment and punishment of God awaits them . . . . Children often fall smugly into various misdeeds without having any regard for respect towards parents. Daughters sully their chastity and disgrace their pious and honorable parents. But with these shameful acts they kill father and mother; for father and mother are endowed with that very tender affection and love toward their offspring which is not so intense and ardent in children. Indeed, they do not even very often understand it.

One of the outstanding means by which the youth of the church are led away from the church and a holy life is the influence of wicked friends. By associating with the young people of the world, the young people of the church are certainly going to come under the power of that bad example, which appeals, of course, to their own sinful flesh, and be led astray. In the following passage, Luther warns the young people against keeping company with the young people of the world, and warns the parents against allowing this to happen.

Now just when a father or a mother has devoted much toil and money to their child before it is trained a little and has been taught fine and mannerly conduct so that it knows how to behave sensibly and chastely over against all people, some pernicious animal comes along, an evil tongue says something into the child's ear, or someone displays a bad example that poisons such a young heart and engenders bad blood of which it can never again rid itself. For instance, even when a young lad has been trained and disciplined well for a long time and to the parents delight, a wild, evil, frivolous rascal comes along and with a loose and shameless remark or example poisons and spoils with a single stroke the whole object of so much care, diligence, time, and expense. This works murderous harm and ruins whatever is well trained. It is like hail or lightning that ruins the vegetation in the field. And people who take pleasure in poisoning such innocent young people are despicable and devilish.

Especially guilty of deluding and corrupting the young people of Luther's day were the universities. There is no new thing under the sun. Still today, the institutions for higher learning, even those which are nominally Reformed, take the lead in undermining the truth of God's Word and the faith of the young people. Luther expressed, "I greatly fear that the universities are wide gates of hell, because they do not diligently teach the Holy Scriptures and impress them on the youth." It was exactly out of his concern that not only in the primary grades, but also in the university, the truth of God's Word be taught and upheld that Luther labored unceasingly on behalf of the University of Wittenberg. It was exactly the University of Wittenberg that was responsible, in large measure, for the spread of the Reformation throughout the lands of Europe. 

As he pointed all of the people of God, so Luther also pointed the youth to the cross of Jesus Christ as the only hope of salvation. To Christ the young people must look for the forgiveness of sins, and to Christ they must turn for the strength of the Spirit to live God-glorifying lives.

A youth who believes in Christ has victory over everything because of which Satan has power. Thus he has victory, not in such a way that sin, an evil conscience, and death are not felt, but because they are overcome. For Christ is greater.

This is the strength of youth: Christ. God grant that the youth of the church find their strength, as Luther exhorted them to find their strength and as the faithful church today exhorts them to find their strength, in Jesus Christ, the Son of God.


Martin Luther: A Sketch of His Life

This article first appeared in the October 15, 2001 issue of the Standard BearerStandard Bearer (vol.78, No.2) and was written by Rev. G. Eriks, then pastor of Loveland Protestant Reformed Church in Loveland, CO.

Luther Becomes a Monk

Martin Luther was born November 10, 1483, in Eisleben in Prussian Saxony. His parents were very poor, but they were hard-working and pious members of the Roman Catholic Church. In home and in school, Luther was taught to be a good Roman Catholic. His parents taught Luther to pray to God and the saints, to revere the church, and to fear devils and witches. In school, Luther learned the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and several Latin and German hymns. 

In 1501, at the age of 18, Luther entered the University of Erfurt, where he studied scholastic philosophy. Luther studied some of the ancient classics and he sufficiently mastered Latin so that he could write it clearly. During these years of his education, Luther became concerned about his personal salvation. He often despaired because of his sinfulness. Therefore, Luther was drawn to the study of theology, but according to the wish of his father Luther began to study law.

But God led Luther to the monastic life through two events. First, the news of the sudden death of a friend shocked him. Secondly, soon after his friend died, Luther was caught in a terrible storm. Thinking he would die in that storm, Luther cried out, "Help, beloved Saint Anna! I will become a monk." Luther honored his promise, entering the Augustinian convent at Erfurt two weeks later. But God would not allow Luther to remain an Augustinian monk his whole life.

As a monk, Luther's sole concern was to earn a place in heaven. So he solemnly vowed a life of poverty and chastity. No one in the convent surpassed Martin Luther in prayer, fasting, and confessing sins. Luther himself observed afterward, "If ever a monk got into heaven by monkery, I would have gotten there." But none of these pious exercises gave him peace in his soul. He saw sin in everything he did. When he read Scripture, the justice of God terrified him.

In this period of spiritual agony, an old monk, Johann von Staupitz, comforted him. He directed Luther to the gospel and to the forgiveness of sins in Jesus Christ. Staupitz reminded Luther that the law makes known sin, but it cannot heal. Through Staupitz's spiritual mentoring, Luther was directed from his sins to the merits of Christ. Luther began to learn through this spiritual struggle that salvation is not by the works of man, but by the grace of God alone.

