The Will and Power of Man in Sanctification

In this next, and final installment on the will, we move on to the will and the powers of man in the context of sanctification. Here we can even simplify the issue by simply answering the question: "What is the agency of the Holy Spirit, and what is the agency of man in sanctification?"

First we should point out the continual refrain, throughout the Confessions, of the inability of man's own will and powers, without the presence of the Holy Spirit, to fulfill the law:

The Augsburg Confession, Article XVIII, Of Free Will, reads: "1] Of Free Will they teach that man's will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work 2] things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man 3] receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2, 14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received 4] through the Word... They 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, 9] (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."

The Apology, Article IV, Of Justification, reads:
"Content with [civil righteousness], they think that they satisfy the Law of God. In the mean time they do not see the First Table which commands that we love God, that we declare as certain that God is angry with sin, that we truly fear God, that we declare as certain that God hears prayer. But the human heart without the Holy Ghost either in security despises God's judgment, or in punishment flees from, and 35] hates, God when He judges. Therefore it does not obey the First Table. Since, therefore, contempt of God, and doubt concerning the Word of God, and concerning the threats and promises, inhere in human nature, men truly sin, even when, without the Holy Ghost, they do virtuous works, because they do them with a wicked heart, according to Rom. 14, 23: Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. For such persons perform their works with contempt of God, just as Epicurus does not believe that God cares for him, or that he is regarded or heard by God. This contempt vitiates works seemingly virtuous, because God judges the heart."

The Apology, Article IV, Of Love and the Fulfilling of the Law, reads:
"These and similar sentences testify that the Law ought to be begun in us, and be kept by us more and more [that we are to keep the Law when we have been justified by faith, and thus increase more and more in the Spirit]. Moreover, we speak not of ceremonies, but of that Law which gives commandment concerning the movements of the heart, namely, the Decalog. 4] Because, indeed, faith brings the Holy Ghost, and produces in hearts a new life, it is necessary that it should produce spiritual movements in hearts. And what these movements are, the prophet, Jer. 31, 33 shows, when he says: I will put My Law into their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. Therefore, when we have been justified by faith and regenerated, we begin to fear and love God, to pray to Him, to expect from Him aid, to give thanks and praise Him, and to obey Him in afflictions. We begin also to love our neighbors, because our hearts have spiritual and holy movements [there is now, through the Spirit of Christ a new heart, mind, and spirit within]. 5] These things cannot occur until we have been justified by faith, and, regenerated, we receive the Holy Ghost: first, because the Law cannot 6] be kept without [the knowledge of] Christ; and likewise the Law cannot be kept without the Holy Ghost."

The refrain of these citations is: "without the Holy Ghost, without the Holy Ghost, etc." This phrase is to be found throughout the Confessions. It is usually written against the Romanists who claimed that civil righteousness, that is, the mere external action in accordance with the law, is considered true righteousness in the eyes of God. They are repeating the same complaint of Christ who says: "You are those justifying yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for the thing highly prized among men is a hateful thing before God" (Luke 16:15). They say, "sure, you are doing the acts, but what of your heart?"

This is why the Confessors bring up the first table and the "spiritual" or inner aspects of the law, that is, love of God, love of neighbor, etc. So the Apology says: "Since, therefore, contempt of God, and doubt concerning the Word of God, and concerning the threats and promises, inhere in human nature, men truly sin, even when, without the Holy Ghost, they do virtuous works, because they do them with a wicked heart...For such persons perform their works with contempt of God...This contempt vitiates works seemingly virtuous, because God judges the heart."

Some have argued that the writers of the Confessions are making a distinction between the two kinds of righteousness, that is, the imputed righteousness of Christ on account of faith, and civil righteousness with their use of the term "spiritual righteousness" (AC. XVIII; AP. XVIII). While they are making a distinction with civil righteousness, they are not making it in distinction with imputed righteousness. The Confessors define "spiritual righteousness" as "truly to fear God, truly to believe God, truly to be confident and hold that God regards us, hears us, forgives us, etc." (AP. XVIII) And even as "chastity, [and] patience." (AC. XVIII) If spiritual righteousness is synonymous with imputed righteousness then that means I am righteous and saved because I love, fear, and trust God. This is certainly not what the Confessors are trying to get across. The distinction being made is between civil righteousness and sanctification. One only need to read "Of Love and the Fulfilling of the Law" to realize that we are talking of much more than civil righteousness here.

If we remember what Chemnitz writes: "We speak of spiritual powers or activities because in Rom. 7:14 the Law is described as "spiritual." That is, it is not content with certain outward, civil activities which the unregenerate flesh can perform. Rather, the Law demands such impulses and activities as cannot be accomplished without the working of the Holy Spirit. These the flesh cannot perform, for the flesh hinders the Holy Spirit in his work, not only by evil desires (Rom. 7:8), but also by the wisdom of the flesh (Rom. 8:7). Frequently when we speak of spiritual impulses, we think of the knowledge, fear, faith, and love of God. For it is characteristic of these affections that they cannot be produced by the flesh. However, in the case of other virtues, such as temperance, chastity, bravery, freedom, etc., the distinction is not so clear; even human reason has such virtues. But we must distinguish on the basis of causes and goals. For example, the chastity of Joseph had a different cause from that of Scipio."

