Rating: 
Summary: One more reason why Luther went down in my estimation!
Review: After already learning that Luther opposed the early Anabaptists call to the Church to return to the Sermon on the Mount, and that he supported persecution of the same Anabaptists & of the Jews- whom he hated immensely- I found out that this great paragon of the Reformation also supported a determinism not unlike that of Manichaeism. I've read an abridged version of this treatise as part of a larger collection of Luther's works. I have "no choice", you might say, but to side with the Bible: Duet: 30:19 " I call Heaven and Earth to witness against you today: I place before you Life and Death, Blessing and Curse. Choose life so that you and your children will live." In other words...the bible itself uses the language of "choice" and I will CONTINUE to use it also! Folks, the only perfect, "irrefutable" theology ever written is still the Bible. OR you believe in a different God than I do! At the same time, not believing in "free will" is no sign of Godliness, as there are plenty of godless philosophers out there who are going to hell and don't believe in it either! Conversely, John Wesley & Jacob Arminius did teach the will was in bondage and had to be enabled by grace for us to believe. (Please read "The Transforming Power of Grace" by Thomas Oden for the straight story on this!) I'm amazed at the 5-star reviews on this monstrosity of Forensic Christendom! One person says those who disagree are "Catholic" in their view of this controversy. In fact, what we call the "Arminian" view is simply what was believed by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, and most of the church fathers BEFORE the rise of Roman Catholicism, the Pelagian/Augustinian controversy, etc. What happened to the church after Augustine? We sold our birthright as peacemakers for a mass of pottage and as a result endured centuries of untold persecution, war, and hatred among Christians. And when the Reformation finally came about, was the results finally a return for Christians to the Acts 2 model of spirit-driven love, peaceable living and sharing with the least of these? No. It was more bloodshed, more persecution, more "lording it over others" in violation of Matt 20:25-28; 23:1-12. Ask any South African who remembers Apartheid what the wonderful fruits of Calvinism were for them! (Incidentally, if you doubt what I say about the pacifism of the early church read "Christian Attitudes Towards War & Peace" by Roland H. Bainton- a Lutheran historian!) Bottom line: what Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc. taught was less "Christianity" then "Christendom", and their views reflect the broad acceptance of the Christ/Caesar dichotomy that had infested the Church. It is out of this background that their views on the Sovereignty of God were formed. That speaks for itself. (Although it should be noted- and I have done so elsewhere- that the Catholic Church has argued that Augustine was misrepresented by Calvin. I think they may be right. See my review of Horton's "Putting Amazing Back Into Grace" on this website for my reference in support of this.) But anyone who wishes to know how God operates in his sovereignty & salvation, look at the Old Testament. God delivers Israel from bondage by his grace, not of their own merits. And yet- obedience was demanded. The people who bit the dust when the earth opened and swallowed them found out just how "sovereign" God is! (But I thought it was "once saved always saved!") At the same time, there were those not originally children of Abraham- Egyptians in fact, who were standing next to Jews when the Sinai covenant was given. And later on we read that Ruth- a Moabite- was part of Christ's lineage- even though Deut 23:3 plainly states that a Moabite will never enter the assembly. So one can be delivered by God and yet still disobey and be swallowed up in the bowels of the earth. Paradoxically, one can be apart form the "chosen" and enter in. That's TRUE sovereign grace, and all of it is brilliantly explained by Paul in Romans 11:17-32, which I believe he wrote to stem Calvinistic interpretations of Romans 8-9. Incidentally- isn't it quite odd that followers of the Magisterial Reformation think their doctrine is such a boon to those struggling to get away from legalism? And yet, look at the "legalism" or "lording it over others" of the Dutch Reformed in South Africa- or the Puritans in America- or Calvin in Geneva. Matt 7:15-21 comes to mind here. The pundits of Reformed tradition need not parade about as if they are the ones who have a corner on "Grace" -if they do not practice it! This is where the oft-repeated Calvinist saw falls down- the notion that only seeing salvation in the hyper deterministic sense as they do is a guarantee of fostering true Christian humility. Humility has not been seen in the oppression of South African blacks, or the persecution of Quakers & Native Americans of New England Puritanism. But if lack of humility is a concern, we would advise you with James: "Draw near to God and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you men of double mind" (Jas 4:8) At the same time, Jesus himself obliterated the dichotomy between humility and personal responsibility, giving no ground on either truth (Lk 17:7-10). I have a suggestion: since Calvinists and other Determinists harp on creeds and councils...as if they are anything compared to the Bible...let's get together