Luther's Conversion

During the second year of his monastic life, Luther was ordained into the priesthood. He said his first mass on May 2, 1507. Luther was called by Staupitz from the convent in Erfurt to the convent in Wittenberg. After completing his doctorate in theology, Luther became a professor in the University of Wittenberg. In his lectures, Luther treated different books of the Bible: Psalms, Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, and Psalms again. The Psalms and the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians remained his favorite books. 

Through his study of Scripture, Luther began to understand and experience the gospel. This came about especially in his newfound understanding of Romans 1:17: "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." For a long time, Luther had been troubled by the concept of God's righteousness. Luther knew that he could not attain perfection before God. He saw God's righteousness as His burning wrath against those who could not perfectly keep His ways. Therefore, he could not see the gospel in Romans 1:17. Then God opened his eyes. He understood that "the righteousness of God" is the perfect righteousness of Christ, which God imputes to sinners. This righteousness is freely given by faith. A crushing weight was suddenly lifted from Luther's soul. He experienced that he was without sin, not because he did not sin, but because of the freely given righteousness of Christ. This truth brought him the peace he desired in his own heart. By His providential leading, God was preparing Luther to be a reformer of the church, although Luther did not have this intention.

The 95 Theses

Through the course of Luther's early life, God exposed some of the errors of Roman Catholicism to Luther. God exposed the error of works righteousness through Luther's spiritual struggle. When Luther visited Rome at the suggestion of Staupitz, Luther's eyes were opened to the immorality and worldliness of the papacy. Although his faith in the Romish hierarchy was not shaken at the time of his visit, these memories of Rome returned to his mind during the Reformation. Then he had no problem calling the popery "an institution of the devil."

Another error that concerned Luther in 1517 was the abuses in the sales of indulgences. Indulgences, according to the Roman Catholic Church, removed or reduced the satisfactions required by sinners as a part of penance. The temporal punishment for sin could be removed on the condition of penitence and the payment of money to the church. Members of the lower classes of the Romish Church were led to believe they could buy their way into heaven. The sale of indulgences spread to Germany also. Tetzel, who became a famous orator and seller of indulgences, would prey on the emotions of the lower classes, convincing them to buy indulgences for their departed loved ones. Tetzel approached the Elector of Saxony to request permission to sell indulgences in Saxony. Although the Elector had great confidence in indulgences, he would not allow Tetzel to sell indulgences for fear that this might take too much money from his subjects. So Tetzel set up his business just outside the border of Saxony. Convinced that the sale of indulgences was evil, Luther chose the orderly way of a debate among the monks of the Augustinian order. To open up a public discussion, Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Latin Theses to the door of the church at Wittenberg on October 31, 1517. 

No one accepted the invitation and no discussion took place. But this did not mean the Theses went unnoticed. The Theses were copied, translated, and circulated throughout Germany and Europe in a few weeks. The Theses, along with other Reformation literature, spread like wildfire throughout Europe. Although Luther wanted only to discuss the issue of indulgences, God used these Theses to begin the Reformation. Luther's fame from the Ninety-Five Theses drew him into many other disputations.


The printing of the Ninety-Five Theses began a war of tracts. Roman Catholic scholars wrote publicly against Luther's Theses. But their defense was weak because they could not defend indulgences from Scripture. Luther responded directly and indirectly to his opponents from the pulpit and with the pen. 

The controversy over Luther's views led to a disputation in a large hall in Leipzig from June 27 to July 15, 1519. The main debaters were Martin Luther and John Eck. Eck was a skilled, conceited, and ruthless debater. Although Luther was not a skilled debater, he greatly surpassed Eck in the knowledge of Scripture. The debate between Luther and Eck turned chiefly on the subject of authority. With his skillful debating techniques, Eck drove Luther to positions that he had not previously held. For example, Luther denied the infallibility of church councils and the final authority of the papacy. Because of these denials, Eck charged Luther with being a Hussite. Luther admitted that Hus held some scriptural views and was unjustly condemned and burnt to death. Therefore, from a formal point of view, Eck won the debate. 

These debates were important in the history of the Reformation for two reasons. First, Luther gained many followers from these debates. Secondly, under the providential hand of God, Luther stood on the sole authority of Scripture, which became one of the great "sola's" of the Reformation.

Diet of Worms

After the Leipzig Disputation, John Eck returned to Rome calling for the condemnation of Luther and his followers. In June of 1520, the bull of excommunication was completed in Rome. This bull called for the burning of all Luther's books and tracts. But Luther returned fire for fire by publicly burning the bull in the streets of Wittenberg. This burning signified the complete break between Luther and Rome. 