Therefore in sanctification we talk not only of the external work, but, even more importantly, of the heart that these are done in. This can especially be seen in "Of Love and the Fulfilling of the Law." Also we talk of the inner fruits of the Spirit such as fear, love, and trust of God.

The consistent testimony of the Confessions tells us that man is not able to attain these things without the Holy Spirit.

The reverse logic of the constant refrain: "Without the Holy Ghost, without the Holy Ghost, etc." is that with the Holy Spirit, we can (at least to a certain extent).

The question for us, now, is to determine how this happens. To answer this we need to turn to Solid Declaration, Article II, Concerning the Free Will or Human Powers. There are a couple of key passages on this topic:

"When, however, people have been converted and thus have been enlightened, and the will has been renewed, then such people desire the good (insofar as they are born anew and are new creatures) and "delight in the law in the inmost self" (Rom. 7[:22]). From that point on people do good only to the extent that and as long as the Holy Spirit impels them. As Paul says, "For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God" [Rom. 8:14]. This leading of the Holy Spirit is not coactio (or, a compulsion), but rather the converted person does the good spontaneously, as David says. After your victory "your people will offer themselves willingly" [Ps. 110:3]. At the same time there remains also in the reborn what Paul described in Romans 7[:22-23, 25]: "For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members," and, "So then, with my mind I am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh I am a slave to the law of sin." Likewise, Galatians 5[:17]: "What the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want."

"It follows from this, as has been said, that as soon as the Holy Spirit has begun his work of rebirth and renewal in us through the Word and the holy sacraments, it is certain that on the basis of his power we can and should be cooperating with him, though still in great weakness. This occurs not on the basis of our fleshly, natural powers but on the basis of the new powers and gifts which the Holy Spirit initiated in us in conversion...This should be understood in no other way than that the converted do good to the extent that God rules, leads, and guides them with his Holy Spirit. If this passage were to be understood as if the converted person cooperates alongside the Holy Spirit, in the way two horses draw a wagon together, this interpretation could not be tolerated without damaging the divine truth." (Kolb Wengert, SD, Art. II, Pars. 63-66)

Likewise in paragraph 88 we read: "It has been sufficiently explained above how God makes willing people out of rebellious and unwilling people through the drawing power of the Holy Spirit, and how after this conversion of the human being the reborn will is not idle in the daily practice of repentance but cooperates in all the works of the Holy Spirit that he accomplishes through us."

Both of these passages state that, with our will, we cooperate with the Holy Spirit. The Latin, co-operate, means to "work with." In the Greek, even, this would be where we get our "synergy," that is, a compound of sun- with and ergon- work. But how are we to understand this terminology? We are told that we should not think of this as if "two horses draw a wagon together." Ok, so it is not equal pulling? The Holy Spirit does most of the work? This, though, is still not what the Formulators are saying. There are a couple of key lines that will help us; these are: "People do good only to the extent that...the Holy Spirit impels them;" and, "It is certain that on the basis of his power we can and should be cooperating with him;" and, "[The will] cooperates in all the works of the Holy Spirit that he accomplishes through us."

From these passages we can say that: "[They are] the works of the Holy Spirit that he accomplishes through us;" "[We cooperate] on the basis of his power;" "[And] only to the extent that...the Holy Spirit impels." This means that essentially sanctification is the Holy Spirit's work that he accomplishes through us, and our cooperation is based on his power and gift, not our natural powers, and we are sanctified only to the extent that God rules, leads, and guides.

Our cooperation is based of the Spirit's power and gift, not of ourselves. There is often a sense in many people's minds that sanctification is a restoration of ourselves, through the Spirit's work, so that, more and more, we can do the good. Against this we must affirm, we are sanctified only insofar as we live in the gracious work of the Holy Spirit; we lack sanctification insofar as we rely on our own will and abilities. The now departed William Lazareth writes in Christians in Society: Luther, the Bible, and Social Ethics that, "Our growth is by way of God’s grace and not by our works; we grow theonomously more and more (and not autonomously less and less) in our total dependence on God’s unmerited favor." (201) And, "The more we grow, the more dependent we become on the gifts granted by the ethical governance of the indwelling Holy Spirit, who always accompanies the church’s holy Word and blessed sacraments." (211) This is very important to note. We therefore need to think of cooperation in a very different way.

St. Paul often seperates sanctification into "willing" and "working" (correlated to Article II's title "Free Will" and "Human Power."). Martin Chemnitz' own writing as well as the Formula of Concord, whom he was a co-author, draw on this concept of Paul. We read from Paul: "For it is God who is working in you both to will and to work for the sake of His good pleasure." (Php. 2:13) Likewise we read from him: "So, then, it is not of the one willing, nor of the one running, but of the One showing mercy, of God." (Rom. 9:16) Or, a little easier to read from the ESV: "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." Another example of splitting sanctification in this manner: "But now also finish the doing of it, so that even as there was the eagerness in the willing, so also the finishing, giving out of what you have." (2 Cor. 8:11) Or Romans 7:18: "For I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwells no good. For to will is present to me, but to work out the good I do not find."

