Luther's Fight for Recovering the Gospel

At the heart of everything Martin Luther (1483-1546) did as a reformer, it was fighting for the recovery of the Gospel. For Luther, this is what the Protestant Reformation was all about. Despite all the abuses and corruption which the Catholic Church was riddled with during the 16th century, Luther's ultimate battle with Rome was theological. Roman Catholicism had sabotaged the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Luther therefore made it his lifelong mission to recover the Gospel which Catholicism had buried underneath her man-made traditions and her system of a works-righteousness salvation.

This recovery effort was brought forth in several ways: first and foremost, it was by Luther's translation of the Bible in the German language. The New Testament was completed in 1522 and the Old Testament was brought forth ten years later in 1532. This one acheivement sealed the Reformation for Germany by placing God's Word in the hands of the common people to read in their own language. And of course by giving the people a vernacular Bible, no one in Germany would be barred from reading the Gospel for themselves.

Secondly, Luther's fight to recover the Gospel took shape in his influence as a Bible professor, pastor, and mentor for the next generation. This can be seen in the production of Luther's Small Catechism (1529) which would explain the theology of the Bible and Gospel for children. And also there was the enormous affect Luther had on his university students by what would be called his "Table Talk." These were informal discussions and exhortations Luther would give his students and other guests who would gather around the dinner table in Luther's home. Through these "talks" Luther took great advantage to unpack the Gospel and shepherd the impressionable and hungry hearts who sat at his table.

Thirdly, Luther's fight to recover the Gospel certainly took its greatest shape in the form of preaching. The act of preaching was central to the Reformation since the Reformation gave centrality to the sermon. As Roland Bainton said of Luther: "The pulpit was higher than the altar, for Luther held that salvation is through the Word and without the Word the elements are devoid of sacramental quality, but the Word is sterile unless it is spoken." And for Luther, he took this conviction to heart. From the years 1522 to his death in 1546, Luther preached some 6,000 sermons. He believed firmly that "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God" (Rom.10:17).

Finally, next to preaching the Gospel, Luther also gave his labors to writing and publishing books that would work to spread the Gospel as well. And without question, this is where Luther's Gospel recovery efforts would have their longest lasting effects. For once Luther's physical voice was silenced in 1546, his written voice would keep fighting to reestablish the Gospel for future generations. But of everything Luther penned for this purpose, there would be no book more prized and revered for recovering the Gospel, than Luther's forceful, theological reply to Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) in 1525.

Originally titled in Latin as De Servo Arbitrio (which translated means "On the Enslaved Will") - we have come to know this book by its more popular title, The Bondage of the Will. Luther himself regarded this book as the only book of two that he wished to be preserved. The other book for preservation was The Small Catechism. But outside of these two books, Luther said you could burn everything else he wrote.

So by the mere fact that Luther would esteem The Bondage of the Will as holding that much importance in comparison to the rest of his writings (which fill 55 volumes in the English edition and 127 in German) - it would serve us well to know what this book was about and why it was written. Because in truth, The Bondage of the Will actually crystallizes Luther's fight for recovering the Gospel in written form with greater clarity than anything he ever wrote. Regarding its place of importance among all the books written by the Protestant Reformers, B.B. Warfield (1851-1921) called The Bondage of the Will "the manifesto of the Reformation." He then went on to say:

"It is the embodiment of Luther's reformation conceptions, the nearest to a systematic statement of them he ever made. It is the first exposition of the fundamental ideas of the Reformation in comprehensive form."

Now as already mentioned, The Bondage of the Will was a personal reply that Luther had made to the famed Dutch humanist, Desiderius Erasmus. At that time in European history, there was no one who could rival Erasmus in reading and writing the classical tongues. His greatest gift to that age (and even to the church) was his reproduction of the Greek New Testament. Luther himself felt great indebtedness to Erasmus for this publication. And in addition to this work as a scholar, Erasmus also sought to reform the Catholic church. He was repulsed at the abuses and corruption he witnessed in every part of Medieval Catholicism.

But the vision of reform for Erasmus was poles apart from Luther. Erasmus was not a theologian. In fact, he detested theology. For him, a reformation in the Catholic church was a Christianity without Christ. It was nothing more than "a bald moralism", which said: "Be good and all will be well with you." Erasmus therefore saw nothing wrong with the doctrine of Catholicism. He applauded its high and impossible system of works-righteousness salvation.

