Rating: 
Summary: Still a Crippling Indictment of 'Free Will'
Review: This treatise by Martin Luther laid down in unmistakeable terms a clear line between the Reformers and Rome that has still not been resolved. And while modern readers may be taken aback by the overly polemical tone of Luther, this book nonetheless constitutes the most definitive Reformation era writing on the issue of free will.Just as the debate between Augustine and Pelagius represented a dividing line that distinguished Christianity from non-Christianity, so this debate between Luther and Erasmus demonstrated just how close the Roman Catholic Church was (and is) to adopting the basic premises of Pelagianism that it had previously and rightly condemned. There is little doubt that Luther's heated passion about the need for reform in the Roman Catholic Church stemmed from the belief that the church was far flung on basic issues of doctrine, free will being one of the biggest. As is described in the introduction to this book, it is clear that when Erasmus wrote his 'Diatribe' which precipitated this book-length response from Luther, he was writing as a person who was not particularly passionate about the issue and it showed in his writing. Erasmus was uncharacteristically careless in his Diatribe, and Luther makes him pay for it painfully in this book. Repeatedly citing Erasmus's contention/concession that the 'probable' correct view on the human will is that it can do no good, Luther proceeds to systematically dismantle the rest of Erasmus's treatise which contradicts that concession. Basically, Erasmus, like much of present day Arminianism, tried to have it both ways. Unable to deal with the many texts in Scripture describing the sinful state of humanity, they attempt to assert that while man is thoroughly sinful, he really isn't thoroughly sinful and has a free will that defies his sinful nature. It is this basic extrabiblical imperative of Erasmus that Luther destroys here. He eloquently demonstrates that one cannot have it both ways, and that the repeated plain teaching of Scripture militates against the free will imperatives that Erasmus forces onto the text. In particular, Luther is masterful in dealing with the exhortation commands in Scripture and demonstrating that such commands are not indicative of man's ability, but of God's holiness and man's obligation to that holiness - which should clearly lead man to fall at the mercy God's grace once it's clear that his ability cannot satisfy his obligation to God. One can also get the basics of Luther's view on the law as well. The blueprint of the traditional Lutheran understanding of an antithetical relationship between law and grace can be seen in several places in Luther's book here. Also, it is quite ironic that in certain places in this book, Luther appears to strongly endorse what is known as 'double predestination', which the modern Lutheran church emphatically rejects. While Luther's critique of the Diatribe is outstanding, the last chapter of this book, which summarizes Luther's own view on free will is perhaps the best part of the book. Here, he does outstanding exegesis on Romans 3 and 4, in addition to selected texts from John that have been the lynchpin of the non-Arminian Protestant position concerning free will and human ability. While I don't think the reader can consider Luther to be the final voice on this issue since the free will debate has evolved and become more nuanced since the writing of this book, it is nonetheless a riveting starting point to studying what the Reformers thought about this issue and to get to the origins of the free will debate. Erasmus never recovered from the beating he took in this book. Luther was passionate about this issue, and it shows in his writing style and relentless engagement of the issue. While one could do without Luther's polemics, his passion should be a good object lesson for those in the church today who attempt to minimize or paper over critical doctrinal disagreements. To do so is to fundamentally betray the spirit of the Reformation that we draw our spiritual heritage from.
Rating:
Summary: Still a Crippling Indictment of 'Free Will'
Review: This treatise by Martin Luther laid down in unmistakeable terms a clear line between the Reformers and Rome that has still not been resolved. And while modern readers may be taken aback by the overly polemical tone of Luther, this book nonetheless constitutes the most definitive Reformation era writing on the issue of free will. Just as the debate between Augustine and Pelagius represented a dividing line that distinguished Christianity from non-Christianity, so this debate between Luther and Erasmus demonstrated just how close the Roman Catholic Church was (and is) to adopting the basic premises of Pelagianism that it had previously and rightly condemned. There is little doubt that Luther's heated passion about the need for reform in the Roman Catholic Church stemmed from the belief that the church was far flung on basic issues of doctrine, free will being one of the biggest. As is described in the introduction to this book, it is clear that when Erasmus wrote his 'Diatribe' which precipitated this book-length response from Luther, he was writing as a person who was not particularly passionate about the issue and it showed in his writing. Erasmus was uncharacteristically careless in his Diatribe, and Luther makes him pay for it painfully in this book. Repeatedly citing Erasmus's contention/concession that the 'probable' correct view on the human will is that it can do no good, Luther proceeds to systematically dismantle the rest of Erasmus's treatise which contradicts that concession. Basically, Erasmus, like much of present day Arminianism, tried to have it both ways. Unable to deal with the many texts in Scripture describing the sinful state of humanity, they attempt to assert that while man is thoroughly sinful, he really isn't thoroughly sinful and has a free will that defies his sinful nature. It is this basic extrabiblical imperative of Erasmus that Luther destroys here. He eloquently demonstrates that one cannot have it both ways, and that the repeated plain teaching of Scripture militates against the free will imperatives that Erasmus forces onto the text. In particular, Luther is masterful