Article II, in connection with this, reads: "Although those born anew come even in this life to the point that they desire the good and delight in it and even do good deeds and grow in practicing them, this is not (as was mentioned above) a product of our own will or power; but the Holy Spirit, as Paul says himself, "is at work in us to will and work" (Phil. 2[:13])." (Par. 39)

Martin Chemnitz writes in his Loci Theologici, Locus 6: "It is correctly stated that there are three causes of good works: (1) the Word of God, (2) the Holy Spirit, (3) the will of man, if only this latter is correctly and properly understood. For the human will does not cooperate in such a way as if of its own powers it aided spiritual activities, as if in a good character these three causes worked together, namely, natural impulses, teaching, and exercise. "

Augustine has put it best: "It is certain that it is we that will when we will; but it is He who makes us will what is good…It is certain that it is we that act when we act; but it is He who makes us act, by applying efficacious powers to our will, who has said, “I will make you to walk in my statutes, and to observe my judgments, and to do them." (“On Grace and Free Will,” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church; vol. 5, 457.)

Therefore it becomes clear that, that which "cooperates," that is, the "willing" and "doing," are themselves the product of the gracious work of the Holy Spirit. Or in the words of the Solid Declaration: "[Our cooperation] occurs not on the basis of our fleshy, natural powers but on the basis of the new powers and gifts which the Holy Spirit initiated in us in conversion." (Par. 65)

As was stated above, growth in sanctification is a greater and greater move away from "our fleshy, natural powers" into a greater reliance on the gracious work of the Holy Spirit; this, even, or more appropriately, no more evident than in our lives in heaven.

With all of this understood, there are two errors in the Lutheran Church in the interpretation of this. One over-emphasizes the work of the Spirit to the point that they feel that any concerted effort at living sanctified lives is a reliance on "our fleshy, natural powers" and thus hypocricy. They are of the opinion: "If the Holy Spirit desires to sanctify, he surely will, and certainly without my efforts." The other group under-estimates the role of the Holy Spirit so that they do not daily rely on the Holy Spirit's work through his Word, and sacraments, namely, Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and absolution. They go about their daily business, relying on their own natural abilities to order and shape their life with little thought to what the Lord might desire for them.

The one group become mere puppits in the hands of God in sanctification; the other group ignore God's desire to sanctify, and become the autonomous shapers of their "ethical" life.

The Confessions reject both of these positions. The Formulators write:

"The critical question concerns de causa efficiente (that is, who accomplishes these things and comes by them), so this teaching states the following: Because the natural powers of the human being cannot do anything or help in any, God comes to us first, out of his immeasurable goodness and mercy. He causes his holy gospel to be preached, through which the Holy Spirit desires to effect and accomplish this conversion and renwal in us. Through the proclamation of his Word and meditation upon it he ignites faith and other God-pleasing virtues in us so that they are the gifts and the activities of the Holy Spirit alone. Moreover, this doctrine points us to the means through which the Holy Spirit will to begin this conversion and effect it. It also reminds us how these same gifts are retained, strenghtened, and increased, and it admonishes us not to let God's grace have no effect in us, but to exercise ourselves diligently in considering what a grevious sin it is to impede and resist the working of the Holy Spirit." (71-72)

The Formulators reject both of these errors saying the Holy Spirit is our "efficient cause," that sanctification is the gift and activity "of the Holy Spirit alone." But, they also tell us that we "can and should" cooperate and dedicate ourselves to the Holy Spirit's work of sanctification. (65) They tell us the need to dedicate ourselves to relying on God's Word and Sacraments to strengthen and increase the gifts and work of the Spirit. And admonish us "not to let God's grace have no effect in us," and remind us "what a grevious sin it is to impede and resist the working of the Holy Spirit."

Unfortunately, both of these errors are prevalent in the LC-MS. May we take these words seriously and remind ourselves of "what a grevious sin it is to impede and resist the working of the Holy Spirit."

Calvin on the Will

Peter J. Leithart just posted this on his blog, which I thought was fortuitous. Echoing many of the things we've talked about, and also offering an outside perspective, I hope this helps in thinking through some of the issues involved.

Notable is the similarity of Calvin's arguments to Luther's. Calvin explains well the difference between necessity and compulsion, writing: "A distinction has been drawn between compulsion and necessity, making it clear that man, though he sins necessarily, nevertheless sins voluntarily." Though, ultimately, like Luther, I don't believe he is faithful to his own argument. Thus, the next sentence: "He is actuated more by the devil’s will than his own." And again, proudly declaring double-predestination: "Those whom the Lord favours not with the direction of his Spirit, he, by a righteous judgment, consigns to the agency of Satan."

“That man is so enslaved by the yoke of sin, that he cannot of his own nature aim at good either in wish or actual pursuit, has, I think, been sufficiently proved. Moreover, a distinction has been drawn between compulsion and necessity, making it clear that man, though he sins necessarily, nevertheless sins voluntarily. But since, from his being brought into bondage to the devil, it would seem that he is actuated more by the devil’s will than his own, it is necessary, first, to explain what the agency of each is, and then solve the question. Whether in bad actions anything is to be attributed to God, Scripture intimating that there is some way in which he interferes?