Luther however, standing firmly against Rome's doctrine of salvation, was also at odds with Erasmus. But these two men had not drawn swords over this issue until 1524. After must pressure from popes and princes, Erasmus reluctantly wrote his first and only attack against Luther. It was a small book he simply entitled, A Discussion Concerning Free-Will. Surprisingly, despite all the subjects he could have chosen to rebut Luther on, Erasmus took the heart of Luther's doctrine as the battle-ground.

For Luther though, he could not have been more pleased. In his reply to Erasmus (which came a year later), he actually thanked him for "attacking the real thing...the essential issue." And that "essential issue" was the nature of salvation as it related to human freedom. There was no subject more important for Luther than this. As far as he was concerned this matter was the centerpiece of the Reformation because it struck at the heart of the Gospel. Luther's reply therefore to Erasmus would be nothing less than a strong, thorough, dogmatic exposition regarding the biblical doctrine of salvation. What Luther would labor to do with all zeal, was to defend "the absolute exclusion of works from salvation, and the casting of the soul wholly upon the grace of God."

You see, for Erasmus, his idea of salvation was nothing more than a regurgitation of both Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian doctrine. While Erasmus strongly maintained that he believed salvation was by God's grace yet he would not concede it was by grace alone. Man must play some part and make some contribution to salvation, however small it may be. And for Erasmus, man's contribution was in his freedom to make the final decision as to whether God would save him or not. In other words, though man was a sinner yet his sinfulness did not impair his ability to apply himself to those things which would lead to salvation. In short, God may provide salvation but it was man's "free will" that makes it happen.

Luther was neither impressed nor convinced by the eloquence of Erasmus' words. In fact, Luther compared Erasmus' book to that of using gold and silver plates to carry feces! Luther's point was that the Erasmian gospel of Free Will was worthless and abominating, since it called no man to see his total helplessness as a sinner to merit salvation; and in turn, would not point men to the sole efficiency of God's grace to save. For Luther, nothing could be worse for sinners to hear than a message like this.

Moreover, Luther called Erasmus' "free will" nothing but a "pure fiction." The only thing man is free to do is "build houses, milk cows" and sin. But left to himself, Luther contended, no sinner would ever strive after God since they are completely ignorant of Him, paying Him no regard whatsoever, bound up in a corrupt sinful nature. Furthermore, in our sinfulness, Luther maintained we would not even know we're sinners unless the Spirit of God convicted us of our sin. So rather than celebrating human freedom like Erasmus, Luther declared that man's freedom as a sinner only reveals his desperation and need to be saved. Therefore, since man in his sin has no power in himself to do any good that would merit salvation, then he must be exclusively dependent on God's grace alone in Christ alone if he would be truly saved.

Articulating this truth to Erasmus (which is the Gospel in a nutshell), Luther essentially gave his greatest fight for recovering the Gospel. For this was not some academic debate between two scholars. This was a battle for preserving and propagating the only message that will redeem sinful man. In fact, even throughout Luther's reply to Erasmus, he made personal evangelistic appeals to the humanist scholar. Luther wasn't trying to win an argument he was seeking to unpack with the greatest clarity the only way sinners can be saved - and Erasmus unwittingly gave Luther the platform upon which to do so. Some years after Luther wrote The Bondage of the Will, he recalled in one of his many "Table Talks" what was at the core of the controversy, which he declared would always be the stand he would take:

"Free will brought us sin and death...Every part of us suffers corruption. So my position is this. Anyone who thinks that by free will he can do anything says 'no' to Christ. I have always taken this position in my writings, especially against Erasmus, one of the world's most learned scholars. I stand resolutely by my thesis because I know it is true. I will stand by it even if all the world opposes it. Divine truth stands."

Lessons from Luther on the Authority of God's Word

April 18, 1521 would seem like an ordinary day for probably most people living in medieval Europe. However, for a German monk named Martin Luther (1483-1546), this one spring day was deeply significant beyond anything even he could have imagined. For on this day, Luther would face the most powerful political and religious forces in all of Europe. The reason for this encounter was that Luther had "rocked the boat". Of course, he did more than merely rock the boat - he overturned it and was calling for its destruction.