In 1521, the Diet of Worms was called by Emperor Charles V to settle the problems that arose from Luther's new teachings. The ruling princes of the provinces of Germany and some Romish officials were present at this Diet. Charles V summoned Luther to this meeting with the guarantee of safe travel to and from the meeting. Luther's friends remembered that John Hus had been given the same promise and Rome did not honor that promise. They urged Luther not to attend. But Luther insisted on going for the cause of Christ. 

Luther was not given an opportunity to defend his teachings, but was simply asked if the books lying on the table before him were his. After acknowledging they were his, he was asked if he would recant what he taught. Being unprepared for the question, Luther asked for a day to consider his answer and the emperor granted his request. When asked the same question the next day, part of Luther's well known answer was, "My conscience is bound in the Word of God: I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is unsafe and dangerous to do anything against the conscience. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me! Amen." 

The Emperor upheld the promise of safe conduct. But Frederick, Luther's elector, afraid that Luther would be captured, had Luther taken secretly to the castle at Wartburg, where Luther stayed for eleven months.

Luther's Family

Although much could be said about Luther's family life, space does not allow us to go into great detail. Convinced of the error of his monastic views, Luther married Katherine vonBora, whom he often called, "Kitty, my rib." She was a hardworking woman who served the constant stream of guests in their home while rarely having enough money. To Martin and Katherine were born three daughters and three sons, but two of the daughters died when they were young. The home of Luther was filled with spiritual activities: prayer, Bible study, and theological discussions. God brought reformation even to Luther's family life.

At the age of 63, Luther traveled to the city of his birth, Eisleben. There he died on February 17, 1546. During the last years of his life, Luther suffered from many ailments. But in life and in death Luther trusted in his heavenly Father. Through his life and work, God laid the foundation of the Reformation. The true church continues to give thanks to God for the work of this reformer.


Martin Luther: Training Children in the Home

This article first appeared in the October 15, 2001 issue of the Standard Bearer (vol.78, No.2) and was written by Rev. W. Bruinsma, then pastor of Kalamazoo Protestant Reformed Church in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

Martin Luther loved children! His Table Talks are filled with remarks on children. "Children are the most delightful pledges in a loving marriage. They are the best wool on the sheep." Or again, "How great a joy posterity affords a man! It certainly is the most delightful joy of parents." 

That Luther could make such statements is amazing, since the first thirty-eight years of his own life were lived under the conviction that as a monk he had to remain celibate. It was not until Luther was forty-two years old that he married a former nun named Katherine vonBora. She was twenty-six at the time. In the next few years Katherine gave birth to six children, two of whom died at birth. As busy as Luther was he always had time for his own children and others. In fact, in another of his Table Talks, he is recorded as saying, "The Jews highly esteemed children. Our women almost detest them. The reason: one does not want the burden of bearing and educating children; women only want leisure."

Not only did Luther have a personal love for children, but he also saw their importance in the church. For that reason he emphasized in many of his writings the need for the instruction and nurture of children. This care for children must take place in every sphere: in the church, in society (Christian day schools), and especially in the home. It is striking that in all the doctrinal debates that Luther carried on during his lifetime, he never forgot to write concerning this all-important task. Even while living the life of a celibate monk he recognized the importance of sound Christian pedagogy that began already in the home in infancy. Writes Luther concerning this, "Here again we are plagued by the miserable fact that no one perceives or heeds this truth. All live on as though God gave us children for our pleasure or amusement ... only to gratify our whims, ignoring them, as though what they learn or how they live were no concern of ours."1 

What made Martin Luther's view on child-rearing unique in his day was its doctrinal basis. We must recall that in the days prior to the Reformation, Pelagianism had become an integral part of the theology of Rome. The Pelagians maintained that children were not born with the inherited corruption of their parents. The depravity of Adam and Eve was not passed on to their posterity. The will of man therefore was not in bondage to sin. Instead, a child was born with the freedom of will to choose either good or evil, right or wrong. That Luther opposed such a notion not only reveals itself in his love for the writings of Augustine, but in his commentaries and writings on education.

Luther's pedagogical thought rests like his anthropology on the bedrock of his image of man as a fallen sinner. "For the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth." This line of Genesis 8:21 defined for him the innermost corruption of all human instincts and the impossibility of changing these by rational argument or humane appeal. It also identified the psychological source of that irreversible egotism that he saw as the all pervading symptom of human perversion. Not merely "inclined to evil" (in malum prona), but evil in substance, evil through and through. In principle, Luther was therefore forced to deny conventional educational wisdom along with the traditional anthropology of the schoolmen.2

The truth that man is a fallen sinner should guide parents in the way they view and deal with their children. 

From this truth there are two important principles of child-rearing that parents must bear in mind when setting themselves to the task of training their children. 