and hold a council to declare Bonhoeffer the new head of the Lutheran church and give Martin Luther's mantle of greatness to that great African-American leader with almost the same name. Either of them were certainly more Biblical, as demonstrated by their fruits of love for the poor and oppressed, and by what their respective posterity has brought about. By the way, with the voluminous references to the poor and suffering throughout the Bible, why weren't these things resonating in Luther & Calvin's theology? Where is God's heart for social justice in the Magisterial Reformation? What would their teachings look like if it had reflected these things? As far as Mr. Luther and his arguments goes...I oppose his views on Predestination for the same reason I oppose him on communion, infant baptism (did you know he said "the Catholic Church has true baptism"?), the Jews, and a host of other issues. And part of his thesis stands refuted- that anyone who disagrees with him is not a true Christian- by the unfolding of history itself. Not only from the issue of humility as just mentioned, but God has poured out his Spirit among Methodists, Quakers, Mennonites Pentecostals, even Roman Catholics, so that each of these groups may say with Christ and to Luther: "Anyone not against us is for us" (Mk9:40) and with Paul: "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls" (Ro 14:4) I take these stands not because I possess the intellectual acumen to overthrow the arguments of Luther and others like him- (do you have the wherewithal to oppose Karl Barth?) but because my estimation of the Scriptures and the Spirit of God behind them compels me to disagree. More recently, thanks to the work of Sanders, Dunn, Wright & a host of others, we now know that Luther was wrong in his equation of Paul's struggle with the law with his own struggle with Catholicism. More than enough for me to kick Calvinist theology to the curb.
Rating: 
Summary: whataman
Review: although i disagree with some of his theology, i applaud the man. he may have misunderstood man's relation to God- the compatibility of man's limited free will and God's absolute sovereignty. however, in doing so, he merely sought to establish the sovereignty of God against the prevailing and disturbing trends of the church. luther's bondage to God and His word alone against the church's excesses is laudable. his palpable wit and his love for God always provide pleasurable reading. martin luther was clearly a doer, a man of integrity with a strong correlation of thought, word, and deed.
Rating:
Summary: Very Nice
Review: As always, Luther's viewpoints are well-thought-out, and although his attacks on Erasmus are very forceful, the ideas he was defending are of the utmost importance. I definitely reccomend this book to anyone interested in Reformed doctrine.
Rating:
Summary: Paradigm shifting book
Review: Aside from the Bible, I would have to say this book has had a greater affect on me than any other. Luther grabs my respect immediately. His passion and use of biblical passages are difficult to ignore, as he speaks with an authority unparalleled by modern writers. Not only is Luther interesting to read, but he speaks as one whose mind and body are saturated in the revealed word of God. Luther does not hide his submission to God, neither in his will nor in his mind. Luther speaks as one who as knowledge of the Bible and whose thoughts are constructed accordingly. Luther consciously brings his mind into obedience with God's revelation to man, and he openly admits the difficulties he has had in doing so. Yet he still submits. One would be hard pressed to ignore this man's testimony. Luther was a voice that would not go away. His boldness and courage in the face of the church and all its power is evidence enough that Luther had a vision and a drive that could only have been fueled by God. Whether or not you agree with everything Luther says, you will find yourself compelled by the passion, conviction, and boldness of one very unique man. Luther would want nothing more than to see God glorified in all things and for men to see how true, perfect, and complete the gift of salvation really is.
Rating:
Summary: Am I reading the same book as the 5 star reviews???
Review: Being raised a Protestant I was taught to admire Luther for bringing us out of the darkness of Catholicism in the Middle Ages. But reading this book has made me wonder whether he was right at all. His "response" to Erasmus' claim about the scriptures not being as clear as Luther made them to be(Erasmus basically said "how can they be totally clear if people have been debating this topic for so long") was simply to say that the scriptures are clear and that Erasmus was blinded by sin for not believing it so. In addition, Luther's treatment for Matthew 23 (Jesus weeping over Jerusalem and saying how he longed to gather them) is in the same style of argumentation. Instead of reading the plain meaning (i.e. Jesus wanting to gather them to himself and be their messiah) Luther goes on a tangent saying that we should stand in awe of a God who weeps over the people He dooms to destruction! If that isn't forcing one's theology on the text without consideration to what the Bible is actually saying, I don't know what is! Moreover, Luther is condesending and spiteful throughout the text. His absolutely venomous language is a big turn off in my opinion. If his position magnifies grace so much, why doesn't he practice it?