The "boat" was a thousand years of tradition in the Romans Catholic Church which had literally buried the gospel and gave only lip service to the authority of God's Word. Luther was calling the Catholic church to repent of this apostasy and return to the Bible as the final authority for everything they must believe and practice. The Catholic church however was not listening to Luther's appeal. Instead, they condemned him and his writings and demanded that he recant of his so-called "heresies".

Thus on April 18, 1521 in Worms, Germany, Martin Luther stood before the annual congress of the German nation (called a "Diet"), and was ordered to repudiate all his writings. He had already spent twenty-four hours thinking over this demand, at his own request. But now the moment of truth had arrived. Luther was ready to answer. His response would mark the greatest turning point in the Protestant Reformation up to that time. The heart of his answer was this:

"For I do not trust either in the pope or in the councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradict themselves, I am bound to the Scriptures...and my conscience is captive to the Word of God...I cannot do otherwise, here I stand. May God help me, Amen."

When I ponder these words of Luther at the Diet of Worms, I cannot help but to see in them some timely and needed lessons for us today as the Church of Jesus Christ.

First, we must treasure the truth of God's Word over the traditions of men. No matter how sacred or sentimental our traditions may be - what matters above all, is that everything we believe and practice as the church comes under the authority of God's Word. Our doctrine, worship, preaching, evangelism and missions, and all our methodology for ministry must conform to Scripture if we are going to be faithful in glorifying God (Colossians 2:9; II Timothy 3:16,17; cf. I Corinthians 10:31).

Secondly, we must be a bibliocentric people rather than an impressionistic people. This means that we are not led by our impressions or feelings to determine God's will - but we are led by God's Word alone in the assurance of what His will is for us as individuals and the church as a whole. In short, God's Word is sufficient to teach us all that is necessary for faith and practice (see Psalm 1:1-2; 119:105; II Timothy 3:16). Thus, we are "bound to the Scriptures", as Luther said, to guide, direct, and determine the very course of our lives.

Finally, it is only God's Word which has the authority to bind our conscience. Whose standard has the right to judge our character, conduct, and creed? There is only one standard that can excercise that right in truth with no contradictions: it is God's Word alone (see I Corinthians 4:6). Man, no matter his position in life, does not have the authority in himself to impose his personal judgments on our conscience. But by the authority of God's Word, judgments can be made in truth and thus be conscience-binding. Hence, Martin Luther found his place to stand with a clear conscience: it was on the Bible alone. But what about us? Is this where we stand - on the Bible alone?

The Real Problem with Arminianism

In their "Historical and Theological Introduction" to a modern edition of Martin Luther's The Bondage of the Will, J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston get to the heart of the problem with Arminian thinking about salvation. What they maintain in effect, is that those who understand salvation through the lenses of Arminianism posture man as the "first cause" of salvation. This is specifically seen in the Arminian idea regarding the origin of "faith". Consider the following observations:

What is the source and status of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received, or is it a condition of justification which is left to man to fulfill? Is it a part of God's gift of salvation, or is it man's own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who say the latter (as the Arminians later did) thereby deny man's utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all.

It is no wonder, then, that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being in principle a return to Rome (because in effect it turned faith into a meritorious work) and a betrayal of the Reformation (because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the Reformers' thought). Arminianism was, indeed, in Reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favor of New Testament Judaism; for to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is an un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other.

Now one must ask after reading such a strong denunciation like this: "Are we to conclude that Arminians are not Christians?" My first answer would be "no" - however, this does not mean that there are no "un-Christian" elements in Arminianism. While Arminians will affirm that salvation is by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ, they still want to assert that man has the ability to exercise the instrumental cause of faith without first being regenerated. In other words, for the Arminian, to be "born again" is not a true neceesity (see John 1:13; 3:1-8). To hold this position is essentially at large, a denial that salvation is by grace ALONE. It denies the very clear teaching of Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works" (emphasis mine). Faith is God's gift to the sinner not the sinner's gift to God.

But for the Arminian, the faith to be exercised in Christ, is their own contribution to the work of salvation. Hence, by this way of thinking, they have "in effect" added to the merits of Christ and have thus gutted the power and sovereignty of God's grace in saving sinners. It is no wonder that Packer and Johnston denounce Arminianism as a "return to Rome" (i.e., Roman Catholicism); because it turns "faith" into a meritorious work of the sinner. This is the real problem with Arminianism.