“Augustine compares the human will to a horse preparing to start, and God and the devil to riders. ‘If God mounts, he, like a temperate and skilful rider, guides it calmly, urges it when too slow, reins it in when too fast, curbs its forwardness and over-action, checks its bad temper, and keeps it on the proper course; but if the devil has seized the saddle, like an ignorant and rash rider, he hurries it over broken ground, drives it into ditches, dashes it over precipices, spurs it into obstinacy or fury.’ With this simile, since a better does not occur, we shall for the present be contented. When it is said, then, that the will of the natural man is subject to the power of the devil, and is actuated by him, the meaning is not that the wills while reluctant and resisting, is forced to submit (as masters oblige unwilling slaves to execute their orders), but that, fascinated by the impostures of Satan, it necessarily yields to his guidance, and does him homage. Those whom the Lord favours not with the direction of his Spirit, he, by a righteous judgment, consigns to the agency of Satan. Wherefore, the Apostle says, that ‘the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine into them.’ And, in another passage, he describes the devil as ‘the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.’ The blinding of the wicked, and all the iniquities consequent upon it, are called the works of Satan; works the cause of which is not to be Sought in anything external to the will of man, in which the root of the evil lies, and in which the foundation of Satan’s kingdom, in other words, sin, is fixed.”

The Will in Conversion

From all the previous it may be asked, "If, on the one hand, the entirely corrupted nature of man is in rebellion to God, and thus the will is completely incapable of choosing the good, and on the other, we are to maintain that the will is never forced to do that which it does not will, how is man converted?" And, "Doesn't it stand, because the unregenerate man only fights against God, that God converts man by force, that is, against his will?"

These are some of the questions that were arising in the Lutheran Church before (and after) the publication of the Formula of Concord.

This is what led Melanchthon to abandon a monergistic understanding of conversion for a synergistic one. He was trying to answer the question: "why are some saved and some not saved." He was not able to reconcile a monergistic understanding of conversion without saying at the same time that God predestines some to be saved and some to damnation. As he saw it, if there is one force, the Holy Spirit working through the Word, fighting against another force, unregenerate man's rebellion against and rejection of that Word, how does it come to pass that one is saved and one is not. This led him to adopt a synergistic argument that says there are three causes of conversion. These are 1) the Word, 2) the Holy Spirit, and 3) the human will. He believed that in the struggle between God and unregenerate, unbelieving man, there must be some factor, however small, that tips the scale one way or another. This, he believed, was human will. There must be something in man, however small, that contributes to his either being saved or condemned.

This teaching spread in the Lutheran Church, especially among the Philippists. This is the occasion for why Article II of the Formula of Concord was written. In a footnote, in the Kolb Wengert edition, it is noted: "Luther, writing against Erasmus in On the Bondage of the Will of 1525, defined the topic at hand as a "bondage" of the ability of the human will to choose. Melanchthon's students, following, for example, the Augsburg Confession, defined the problem instead of the potential of the will's freedom." This is important to note.

Broadly speaking, Article II is addressed against two errors of opposite extremes: enthusiasm, and synergism.

Against the synergists, which I have already given an outline, Article II gives a strong rebuttal. In the opening, after they outline the errors that had been taking place, they make the strong and clear statement:

"That in spiritual and divine matters, the mind, heart, and will of the unreborn human being can in absolutely no way, on the basis of its own natural powers, understand, believe, accept, consider, will, begin, accomplish, do, effect, or cooperate. Instead, it is completely dead to the good--completely corrupted. This means that in this human nature, after the fall and before rebirth, there is not a spark of spiritual power left or present with which human beings can prepare themselves or to prepare themselves for the grace of God or accept grace as it is offered...Nor do they have the ability, on the basis of their own powers, to help, act, effect, or cooperate--completely, halfway, or in the slightest, most insignificant way--in their own conversion." (SD, Art II, Par. 7)

Article II's arguments against the enthusiasts are more to the point of the questions that we raised at the beginning of this post, namely, if the will is only opposed to conversion, aren't we saved against our will? With the implication that conversion denies free will.

The Formulators frame the questions in this way:

"Now, finally, on the basis of this thorough explanation of the entire teaching on the free will, it will be possible to resolve the questions that have arisen and been disputed in the churches of the Augsburg Confession for quite a few years now: whether people before, in, or after conversion resist the Holy Spirit, and whether they do absolutely nothing but simply endure what God effects in them. Again, whether they behave and act like a block of wood in conversion. Or again, whether the Holy Spirit is given to those who resist him. Likewise, whether conversion takes place by compulsion, in a manner in which God compels people against their will by force to be converted, etc." (SD, Art. II, Par. 73)

I will address these questions one by one.

1) "Whether people before, in, or after conversion resist the Holy Spirit"
The simple and not explained answer: yes, yes, yes; there is always a part that resists the Holy Spirit. This is not quite what they mean though, maybe a better question is: "Is there a part of man, before, in, or after conversion, that does not resist the Holy Spirit?" Answer: Before) no, In) complicated , After) yes. Before, we completely resist the Holy Spirit. In, well...Let's put it this way: There is never a time when we are converted that we completely resist the Holy Spirit (it is a matter of defining what we mean by in, and also determining the "point" of conversion). After, quote: "There is never a time when we are converted that we completely resist the Holy Spirit."

2) "Whether they do absolutely nothing but simply endure what God effects in them."
Answer: Yes, we simply endure (qualified with the answer to the next question).