Rating:
Summary: Am I reading the same book as the 5 star reviews???
Review: Being raised a Protestant I was taught to admire Luther for bringing us out of the darkness of Catholicism in the Middle Ages. But reading this book has made me wonder whether he was right at all. His "response" to Erasmus' claim about the scriptures not being as clear as Luther made them to be(Erasmus basically said "how can they be totally clear if people have been debating this topic for so long") was simply to say that the scriptures are clear and that Erasmus was blinded by sin for not believing it so. In addition, Luther's treatment for Matthew 23 (Jesus weeping over Jerusalem and saying how he longed to gather them) is in the same style of argumentation. Instead of reading the plain meaning (i.e. Jesus wanting to gather them to himself and be their messiah) Luther goes on a tangent saying that we should stand in awe of a God who weeps over the people He dooms to destruction! If that isn't forcing one's theology on the text without consideration to what the Bible is actually saying, I don't know what is! Moreover, Luther is condesending and spiteful throughout the text. His absolutely venomous language is a big turn off in my opinion. If his position magnifies grace so much, why doesn't he practice it?
Rating:
Summary: Must Read
Review: Every Christian must read this work. There are too many Christians who think themselves superior to unbelievers because they have made the "right choice." Little do they realize that had it not been for God's great mercy, they would have been as worthy of God's righteous wrath as anyone else!
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant! Luther continually calls Erasmus back to the Word
Review: I believe that anyone who considers themselves a Protestant or is a member of any Protestant church that developed from the Reformation should read this book. This book is known as "the Reformation Manifesto" because it addresses what Luther considered the main disagreement that people of his belief had with the Catholic Church. He called the papacy, indulgences, and other issues such as those, mere trifles. When you read this book, and understand how critical the debate on "free will" vs. total grace is, then you understand why Luther could then say that the other, more dramatic, better-known issues that Reformers took with the Catholic Church were merely "trifles". Those disputes simply stem from the difference in belief that true Protestants have with the Catholic Church when it comes to works and salvation. I only wish our society wasn't so scared to speak as openly and passionately as Luther does here about this issue (and many others) among Christian denominations. Every Protestant should read this book to know what they are truly protesting. And obviously I encourage any other believer or non-believer to read it as well.
Rating:
Summary: Liberty in Slavery!!!
Review: I have viewed a few dissenting voices in some of the reviews of the this work. It amazed me to see how many yearn to defend this mythical beast called "free-will". I too was onced bitten by this monster and wallowed in it's lairs of Arminianism and Pelagianism. However, the Lord, in all of His Divine Grace and Wisdom pulled me out kicking and screaming. How arrogant I was to believe that I was anything and now I rejoice and praise with Nebuchadneezer (Daniel 4:34-36). I have to rejoice in my Liberty in my slavery. Yet, as I mentioned before, this wasn't always so. Oh, how I hated and despised those of the reformed view and ignorantly so! How I loved to sing Amazing Grace and Rock of Ages and despised the Theology of those who wrote it. How I despised the Doctrine of Predestination and yet, never realized that this is the very Doctrine that inspired those like the Puritans and Pilgrims to begin building this great Nation. No, I loved my "free-will". When I was being abused as a child, I cried, "free-will!", when I was homeless, I cried, "free-will"! When I sat behind bars in 30x30 ft cage, I cried "free-will"! When I got sick, I cried, "free-will"! Yet, when I realized that it took the selfless sacrifice of Christ to remove my sin, I had to ask, why couldn't I have just used my "free-will"? At this point I started to notice things, scary things, and the Spirit took this BLINDED sinner who believed he had a "free-will" and began to open his eyes. I saw that nobody could tell me at what point I obtained this "free-will". I realized that as a infant, it took the will of the parent to sustain me. Place an infant in field all by himself and he dies. Why? He has no will to sutain his life. Just like an infant in Christ,maybe? Then, someone suggested that you obtained it when you reached the age of 12 (age of accountability). Of course, when I pointed out that infants less than 12 were judged and killed for thier wickedness in the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah and of course the Amalekite infants (1 Sam 15:1-3), I received a blank stare. When I pointed out that a male child