First, parents must remember that their children are depraved from birth. Children from birth have derived corruption from their original parent by the propagation of a vicious nature. Passed on to them according to their first birth is blindness of mind, horrible darkness, vanity and perverseness of judgment, wickedness, rebellion, stubbornness and impurity (Canons of Dordt, Third and Fourth Heads, Articles 1, 2). That tiny infant who lies asleep in mother's arms a picture of contentment and peace, that infant who so often fills mother's and father's heart with overwhelming love and emotion, that infant is a depraved sinner. It may be hard to believe. We may not want to believe it. But we as parents have passed along to our children our corruption. We must recognize and deal with the sin that is found in our children from infancy on.

The second truth Christian parents must keep in mind in training their children is their need for the cross of Jesus Christ. This does not mean, of course, that as parents we must attempt to convert our children. It does not mean that our children are without Christ until later in life. We certainly baptize our infant children with this assurance in mind, "... for as they (our children—WB) are without their knowledge partakers of the condemnation in Adam, so are they again received unto grace in Christ."3 Parents, however, are called to instruct their children concerning their daily need for sorrow over sin and forgiveness in the cross of Christ. Children must be trained to bow in humility before God and confess their sins. They must be reminded constantly to seek for their righteousness not in themselves but in the cross of Christ alone. Likewise, children must be taught to walk in daily conversion before God, mortifying the old man of sin and putting on the new man in Christ. From infancy on, a child must be trained to hate sin and to live a life of thankfulness before God. 

That this was Martin Luther's view of the training of children comes to light in the advice he gives parents concerning the method of training their children. Though Luther spends time on many different aspects of Christian pedagogy, we concentrate on only three of them.

In the first place, Luther presents instruction to parents which we, who live in an age of prosperity and affluence, do well to heed. Parents must not spoil their children. Parents can do this in various ways. They can, when their children are young, ignore their wrongs (sins) and, instead of reprimanding or disciplining them, pass off what they do as minor or even cute. Luther spoke these appropriate words in a sermon on the fourth commandment,

The first destroyers of their own children are those who neglect them and knowingly permit them to grow up without the training and admonition of the Lord. Even if they do not harm them by a bad example, they still destroy them by yielding to them. They love them too much according to the flesh and pamper them saying: They are children, they do not understand what they are doing. And they are speaking the truth. But neither does a dog or a horse or a mule understand what it is doing. However, see how they learn to go, to come, to obey, to do and leave undone what they do not understand. ... These parents will, therefore, bear the sins of their children because they make these sins their own.4

A parent must never allow his children, no matter what their age, to do wrong and view it as mere ignorance of what is right. Only by means of instruction and discipline will we teach children what sin is in their lives — and that even at an early age while their concept of good and evil is developing.

This coddling of children reveals itself in another way: when parents, due to an overabundance of wealth and affluence, give to their children the means to live the high life, allowing them to do whatever they please. This is a fault that we find in today's modern society and within the church as well. Parents will give everything to their children, then allow them to go out unrestrained to enjoy the pleasures of this wicked world. In another sermon on married life Luther declares,

Nothing can more easily earn hell for a man than the improper training of his own children; and parents can perform no more damaging bit of work than to neglect their offspring, to let them curse, swear, learn indecent words and songs, and permit them to live as they please. Some parents themselves incite their children to such sins by giving them superfluous finery and temporal advancement so that they may but please the world, rise high and become wealthy.5

Here is a word to which the church of Jesus Christ does well to take heed today! Are not our own children often spoiled because of our wealth and comforts? With our wealth we allow our young people to purchase CDs on which are recorded indecent songs. We allow them to rent videos in which are portrayed the godless life-styles of the wicked, and which make evil seem good and good evil (Is. 5:20-22). It is little wonder that cursing and swearing can be heard from the mouths of some of our children at sporting events or conventions. It is little wonder that they walk in the ways of the ungodly. "Woe to them that are at ease in Zion!" (Amos 6:1).

Luther reminds us of a third way that children can be spoiled by parents: when parents allow young men and women to sit around the house with idle hands. Because there is no hardship from a financial point of view, children are given everything they desire without having to work for it. They are taught to be lazy. Such children grow up thinking that everything is owed them. The fame, position, and money of their parents are theirs simply by virtue of their birth. Luther writes in his typical forward manner, "Proud jackasses develop out of the sons of heroes who boast of the virtue of their fathers but make no effort to imitate it, dreaming instead that they, too, are heroes because they were born of heroes."6

A second area of Christian pedagogy that is necessary in the life of covenant home and family is that of discipline. Luther was not weak on this subject either. He recognized that sin is bound in the heart of a child. The rod was necessary at times, therefore, to train and discipline children in their knowledge of right and wrong. Writes Luther in his Works, "Just so a father can perform no act that is more unfatherly than sparing the rod and allowing the little child to have its own wanton way."7 Admonition and discipline by the rod is a necessity in the life of a child because it teaches him what sin is, and that sin will be punished. The child is trained by discipline to understand that God holds man accountable for sin and God will punish it in His justice.