in dealing with the exhortation commands in Scripture and demonstrating that such commands are not indicative of man's ability, but of God's holiness and man's obligation to that holiness - which should clearly lead man to fall at the mercy God's grace once it's clear that his ability cannot satisfy his obligation to God. One can also get the basics of Luther's view on the law as well. The blueprint of the traditional Lutheran understanding of an antithetical relationship between law and grace can be seen in several places in Luther's book here. Also, it is quite ironic that in certain places in this book, Luther appears to strongly endorse what is known as 'double predestination', which the modern Lutheran church emphatically rejects. While Luther's critique of the Diatribe is outstanding, the last chapter of this book, which summarizes Luther's own view on free will is perhaps the best part of the book. Here, he does outstanding exegesis on Romans 3 and 4, in addition to selected texts from John that have been the lynchpin of the non-Arminian Protestant position concerning free will and human ability. While I don't think the reader can consider Luther to be the final voice on this issue since the free will debate has evolved and become more nuanced since the writing of this book, it is nonetheless a riveting starting point to studying what the Reformers thought about this issue and to get to the origins of the free will debate. Erasmus never recovered from the beating he took in this book. Luther was passionate about this issue, and it shows in his writing style and relentless engagement of the issue. While one could do without Luther's polemics, his passion should be a good object lesson for those in the church today who attempt to minimize or paper over critical doctrinal disagreements. To do so is to fundamentally betray the spirit of the Reformation that we draw our spiritual heritage from.
Rating:
Summary: A Wonderful book to the Modern Luteran
Review: Today the most of the luterans are free will belivers and are ecumenical with Rome(like in the ecumenical declaration of justification), this book destruct this fragile thinking, you will be back to the born of luteran mind, and discover that lutero is with calvino on the bondage of will, and have another gift : the translator is Dr.J.I Packer, this make a trustworthy translation. You will didn't regret.
Rating: 
Summary: Luther on the Jews
Review: Was Luther of the Spirit of Christ? You decicde! Medieval Sourcebook:
Martin Luther (1483-1546):
The Jews and Their Lies, excerpts (1543) He did not call them Abraham's children, but a "brood of vipers" [Matt. 3:7]. Oh, that was too insulting for the noble blood and race of Israel, and they declared, "He has a demon' [Matt 11:18]. Our Lord also calls them a "brood of vipers"; furthermore in John 8 [:39,44] he states: "If you were Abraham's children ye would do what Abraham did.... You are of your father the devil. It was intolerable to them to hear that they were not Abraham's but the devil's children, nor can they bear to hear this today. *** Therefore the blind Jews are truly stupid fools... *** Now just behold these miserable, blind, and senseless people. ***
Learn from this, dear Christian, what you are doing if you permit the blind Jews to mislead you. Then the saying will truly apply, "When a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into the pit" [cf. Luke 6:39]. You cannot learn anything from them except how to misunderstand the divine commandments... *** Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them. *** Moreover, they are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury. Thus they live from day to day, together with wife and child, by theft and robbery, as arch-thieves and robbers, in the most impenitent security. *** However, they have not acquired a perfect mastery of the art of lying; they lie so clumsily and ineptly that anyone who is just a little observant can easily detect it. But for us Christians they stand as a terrifying example of God's wrath. *** If I had to refute all the other articles of the Jewish faith, I should be obliged to write against them as much and for as long a time as they have used for inventing their lies-- that is, longer than two thousand years. *** ...Christ and his word can hardly be recognized because of the great vermin of human ordinances. However, let this suffice for the time being on their lies against doctrine or faith. *** Did I not tell you earlier that a Jew is such a noble, precious jewel that God and all the angels dance when he farts? ***
Alas, it cannot be anything but the terrible wrath of God which permits anyone to sink into such abysmal, devilish, hellish, insane baseness, envy, and arrogance. If I were to avenge myself on the devil himself I should be unable to wish him such evil and misfortune as God's wrath inflicts on the Jews, compelling them to lie and to blaspheme so monstrously, in violation of their own conscience. Anyway, they have their reward for constantly giving God the lie. *** No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants. *** ...but then eject them forever from this country. For, as we have heard, God's anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them! ***
brief, dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule-- if my counsel does not please your, find better advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews, lest we become guilty sharers before God in the lies, blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, this dear mother, all hristians, all authority, and ourselves. Do not grant them protection, safe-conduct, or communion with us.... .With this faithful counsel and warning I wish to cleanse and exonerate my
conscience. *** However, we must avoid confirming them in their wanton lying, slandering, cursing, and defaming. Nor dare we make ourselves partners in their devilish ranting and raving by shielding and protecting them, by giving them food, drink, and shelter, or by other neighborly First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, (!) so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly - and I myself was unaware of it - will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know. Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.