was cast out of the covenant for not being circusmied, I asked, why the child and not the parents? Again, blank. I have recieved many blank stares to many questions regarding Salvation and "free-will" over the past decade. After that,I moved onto creation, the scriptures teach that God created all things and I believe it true. If I believed that God created all things, then time is His creation. If time (part of ALL things)is made up of past, present and future. Then, where does my "free-will" fit into the scheme of time? This has provoked alot of head scratching in numerous discussions. Nobody I have met in the realm of Orthodox Christianity has came up with a non-contradictive answer to that one. I then moved onto the question of Salvation. Well, I won't labor you with the questions I found there. All I can say is that the rest of you can enjoy being the "Free-willer" in Christ and I'll happily remain a slave. By the way, did anyone ever notice Christ never asked Paul to become a Christian? Come to think of it, Christ never asked any of his Apostle or offered them Salvation. Huh? By the way can anyone show me an example of a "sinners prayer"? I thought the Lord's ears were closed to the unrighteous?! Know what I've been thinking about lately? Did you ever wonder why the Lord spoke in Parables? You Armenian and Pelagian types may want to cover your eyes: Mark 4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12. That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. I now ask. Why didn't he want them to percieve or understand or better yet, be converted and thier sins forgiven? HMMMMMM? Why did he chose those around him and not the others to reveal the meanings of the parables? It sure puts Romans 9 in perspective, doesn't it? Hard to imagine, that the Lord used Bondage of the Will to get the old mental Hampsters in me to start turning the old thought wheels! Well, goodbye for now. I have to get back to some free-will experiments I have been working on like becoming totally free of all Federal, State, local and natural laws or flapping my arms and flying or head-butting an oncoming Semi-Truck (I'll let you know how this one works out) and there's the oldie but a goodie, trying to catch a fart with my hands and painting it red! (Here's a little free-will news update (3-14-04). I recently had a young man rob me at gunpoint. As he pressed the gun in my face, a little part of me actaully wondered, where is my "free-will" at this point.What is so free about a will when the options are do or die? Since then, I have meditated even further upon the subject. I stand even more convinced of the selfish attitude that drives people to defend this concept of "free-will". How can they defend an attribute that not even God himself can claim! For the scriptures teach that not even God can do anything contrary to his greatest attribute,HIS HOLINESS! So, if God's decisions are regulated by His own Holiness, how much more are we regulated by our sinfulness? Remember Paul, Romans 7:18 For I know that in me (that is in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil I would not, that I do. Paul then goes on to refer to himself as a wretched man and then asks who would deliver him "from the body of this death." The answer is obvious to those who think like Paul, Luther and Calvin, the answer is Christ ALONE! Think about it! Because the next person with a gun in his face could be you, at that point there will be no debate! If my will had been truly free, I would have never CHOSEN this experience! A divine once stated, "on the deathbed, there are very few free-willers!" Death is inevitable and many will scream "free-will" right into the dirt! One more thing, if you really believe in this "free-will" myth and you are Christian. Try never sinning again! Go ahead! Try it! READ THIS BOOK!!!!!! ) Soli Deo Gloria!
Nikki
Rating: 
Summary: ok
Review: I'm giving this book 3 stars, mostly because of the historical importance of this book. Protestantism has had a strong sway on the american religious platform throughout its history; and the most famous of the reformers is (in my estimation at least) Luther, the one who "craked" Eramus' egg. Remarking upon the discourse with Eramus, Luther remarked that he was responding an issue which was the *heart and soul* (or *foundation*) of his theology. So if you want to understand protestant theology, and the developments made through history; this is a good starting point for understanding the origins of a movement which effects are still directly felt today. As to the actual argumentation Luther put forth in this book, I agreed with much of what he wrote at first. However sinse then, I have become unconvinced and find his arguments unsound/unvalid, largely because of Harry J. McSorley's *Luther: Right or Wrong? An Ecumenical-Theological Study,* which is an examination of Luther's subjects dealt with in this book. I would suggest those who enjoyed Luther's book (found the argumentation to be convincing as well), to also check out McSorley's book.
| 