At the same time, Luther had a deep understanding of the purpose of discipline. It must be used to teach, not to harm. It must be used to lead our children to Christ, not to cause them to cower beneath a raging parent or fear a vengeful God. In an early sermon on the commandments Luther proclaimed, "With the greatest care a child should be trained to have the right fear, to fear what is to be feared, but not to be timid. Some parents are satisfied if only their children are timid. But this is very harmful for later life." Luther railed upon abuse of the child by means of discipline. Parents were never to "vent their furious temper" upon their children, unconcerned that discipline was to be used to expose sin and lead to the cross of Christ. Luther insisted that when this was done in infancy it would cause irreparable damage in later life.

A third area which Martin Luther addressed as regards the training of children in the home was that of instruction itself. Luther placed heavy emphasis on this aspect of home and family life.

Formal catechizing did not, of course, exhaust a parent's teaching responsibilities. By daily example and counsel he was to guide his children's steps on their Christian journey. "This duty makes parenthood immensely rich in good works," Luther said, "for God has given this estate the care of souls upon whom parents may lavish a great plenty of Christian works. Fathers and mothers are apostles, bishops, and pastors to their children as they raise them in the knowledge of the holy gospels. No greater or nobler power exists on earth than that of parents over children, for it is a power both secular and spiritual."8

Luther's plans for reform in Germany included not only religious training of children in the church but in Christian day schools as well. Also a part of this plan was daily study in the Bible in the home. Parents must see to it that wife, children, and servants gathered evenings and mornings for a time of memorizing and reciting Scripture. Luther wrote his Shorter Catechism to be used in homes and families in order that children might learn the doctrines of the church. 

Luther was genuinely concerned with life in the home. He took a special interest in parents and children. We find in Luther a steadfast Reformer, a powerful preacher, an untiring writer, but also a man of the people. This is what made Luther so great. He was close to the people in their needs and cares. He was deeply aware of the struggles in their homes. He had a keen insight into the way God's truth might be preserved among the faithful. This made Luther a man fit by God to ignite the flames of the Reformation.

1. Luther's Works, Weimar edition, vol. 1, p. 156.

2. Strauss, Gerald, Luther's House of Learning. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, p. 33.

3. Form for the Administration of Baptism used in the Protestant Reformed Churches.

4. Exposition of the Fourth Commandment in November of 1516.

5. Luther's Works, Weimar edition, vol. 2, p. 170. 

6. Ibid, vol. 44, p. 421.

7. Ibid, vol. 51, p. 206.

8. Strauss, Gerald, Luther's House of Learning. p. 124.


Martin Luther and Justification By Faith

This article first appeared in the December 1, 1987 issue of the Standard Bearer (vol.65, No.5) and was penned by Prof. H. Hanko, professor of church history and New Testament at the PRC Seminary.

The great doctrine of justification by faith is part of our glorious heritage, come down to us from the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. It was the unique contribution of the work of the first of all the reformers: Martin Luther. It became the central truth of Luther's theology. Schaff writes:

Luther assigned to his solifidian (by faith alone) doctrine of justification the central position in the Christian system, declared it to be the article of the standing or falling (Lutheran) church, and was unwilling to yield an inch from it, though heaven and earth should collapse.

That this truth occupied such an important position in Luther's thought was due to his own personal struggle to come to the assurance of salvation and peace with God. Everyone who has even a passing acquaintance with the great Reformation of the sixteenth century knows of Luther's great struggle, a struggle which dominated a significant part of his life, a struggle which ended only when he discovered the great truth of justification by faith alone, a struggle through which God, in His all-wise providence, led Luther so that this great Biblical truth was a truth which Luther taught from the depths of his own personal experience. 

The struggle to find assurance not only lasted a long time, but the gradual dawning of the truth of justification by faith also was not the insight of a moment, but a long and arduous struggle. It is perhaps best to let Luther tell the story in his own words:

Meanwhile I had already during that year (1514, the year of his great "tower experience," H.H.) returned to interpret the Psalter (the Book of Psalms on which he was lecturing in the university, H.H.) anew. I had confidence in the fact that I was more skilful, after I had lectured in the university on St. Paul's epistles to the Romans, to the Galatians, and the one to the Hebrews. I had indeed been captivated with an extraordinary ardor for understanding Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. But up till then it was not the cold blood about the heart, but a single word in Chapter 1 (17), "In it the righteousness of God is revealed," that had stood in my way. For I hated that word righteousness of God, which, according Co the use and custom of all the teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically regarding the formal or active righteousness, as they called it, with which God is righteous and punishes the unrighteous sinner. 

Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that He was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God, and said, "As it indeed, it .is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the decalogue, without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with His righteousness and wrath!" Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience. Nevertheless, I beat importunately on Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted.

At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, "In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, He who through faith is righteous shall live." There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, "'He who through faith is righteous shall live." Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me. Thereupon I ran through the Scriptures from memory. I also found in other terms an analogy, as, the work of God, that is, what God does in us, the power of God, with which He makes us strong, the wisdom of God, with which He makes us wise, the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God.