3) "Whether they behave and act like a block of wood in conversion."
Yes, to the previous question, but this does not mean that God simply snaps his finger and we are converted. The formulators say, no, not like a block of wood because: 1) "a stone or block of wood does not resist the person who moves it." (Par. 59), 2) "neither does [a block of wood] understand or feel what is being done to it." (Par. 59), 3) because man is a rational creature, unlike a block of wood, God's modus agendi is through means, that is, through Word and Sacrament (see Pars. 19; 60-62), 4) The Holy Spirit in conversion is "working through the Word in the mind, will, and heart of the human being tanquam in subjecto patiente [as in a subject acted upon] (that is, because the human being does and effects nothing but only endures what is done). This happens not like a picture being etched in stone or a seal being pressed in wax; these things do not know or feel or will anything." (Par. 89) (But...we are like a block of wood in that we can accomplish and do nothing in our conversion).

4) "Whether the Holy Spirit is given to those who resist him."
Answer: "People resist God the Lord with their will UNTIL they are converted." (Par. 59) Though he is never present AFTER conversion, where he is rejected (see Par. 83).

5) "Whether conversion takes place by compulsion, in a manner in which God compels people against their will by force to be converted."
Answer: "Conversion is such a change in the human mind, will, and heart effected by the activity of the Holy Spirit that the human being, through this activity of the Holy Spirit, can accept the grace offered." (Par. 83) Being that I am not able to be saved while at the same time rejecting salvation with my will, I can not be saved against my will. It is not as if I am primarily saved against my will, and then, after that point, I need to preserve that salvation by desiring to be saved.

Conclusion:

Article II makes it clear that we are not saved against our will, rather, conversion itself is a conversion of "mind, will, and heart." (Par. 83.) This is not through coactio (compulsion) but through a captivation, as Gerhard Forde might say, through the Holy Spirit's administration of Word and Sacrament. And this is completely the work of God, alone; the Formulators write: "For just as the resuscitation in the physical resurrection of the body is to be ascribed to God alone, so the conversion of our corrupted will, which is nothing other than an awakening of this will from spiritual death, is wholly and alone God's doing." (Par. 87)

The Will, Bondage, and Freedom

In this post we will look at Luther's ideas concerning the will of man. Specifically, we will look at Luther's Bondage of the Will. I am not a Luther scholar, and I am not familiar with other writings of his where he touches on the subject of the will, thus I cannot necessarily claim this as a fair judgement of Luther's position, or, at least, his final position. Possibly someone out there with a little broader knowledge of Luther's understanding can give input. Likewise, this is "young Luther" who is prone to exaggeration, is far from systematic, and is often times found to be contradictory.

Like the work itself, I don't feel I have a coherent way of presenting Luther's arguments. What I am compelled to do is pick out certain aspects of his argument and analyze them from that perspective.

I. One thing that Luther draws on is the necessity of things happening the way that they do. I wrote in my previous post that I wouldn't touch on this subject. But, coming across Luther's condemnation of Erasmus on this subject: "But you are a very poor rhetorician and theologian if you venture to open your mouth and instruct us about 'free will' without any reference to these matters,"1 I decided I couldn't stand under the same judgement as Erasmus :) Luther writes: "God foreknows nothing contingently, but He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His own immutable, eternal and infallible will. This bombshell knocks 'free-will' flat, and utterly shatters it."2 A little later, Luther will write: "All we do, however it may appear to us to be done mutably and contingently, is in reality done necessarily and immutably in respect to God's will. For the will of God is effective and cannot be impeded, since power belongs to God's nature."3

This is Luther's first mistake. It is a mistake that does not take into account the distinction between God's permissive will and his directive will. God's directive will is that which he actively wills and personally brings to pass. His permissive will is that which he allows to come to pass. This is an essential distinction for any theodicy that desires to make clear that God is not the author of evil. We must therefore determine what exactly makes up what is ultimately necessary. For us to do this we must make a distinction between wills, that is, God's and all others. To determine why things happened the way that they did within a span of time, that is, in history, one has to look at the active subjects that are involved in that history. To do this you have to acknowledge the wills involved. In the case of our universe this is God's directive will and our wills. Therefore we can honestly say that we have a role in determining what is ultimately necessary.

For example: I decide to hit my sister. We would not say that this is part of God's directive will, that is, that God actively willed this and actively brought it to pass. Rather we would say that this is part of God's permissive will. That is, God's active will acquiesces to our will. And this is what God's permissive will is, it is, God's active will acquiescing to other wills. The accumulation of this is what determines what is ultimately necessary, and it all falls under the bounds of God's directive and permissive will.

Luther, on the other hand, sees the necessity of things coming about as part of God's active will ("the will of God is effective and cannot be impeded, since power belongs to God's nature") and thus sees this as an argument for why we do not have free wills. This is what we call theological determinism. Luther argues that our perception of our actions being mutable is just an accident of our consciousness. Luther writes: "It is a settled truth, then, even on the basis of your own testimony, that we do everything of necessity, and nothing by 'free-will.'"4

II. We should stop and define what an un-free will is, and in contrast, what a free will is. From my previous post: I Desire To Be an Orange..., we determined that the will is the ability to analyzes different options and to, of its own impetus, choose between them. We also determined that this does not mean that the will can choose anything, for example, I can not will myself into becoming an orange, because this is, technically speaking, not an option. A will that is un-free, therefore, is a will that is not capable of choosing, thus not being a will at all, or a will that is forced to choose what it does not will, or a will that is unable to choose that which it would if it was not being impeded from choosing, from something outside of it.