Rating:
Summary: How the Reformation was LOST.
Review: We've always heard great things about those "radicals" of the 16th century that began the movement known as the "Reformation". Wasn't that where the Catholic church got told to shove it, and we all got the rights to read our Bibles for ourselves, go to church wherever we please and not have to have a mediator to confess our sins to? Well, not quite. Seems as if a certain belief known as "determinism", wherein God has already chosen who goes to heaven & who goes to hell, tended to permeate the minds of this "Reformation's" most well-known thinkers. To talk to today's' followers of that doctrine, you'd never know the Reformation was ever about our personal conscience or direct relationship with God. These modern-day zealot's wish to run anyone out of the church, or brand them as not "evangelical" if we disagree with them even the slightest regarding predestination & free-will. Why don't they just sent up an alternate "Pope" who can enforce their doctrines & get rid of the dissenters & get it over with? Actually, that's sort of what Luther & Calvin did. A certain group of those who believed in following Christ, known as "Anabaptists" (later known as Mennonites), tended to object to the fact that even though we had broken away from the church, there was still the same communion, infant baptism & church/state footsy being played as before. They rose up & provided an alternate body for those who believed Christ was the only foundation (I Cor. 3:11)- as opposed to Pauline justification, which was Luther's foundation. Luther & Calvin tried to crush this movement, which was what the Reformation SHOULD have been about. They failed. We're still here. To be fair to Luther, he would have stood closer to today's Arminians than most hardcore Calvinists. His legacy rejects "double-predestination" and even those closer to him on election & depravity believe a Christian can lose his/her salvation. That was, by the way what Luther believed- that a Christian would be lost if one ever stopped trusting in the grace of God for salvation & started trusting themselves- that's a limited "conditional security", but it is conditional nonetheless. And yet, many would deride those in the "Arminian" camp for being at least as realistic about this as Luther. Isn't it interesting...between those two groups (Lutheran & Reformed) which one's posterity overal committed the WORST inhuman crimes against humanity in history? The one with the stiffer view on determinism! Coincidence? Find out the truth by reading some alternate histories of the Reformation. Look for books on Anabaptist & Mennonites by Cornelius Dyck. Look for books by Carl Bangs on Arminianism. Look for the book "Luther: The Christian Between God and Death" by Richard Marius, & Harry J. McSorely's rebuttal of "Bondage of the Will" entitled "Luther Right or Wrong?" Get Thomas Oden's "Transforming Power of Grace" for the history of some things R.C. Sproul doesn't WANT you to know about. Get informed, and resist the current attempt to roll back the freedoms we gained in the Reformation by making us knuckle under to their teachings on determinism. "On Christ the Solid Rock we stand...all other ground is sinking sand."
Rating:
Summary: Luther really was a Calvinist
Review: Wow. I first heard of this book mentioned by R. C. Sproul shortly after I read his tome, Classical Apologetics. (Sproul, Gerstner, Lindsley, Zondervan, 1984) which changed my life forever. God blessed Luther with a find discriminating mind, and while Erasmus was no fool, he was no theologian either. The book is one sided. Luther takes each one of the (corrupted) conventional wisdoms of the Church (at least as Erasmus saw them) and turns it on it's head; how far had mother church come from the days of Augustine, the errors in logic and reason so destructive by the time Luther came on the scene. Luther dispatches the arguments with flourish, and I began to relish each upheaval as I, who had been incorrectly taught over the years, finally found my way. When Luther explains that "free will" is in fact an oxymoron (that is, that will cannot be free), I finally understood the true meaning of Grace - and Calvin's TULIP model. It is a disturbing concept - that we are completely powerless - but one that can not be rationally attacked. With Luther's book to guide you, you can dispatch that argument today as quickly as he did 500 years ago. I would highly recommend this book to anyone, but especially to students of church history and those not yet converted to a Reformed faith.
Rating:
Summary: Righteoussness of God
Review: You may hear the term "self-rightouesness" passed around, but have you ever thought of it? Generally it is used to someone that thinks themselves more rightouess than others. To really understand this term, we must look at the opposite: The Righteousness of God. Now, we all know that God is absolutly righteouss. But, what about believer's in His Son? How can one hope to be righteouss when God has told us that all our "rightouess deeds" are as dirty rags? Is all hope lost? No! All hope is not lost! The true rightouessness bestowed upon man comes by faith ("The righteouss man shall live by faith") - faith in the resurrection of Christ Jesus (our justification to righeousness) - given to those that believe in Jesus by God, the Father. Luther goes to great lengths in this book to explain that we, ourselves, are utterly powerless and that only God has the power ("for thine is the Power, ...") to save us. Our salvation and hope rests solely in Him and not ourselves. This book is a wonderful read for all those seeking more on this topic from someone who has "gone through the mill".
| 