And I extolled my sweetest word with a love as great as the hatred with which I had hated the word "righteousness of God." Thus that place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise. Later I read Augustine's The Spirit and the Letter, where contrary to hope I found that he, too, interpreted God's righteousness in a similar way, as the righteousness with which God clothes us when He justifies us. Although this was heretofore said imperfectly and he did not explain all things concerning imputation clearly, it nevertheless was pleasing that God's righteousness with which we are justified was taught. Armed more fully with these thoughts, I began a second time to interpret the Psalter.

Sometimes we become so accustomed to the rich truths of our heritage that we take them for granted and do not appreciate what they really mean. E.g., our Heidelberg Catechism begins with the well-known words: "What is your only comfort in life and death? That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Savior Jesus Christ . . . ." We can, I think, hardly appreciate how words of this sort thundered throughout the whole of Europe. Rome never could preach a gospel of comfort. I recall not so long ago reading The Prayers and Meditations of St. Anslem, a pious man of the eleventh century who served as Archbishop of Canterbury, one of the highest positions in the church. In all his prayers and meditations, one can find no word of comfort, no assurance of salvation, no joy in Christ. It is a book filled with heart-rending cries for mercy, with anxious pleas for pardon, with bitter denunciations of sin, with longings which are never satisfied. Never, not once, is there to be found so much as a breath of comfort. Imagine then what it meant that the Reformers came to people with the astonishing words: "We bring to you a gospel of comfort, a Word from God which will take away the ache of your soul, which will bring peace of heart, which will satisfy your deepest longings, which will change your cries of shame to songs of joyful praise."

Roman Catholic theology had no word of comfort for the saints. It had none because of its doctrine of justification. It taught a justification by works or a salvation which came to man by grace and human merit. As Schaff says, "In the Catholic system justification is a gradual process conditioned by faith and good works." Roman Catholicism confused justification with sanctification and spoke of justification as a process of becoming more and more righteous through one's faith and one's good works. This could not possibly bring peace of heart to the anxious child of God, for he knew, deep down within himself, that his own works could never accomplish anything. No wonder that Luther kept asking himself, when a monk, whether he was sufficiently hard on himself, whether God would notice his hunger and his cold, whether any good could come from beating himself. Always a hollow and empty void filled him. 

All this was made the worse by his firm conviction, in keeping with Roman Catholic thought, that the Biblical term, "the righteousness of God," meant God's fierce anger against sin because God was righteous and punished sin in His justice. 

But God led him to see, while struggling with the meaning of such passages of Scripture as Romans 1:17, that the term, "righteousness of God," referred not to that attribute of God Himself according to which He hates and punishes sin, but referred rather to a righteousness which comes from God and is freely and graciously given to the sinner for Christ's sake. It is a righteousness judicially imputed. It is a single act of God whereby God declares the sinner to be without guilt, and clothes the sinner in the righteousness of Christ. 

Not what Luther did, the Reformer suddenly saw, but what God did—that was the heart of the whole matter. 

This amazing discovery led also to an understanding of what faith is. Roman Catholic theology had interpreted faith as mere agreement on the part of the member of the church that whatever the church said is truth. The church member had nothing else to do but accept and assent to the teachings of the church. 

Luther soon saw that faith is much more. Faith is that which puts the believer in abiding union with Christ. It is exactly the opposite of works—of which Luther had had his fill. It is that God-given power whereby the believer lives in Christ, and Christ in the believer. It is a power which enables the believer to cling to Christ, lay hold on Christ's perfect sacrifice as his own, find shelter and safety in all the stormy seas of sin beneath the cross of Calvary. And because precisely this faith is the opposite of works, it too is. God's work. God makes us one with Christ; and making us one with Christ, God declares us to be righteous for Christ's sake. 

No wonder that this became, for Luther, the all controlling principle of his life, his theology, and all his reformatory work. It was that one truth which, as a crashing cannonball, smashed to pieces the imposing citadel of Rome's entire theological system. It was the one powerful attack upon all Rome's heresy which swept it away as with a whirlwind, which swept salvation once and for all out of the hands of mere man, and which restored salvation to God and His gracious work through Christ. 

And it formed the firm foundation for the great truth of comfort for God's people. If comfort is to be found in what we do, in what our hands accomplish, in our works, "we would always be in doubt, tossed to and fro without any certainty, and our poor consciences continually vexed" (Belgic Confession, Article XXIV). If comfort is to be found in what God does through Christ and in that perfect righteousness of God revealed in the cross and worked in us through faith, then truly we have a firm comfort which carries us safely through life and death into the arms of Christ in glory.


"Far Brighter even than the Sun"

This article first appeared in the October 15, 1993 (Vol.70, #2) issue of the Standard Bearer and was penned byProf. David J. Engelsma, then professor of dogmatics in the PRC Seminary and editor of the SB.