Luther, at least nominally (and ultimately in contradiction with the previous topic above), denies these positions. He writes:

"I said 'of necessity'; I did not say 'of compulsion'; I meant by a necessity, not of compulsion, but of what they call immutability. That is to say: a man without the Spirit of God does not do evil against his will, under pressure, as though he were taken by the scruff of the neck and dragged into it...but he does it spontaneously and voluntarily."5

Luther goes on to say: "This is what we mean by necessity of immutability: that the will cannot change itself, nor give itself another bent."6 It should be noted that when Luther says "immutable," that is, an inability to change, he is really talking of only one choice, that is, between good and evil; he is not talking about peanut butter and jelly and ham and mustard.

What Luther does not make clear, though, is that the will is never forced to do anything. It never is made to do something it does not want to do. The depravity of man before conversion is commensurate with the will that wills that depravity. Its inability to choose the good is reflective of its own depravity not an imposition on the will from anything external. There is nothing outside us, technically speaking, that keeps us from choosing the good. That does not mean the unconverted will can choose the good, any more than I can will myself into being an orange.

This therefore does not contradict our definition of what a free will is. The will is capable of choosing that which it is capable of choosing and is not forced to choose that which it does not desire to choose.

III. There are many statements of Luther that are either in conflict with this, or in conflict with what he said about compulsion (from outside), or both. Whether this is merely rhetoric, or oversight, or straight contradiction, is not for me to judge. We should, though, point some of these statements (few of many) out.

a) Luther speaks of the converted will that can choose the good: "Here, too, there is no freedom, no 'free-will', to turn elsewhere, or to desire anything else, as long as the Spirit and grace of God remain in a man."7 This needs to be clarified. If Luther means that, say, in heaven, man is not capable of choosing evil through imposition from outside, he is mistaken. If, rather, he means that the renewal of man is such that, in heaven, he would never choose the evil, he is correct.

b) Luther writes: "So man's will is like a beast standing between two riders. If God rides, it wills and goes where God wills...If Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan wills. Nor may it choose to which rider it will run, or which it will seek; but the riders themselves fight to decide who shall have and hold it."8 This is crass dualism, and in complete opposition with what Luther writes, just one page previous, that the will is not forced through compulsion.

c)Likewise, Luther will write: "However, with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, he has no 'free-will', but is a captive, prisoner and bondslave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan."9

IV. In light of all the previous, we need to make clear what we mean by bondage and what we mean by freedom, that is, the will that is in bondage and the will that is freed (arbitrium liberatum - SD, Art. II, Par. 67).

The bondage is exactly what Paul talks about in Romans 6:20. This is not a bondage that is imposed on us, nor is it a bondage that we engage in against our will. It is, though, a bondage that we ourselves cannot get out of. It is a bondage that we can only be released from by the blood of Christ and the rebirth and renewal of the Holy Spirit. Our wills cannot accomplish this due to the fact that our entire corrupted natures are turned against God, and thus our will, as an accumulation of man (see: I Desire To Be an Orange...), can never turn towards God.

The arbitrium liberatum, freed will, that Solid Declaration, Article II, talks of is the freedom we receive from that same bondage previously mentioned (Rom. 6:20). This is accomplished through the rebirth and renewal of the Holy Spirit through Word and Sacrament. It frees us from the sin in which we were in bondage, renewing us in heart, soul, and mind, so that we can choose the good (we can now will to be an orange!) by the grace of God.

Neither of these states implies a lack of free will, properly speaking, rather they reflect either the depravity of our nature so that we cannot choose the good, or the renewal of that nature by the grace of God, by which we can.

----------------Footnotes--------------
1. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J. Packer and O. Johnston (London: James Clarke & Co., 1957), 79.
2. ibid., 80.

3. ibid.

4. ibid., 105.

5. ibid., 102.

6. ibid., 102-3.

7. ibid., 102.

8. ibid., 102-3.

9. ibid., 107.

I Desire To Be an Orange...I Desire To Be an Orange...I Desire To Be an Orange.

Pelagius believed that the term "free will," "suggests that the will has equal powers in either direction, whether it wishes to strive for evil or for good. For if without the help of God the will were only free to do evil only, it would falsely be called free."1 Is this really a fair assessment of what the will is? One's equal ability to take one path over another, whatever those paths may be?

Luther and Chemnitz believed that the will was not some individual part of man separated from, say, his mind, heart, emotions, etc., but rather, that it was the accumulation of the entire person. This makes perfect sense from our own experience. When we have two roads ahead of us we are influenced by our reason, our hearts, our past experiences, and even the chemical makeup of our brains. The point being, that the will is not some autonomous capacity in man that stands above all of these factors and makes its judgements about what it is going to do.

The concept that the will is only free if it can with "equal powers" choose one side or another is absurd. There are things, many of which we have no control over, that influence how we make decisions. An abused child, whether he/she likes it or not, will probably have a hard time loving and entrusting themselves to their future spouses. Does this mean they do not have free will?

