Humanities 3 III. The Reformation

Humanities 3 III. The Reformation

Lecture 10 Freedom and Bondage

The Three Walls Outline The Bondage of the Will Freedom and Responsibility Friday movie pick: Luther (2003), with Joseph Fiennes

An Appeal to the Ruling Class (1520) Allusion to Erasmus in Salutation? ( Perhaps I owe God and the world another act of folly... ) An appeal to German nobility to rally around the cause of reform and to persuade Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, to break with the pope (Leo X) Fundamentally, a political document: what is the proper relation between church and state?

The Three Walls Secular authorities have no jurisdiction over the Church: the spiritual is superior to the secular No one except the pope is competent to expound scripture No one except the pope can summon a church council

Against the First Wall There is no separate religious class : all Christians belong to it Priests are merely representatives of the people ( office-bearers ) Secular rulers have an authority that is independent of the pope: princes serve God, not Rome Religious office-holders (including the pope) are not exempt from secular authority

Against the Second Wall [E]ach and all of us are priests because we all have the one faith, the one gospel, one and the same sacrament; why then should we not be entitled to taste or test, and to judge what is right or wrong in the faith? Why then should we not distinguish what accords or does not accord with the faith quite as well as an unbelieving pope?

Against the Third Wall No scriptural authority supports the claim that only the pope can convene a church council The church council that established the basis of Catholic theology, the Council of Nicea (323 AD), was convened by the emperor Constantine Thus, Charles V should be seen as having a similar authority

Statement to the Diet of Worms April 17, 1521 I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other. I am bound by the Scriptures that I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. Here I stand, I cannot do anything else. God help me. Amen.

Outcome On May 25, 1521, Charles V issues the Edict of Worms, declaring Luther an outlaw and a heretic and banning his writings. To protect him, Frederick the Wise, elector of Saxony, seizes Luther on his way back to Wittenberg and installs him in Wartburg Castle, where he begins his translation of the New Testament into German.

Summary of Luther s Teaching sola fide ( by faith alone ): we come to God by faith and not by reason; we have no ability to fathom God s omnipotence. sola scriptura ( by scripture alone ): God s will is revealed in scripture, which we understand through faith. sola gratia ( by grace alone ): no human being merits salvation. God s grace alone renders our actions meritorious, and grace is given without regard to our apparent degree of goodness ( election ).

Erasmus, Freedom of the Will Erasmus preferred to avoid theological debate over doctrine ( assertions ), emphasizing instead the model of a Christian life centered on peace and charity In 1524 he was pressured to enter the debate over freedom of the will In his book he defends free choice : the power of the human will whereby man can apply to or turn away from that which leads unto eternal salvation.

The central teaching of Scripture is clear: such are the precepts for the good life. This is the Word of God, which is close at hand, in our mouth and in our heart. (82) Erasmus believes it is unnecessary and imprudent to enter into debates of obscure theological questions. Even if there were some truth in Luther s positions, it would not be expedient to debate it publicly.

Luther, Bondage of the Will (1525) In his response Luther argues for the opposite view: with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, [man] has no free-will, but is a captive, prisoner and bondslave either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan. (97) Against Erasmus, he also stresses that certainty on such questions is essential for a Christian.

What s at issue? Pro: Freedom of the will makes us responsible for our actions, and liable to divine reward or punishment based how we employ our freedom. The guilt of sin thus falls squarely on human shoulders. Con: Freedom of the will threatens the omniscience and omnipotence of God. How can we have the freedom to act in a way that is not foreknown and predetermined by God?

Freedom and Salvation Freedom of the will is most contentious in connection with the question of salvation. Since the Fall (the result of Adams misuse of his freedom), human beings have been divided from God by sin. Salvation requires overcoming this divide, so that we may be redeemed (or justified ) and become worthy of living in God. The question is: can we accomplish this through our own efforts or not?

The Pelagian Heresy One view, Pelagianism, condemned by Augustine and the early Church, held that human beings can overcome the stain of sin and achieve salvation through their own efforts and the exercise of their free will. Against this, the orthodox position was that human beings are incapable of saving themselves. They can achieve salvation only through the grace of God, granted through the intercession of Jesus Christ.

From the Augsburg Confession: They [Lutherans] condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments of God as touching the substance of the act. For, although nature is able in a manner to do the outward work, (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and murder,) yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc.

But, the debate did not end there Later theologians still debated whether our efforts, expressed in the choices we make, can affect our chances of salvation. Erasmus says, yes: our free choices make us more or less receptive to divine grace. Luther says, no: the determination of the elect (those chosen for salvation) is a function of God s eternal will: either one is chosen for salvation or one is not, and there is nothing one can do about it.

Luther s God A Christian must begin by acknowledging the omnipotence and inscrutability of God s will. God s will determines everything: who will be saved, who will be happy, what is right and wrong. It is not our place to second guess God s commands; they are to be obeyed because God commands them (the lesson of the Fall).

Faith and Reason Luther: If His justice were such as could be adjudged just by human reckoning, it clearly would not be Divine; it would in no way differ from human justice. But inasmuch as He is the one true God, wholly incomprehensible and inaccessible to man s understanding, it is reasonable, indeed inevitable, that His justice should also be incomprehensible. (102) Given this, we cannot decide by reason what is right and wrong. We must simply obey (insofar as we have the power to do so), and accepts God s will as the standard of rightness.

Luther on Divine Justice You may be worried that it is hard to defend the mercy and equity of God in damning the undeserving, that is, ungodly persons, who, being born in ungodliness, can by no means avoid being damned, but are compelled by natural necessity to sin and perish. But here God must be reverenced and held in awe, as being most merciful to those whom He justifies and saves in their own utter unworthiness; and we must show some measure of deference to His Divine Wisdom by believing Him just when to us He seems unjust. (102)

Summing Up God is not answerable to human conceptions of justice or morality. God s command (or will) makes an action right or wrong. The actions forbidden by the Decalogue (e.g. murder, theft, adultery) are wrong because God forbids them; we cannot justify God s commands on the basis of the intrinsic wrongness of the actions themselves.