"Far Brighter even than the Sun"

It is well known that Martin Luther's great work, The Bondage of the Will, sets forth the Reformation's central doctrine of salvation by the sovereign grace of God alone. The introduction to J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston's translation of The Bondage (London: James Clarke & Co., Ltd., 1957; the quotations that follow are taken from this fine translation) calls the book "the greatest piece of theological writing that ever came from Luther's pen." It quotes the Reformation scholar E. Gordon Rupp as approving the description of The Bondage as "the finest and most powerful Soli Deo Gloria to be sung in the whole period of the Reformation." Accurately, it identifies the message of The Bondage as the heart of the theology of all the Reformers: "the sinner's entire salvation is by free and sovereign grace only." 

What is not so well known is that this grand work on the central message of the gospel also puts forward a splendid defense of Holy Scripture as the source and standard of the gospel. This defense focuses on the clarity, or perspicuity, of Scripture. Clarity is a quality of Scripture that is somewhat overlooked in the struggle of the Reformed church today to maintain a sound doctrine of Scripture. To the mind of Luther, clarity is basic to a sound doctrine of Scripture and to the functioning of Scripture as the Word of God in the church. Denial of Scripture's clarity is the destruction of the doctrine of Scripture.

The defense of Scripture's clarity is no incidental aspect of The Bondage. With this, Luther begins. It is a recurring theme in the book, under-girding the message of sovereign grace. The Bondage presents the two great truths of the Reformation, sovereign grace and the authority of Scripture, in their unity. 

The reason for Luther's consideration of the clarity of Scripture lay in the book that occasioned his writing The Bondage. This was Erasmus' defense of free will, A Diatribe or Sermon concerning Free Will. In his attack on Luther's teaching that the will of fallen man is enslaved to sin, Erasmus suggested that Scripture is not clear on the issue of the bound or free will:

If (wrote Erasmus) you turn your eyes to Scripture, both sides claim it as their own. Furthermore, our controversy is not merely over Scripture (which is somewhat deficient in clarity at present), but over the precise meaning of Scripture; and here not the numbers, learning and distinction on the one side, much less the paucity, ignorance and lack of distinction on the other, can advance either cause (p. 123).

The implication, Luther notes, is that "the matter is therefore left in doubt." 

Luther regards Erasmus' opinion that Scripture is obscure as grave error. The result of this notion in the church will be that the views of men replace the Word of God:

No more disastrous words could be spoken; for by this means ungodly men have exalted themselves above the Scriptures and done what they liked, till the Scriptures were completely trodden down and we could believe and teach nothing but maniacs' dreams. In a word, that dictum is no mere human invention; it is poison sent into the world by the inconceivable malevolent prince of all the devils himself! (p. 124)

It was exactly this doubt concerning Scripture's clarity that enabled the pope to subdue the church, and Scripture, to himself:

On the same account I have thus far hounded the Pope, in whose kingdom nothing is more commonly said or more widely accepted than this dictum: "the Scriptures are obscure and equivocal; we must seek the interpreting Spirit from the apostolic see of Rome!" (p. 124)

Expressing a conviction that would become the foundation of the Reformation, Luther asserts that the Scriptures are clear - "far brighter even than the sun":

It should be settled as fundamental, and most firmly fixed in the minds of Christians, that the Holy Scriptures are a spiritual light far brighter even than the sun, especially in what relates to salvation and all essential matters (p. 125).

The entire Scripture is clear. Scripture is clear in its totality. The whole of it is light, not darkness. The difficult passages are clarified by the other passages. 

The clarity of Scripture is twofold, internal and external. The internal clarity is the enlightening of the Holy Spirit, which gives understanding of all the teachings of the Scriptures. Every believer has this enlightening. The external clarity is the inherent perfection of Scripture itself. The Holy Book is not obscure or ambiguous. Rather, its meaning is plain (pp. 73, 74; 124, 125). 

Two important qualifications attach to the external clarity of Scripture. The first is that Scripture is clear to believers through the preaching of Scripture: "all that is in the Scripture is through the Word brought forth into the clearest light" (p. 74; my emphasis-DJE). This is intriguing. Luther personally and the Reformation generally refused to separate Scripture from the preaching of Scripture. Scripture is light, but it shines through faithful preaching, not otherwise. 

The second qualification attaching to the external clarity is that Scripture must be interpreted in its simple, natural sense. Clarity rejects, indeed abominates, the allegorizing methods of interpretation. Luther condemns Origen and Jerome for their "pestilent practice of paying no heed to the simple sense of Scripture" (p. 240; cf. pp. 191, 192). 