Martin Chemnitz writes that, "We call free will the human powers or faculties in mind, heart, and will, namely when the human mind can understand, consider, and evaluate something that is presented or proposed."2 Simply put, the will is the capacity of man to look at his choices and to use his mind, heart, and will, to decide his/her future path; it is the ability to make choices. Now the question must be asked, do the "external" factors, such as feelings, emotions, reason, past experiences, chemical makeup of our brain, etc., mean that we do not have a free will?

It becomes a question of, are we going to define free will as the ability to make choices, or the ability to have "equal powers" to choose one path over another? I think Pelagius would be very depressed if he lived in our day and age. We have all around us talk from the scientific and philosophic communities, asking if we are just the makeup of nerve signals going off in our brain, or if we are just the product of genetic transference and external stimulant influence, or chemical reactions in our brain. To a certain extent, theological talk transcends these existential questions, in that we find our definition in Christ, not our biological being. But these things certainly shed light on the naivety of demanding "equal power" in our ability to choose one path above another.

In fact, though, it is more than naivety, it is really a matter of arrogance. St. Jerome, who we commemorate today in the liturgical calendar, writes, "What the Latin calls 'free will' the Greeks call autexousia or autexousion. In the context of this weakness of nature, it is quite a arrogant term for it means man's power over himself, which is not subject to any command and which can be stopped or hindered by no one. It is an arrogant term, I say, since Paul complains even about the regenerate, who are led by the Spirit of God, 'The evil which I would not, that I do.' (Rom. 7:19)."3 This term is made up of two Greek words, the first, autos, which means "self" or "of one's self." The second word being exousia, which implies ability, capacity, liberty, and mastery over. As Jerome states it means a man's power over himself, not subject to any "external" factors. This s exactly how Pelagius defined free will.

As we have shown, this idea of having mastery over one's self, the equal ability to turn one way or another, independent of external forces, is a fallacy, even in the completely secular sense. We know enough about how the mind works, the role of genetics, one's reasoning, one's past experiences, and one's emotions, to know that one's will is certainly not free in the sense that with "equal powers" we are able to direct our path in "either direction."

We must therefore make a distinction between the capacity to choose, that is, to make choices, and what we are capable of making choices about.

As Lutherans we have an even greater reason to say why the unregenerate will is not capable of making decisions in spiritual matters. I could obviously list dozens of verses from Scripture, not to mention from the Confessions, but that will be unnecessary. We know that the unregenerate man is completely dead in his sins, that he contains no spark that can orientate him towards true good.

This is not, properly speaking, a limitation in our will, but a limitation in our nature. This is important to note. Our entire natures are in rebellion against the things of God, and the unregenerate actually hate God. To ask the will, which we have already noted is the accumulation of our whole person, to love God with all its heart, soul, mind, and strength, is an impossible task. To ask the whole person--heart, soul, mind, and strength--whose whole person is in rebellion against God, to love him is an impossibility. This is not a limitation of the will, properly speaking, but a limitation of the complete man who is completely in opposition to God.

Therefore Augustine, in response to Pelagius' desire to maintain his free will, will write: "Surely, you are acting of your own free will without God's help, but you are doing evil."4 This is because Pelagius asks of his will to do something it cannot accomplish. It is as if I were to say: "I desire to be an orange...I desire to be an orange...I desire to be an orange." Just because I am not able, through sheer willpower, to become an orange, does not mean I do not have free will. I am rather asking of my will to do something that it cannot do.

The arrogance of Pelagius is the same arrogance we see in ourselves, and in our first parents. It is the arrogance of desiring to establish our relationship with God on our own terms; to justify why we have a right to live in communion with God.

God desires to reestablish our relationship with him in the same way he created his relationship with our first parents, that is through his Word. As Christ tells us, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but on every Word going out of the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4; Deut. 8:3). Robert Kolb writes: "Restoration to a proper, righteous relationship with God takes place through the action of God in His Word, through its re-creative power."5 Our first parents' rejection of the Word of God brought spiritual death to all mankind. To literally re-create our original relationship with God would be to re-establish the relationship where we live "on every Word going out of the mouth of God." This is accomplished through faith, which like the original creation, is a complete gift from God, where we cling to the Word of God alone. The will has absolutely no capability to bring about this resuscitation, it can only happen through the re-creative breath of God's Spirit in the Word as he breathes into man's nostrils, bringing him back to life (Gen. 2:7).

---------------Footnotes-----------
1. Martin Chemnitz, The Doctrine of Man in Classical Lutheran Theology [TDOM], ed. Herman A. Preus and Edmund Smits (Minneapolis, Minn: Augsburg Publishing House, 1962), 74.

2. Martin Chemnitz, Ministry, Word, and Sacraments, trans. Luther Poellot (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1981), 66.

3. St. Jeome quoted in, TDOM, 72.

4. St. Augustine quoted in, TDOM, 74.

5. Robert Kolb, “God and His Human Creatures in Luther’s Sermons on Genesis: The Reformer’s Early Use of His Distinction of Two Kinds of Righteousness,” Concordia Journal 33, no. 2 (2007), 176.

Lutheran Quote of the Day: Martin Chemnitz, Concerning Spiritual Powers in Man

I intend to dedicate a number of posts to the will and powers of man, both regenerate and unregenerate. I will look at these concepts from the eyes of Martin Chemnitz, Martin Luther, Melancthon, our Confessions, and the current Lutheran interpretation. I will also take a look at how these concepts relate and have influenced the popular two-dimensionality perspective of human existence especially as supported by the teachings of the two kinds of righteousness and the two kingdoms. I will not attend to some of the hairier issues involved, such as determinism, etc., especially as these issues are more palpable to our rationalist brothers of the Reformed tradition.