What proof is there that Scripture is clear? This is an urgent question especially because Erasmus had raised the argument that many men of superior ability did not understand Scripture on the issue of the bound will as Luther explained it. Does this not prove that Scripture is obscure? The proof of Scripture's clarity, says Luther, is the testimony of Scripture itself. Scripture claims to be clear. Luther cites and explainsDeuteronomy 17:8Psalm 19:8Psalm 119:105, 130Isaiah 8:20Malachi 2:7II Corinthians 3, 4; and II Peter 1:19. Luther readily acknowledges that this way of proving Scripture's clarity amounts to "arguing in a circle": One appeals to Scripture to prove that one can appeal to Scripture. But this is the "circle" of the Reformation faith that Scripture is the Word of God.

The reason why many of superior ability have not understood Scripture rightly is their own natural, sinful blindness. Indeed, Erasmus himself, the most learned scholar in Christendom, denies Scripture's clear I teaching of the bound will because he is a blind man standing in the bright rays of the "external clarity" of Scripture:

The Diatribe (of Erasmus' that is, Erasmus himself - DJE) and its beloved Sophists, standing open-eyed under the bright light of Luke's words and of clear fact, continue in blindness; such is their lack of care in reading and marking the Scriptures. And then they have to brand them "obscure and ambiguous"! (p. 247)

The church must know the clarity of Scripture for two main reasons. The first is eminently practical: only then will Christians read Scripture. What fool will bother to study and to hear preached an obscure book? By suggesting that Scripture is obscure, Erasmus "well-nigh frightened us off reading the Bible altogether- though Bible-reading is something to which Christ and the Apostles urgently exhort us" (p. 99). In Erasmus' charge that "in Scripture some things are recondite and all is not plain," Luther sees the horns and hooves of Satan:

Satan has used these unsubstantial spectres to scare men off reading the sacred text, and to destroy all sense of its value, so as to ensure that his own brand of poisonous philosophy reigns supreme in the church (p. 71).

The second reason why the church must be convinced of Scripture's clarity is that only then will the church make "assertions." Concern that the church make "assertions" is the heart of Luther's defense of the clarity of Scripture in The Bondage. By "assertions," Luther means firm confessions of all the teachings of Scripture. Included is the rejection of all errors.

By "assertion" I mean staunchly holding your ground, stating your position, confessing it, defending it and persevering in it unvanquished (p. 66).

So uncompromising is the asserting Christian that he is ready "to die for what you confess and assert" (p. 67). 

Luther takes up this matter of asserting at the outset of The Bondage because Erasmus had disparaged assertions. Erasmus found no satisfaction in assertions, preferring "an undogmatic temper to any other." Erasmus of Rotterdam, uncharacteristic Dutchman, was the compromiser, ready to give up doctrine for peace. This marked him, as far as Luther was concerned, as no genuine Christian, for "to take no pleasure in assertions is not the mark of a Christian heart; indeed, one must delight in assertions to be a Christian at all" (p. 66). Asserting is the essence of Christianity: "Take away assertions, and you take away Christianity" (p. 67). 

The true church of Christ is an asserting church. Every real Christian is an asserting Christian. Particularly, every true church and every real Christian assert the bondage of the will of the natural man and the salvation of every sinner by sovereign grace alone. 

The alternative is doubt and uncertainty about the doctrines of the Bible, that is, skepticism. This is impossible, in Luther's glorious statement, because

the Holy Spirit is no Sceptic, and the things He has written in our hearts are not doubts or opinions, but assertions - surer and more certain than sense and life itself (p. 70).

The church must assert, but she can assert only if Scripture is clear, since she asserts "what has been delivered to us from above in the Sacred Scriptures" (p. 66). 

How evident it is that Protestant churches and professing Protestant Christians at the end of the 20th century have lost the faith that Scripture is clear! 

They cannot assert! 

They cannot assert the bondage of the will. They cannot assert biblical creation. They cannot assert the cessation of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. They cannot assert the exclusion of women from the government of the church. They cannot assert the wickedness of divorce except for fornication. They cannot assert the lawfulness of sex only in the lifelong bond of marriage between a husband (male) and wife (female). 

They can only assert that there ought not be assertions in the church. 

Their synodical decisions and personal testimonies run like this: "Scripture does not make clear, and we cannot decide with certainty . . . ." 

What use, we ask, is a Scripture that is unclear on every issue? Whatever could have been the motivation of an otherwise wise God to give us more obscurity in our already sufficient darkness of uncertainty? 

But, of course, to propose obscurity as an attribute of Scripture is to open up the way of every error into the church. Pleading uncertainty and appealing to Scripture's obscurity, Desiderius Erasmus, in fact, advocated free will and opposed the gospel of salvation by the grace of God. 

The need of the hour is that churches and Christians assert. They must assert every doctrine of Scripture. They must especially assert the doctrine of the bound will. 

They must assert, but they also can and will assert. 

For the Scriptures are "a spiritual light far brighter even than the sun."

Subscribe to this RSS feed

Contact Details


  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  • Reading Sermon Library
  • Taped Sermon Library

Synodical Officers

  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Synodical Committees

  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  • Emeritus Committee
  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Classical Officers

Classis East
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Classis West
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.