We will begin with an extended quote from Martin Chemnitz' Loci Theologici, Locus 6, as it is recorded and translated in The Doctrine of Man in Classical Lutheran Theology. This will get us thinking about the major ideas involved, especially from a Scriptural perspective.

"The principle point in the doctrine of free will is that the human will of its own powers cannot without the Holy Spirit initiate inner spiritual impulses. It cannot perform the inner obedience of the heart; nor can it persevere in, accomplish, and complete a course of action which has been undertaken.

"We speak of spiritual powers or activities because in Rom. 7:14 the Law is described as "spiritual." That is, it is not content with certain outward, civil activities which the unregenerate flesh can perform. Rather, the Law demands such impulses and activities as cannot be accomplished without the working of the Holy Spirit. These the flesh cannot perform, for the flesh hinders the Holy Spirit in his work, not only by evil desires (Rom. 7:8), but also by the wisdom of the flesh (Rom. 8:7). Frequently when we speak of spiritual impulses, we think of the knowledge, fear, faith, and love of God. For it is characteristic of these affections that they cannot be produced by the flesh. However, in the case of other virtues, such as temperance, chastity, bravery, freedom, etc., the distinction is not so clear; even human reason has such virtues. [The previously mentioned "inner" motions, that would be the fulfillment of the first table of the law, would be what the Confessions would call "spiritual righteousness" (AC/AP XVIII). The distinction that is not as clear, that Chemnitz references, that is the "outward" virtues, might have been unclear in the teaching of the Lutheran Church due to the lack of attention that they receive in the Augsburg Confession and its Apology. I will address this in another post as it is still a point of contention.] But we must distinguish on the basis of causes and goals. For example, the chastity of Joseph had a different cause from that of Scipio...

"... I. Inasmuch as both the mind and will of man are embraced under the term Free Will, we shall first present these passages of Scripture which speak of the mind of unregenerate man in spiritual matters. But the mind includes the understanding, the evaluation, the judgement, the ideas, and the thoughts of unregenerate man.

"Concerning each of these are passages from Scripture. "Ye were sometimes darkness, but now ye are light in the Lord" (Eph. 5:8); i.e., without Christ men are only darkness, for they are "light" only "in the Lord." Let none imagine that the mind can be enlightened either by its own acumen in seeking the truth or by the teachings of philosophy. "The light shineth in darkness" (John 1:5); "to turn them from darkness to light" (Acts 26:18); "to give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death" (Luke 1:79). In Ephesians 4:17-19 Paul explains how unregenerate men are in darkness. They "walk in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened...through the ignorance that is in them," i.e., the ignorance that clings to their nature. Also in 1 Cor. 2:14 he writes, "The natural (Greek, psuchikos; Latin, animalis) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God."...

"...Paul says two things: 1) the natural man cannot recognize and understand the things of the Spirit of God. For none of the princes of this world knows the wisdom of the Gospel (1 Cor. 2:6). Flesh and blood have not revealed it, but the Holy Spirit has revealed it in the Word (Matt. 16:17). 2) When God in his Word sets forth and explains the doctrine of the Gospel, although the natural man may read, hear, and understand it, he nevertheless does not receive it with certainty, either its threats or its promises. "Who knoweth the power of thine anger?" (Ps. 90:11). Thus David knew from the Word of God, "Thou shall not commit adultery"; but because he drove out the Holy Spirit, he did not receive the things of the Spirit of God. Otherwise he would have repented before the preaching of Nathan.

-

"II. Secondly, we shall cite passages which describe the will of man, showing what it is like without the renewal of the Holy Spirit and his inner spiritual impulses. Eph. 2:1 and Col. 2:13 call men "dead in trespasses and sins," Rom. 6:20, "free from righteousness," and John 8:34, "the servants of sin." Moreover, we have already mentioned that sin dwells particularly in the will. "The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the Law of God" (Rom. 8:7). Phronema [Greek], mind, indicates the most strenuous efforts of the flesh or the unregenerate will. "The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen. 8:21); "fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and we were by nature children of wrath" (Eph. 2:3); we were born "not of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13).

"In Rom. 3:10ff., Paul locates human corruption not only in the mind and will, but in the whole man, and describes how sin dwells even in the idividual parts of man...

"... III. Thirdly, we shall cite passages which describe the grace of the Son of God which he bestows upon the mind and will of man through the Spirit of regeneration. For in the darkness of this world we cannot better understand of what gifts the mind and will of man have been deprived than from those passages in Scripture in which are described how the mind of the regenerate man is enlightened by the Holy Spirit, how the heart is converted, how the will is renewed, and how the new man is created in Christ Jesus according to God. Likewise, the words of the holy Fathers testify clearly to the bondage of the will. Augustine asks, "What is more foolish than to pray that you may do what you have within your power?" Likewise in his Epistle 217 he says, "In short, we do not really pray to God, but only imagine that we are praying if we think that we can do the things for which we pray. Again, we do not really thank God, but only imagine that we thank God, but only imagine that we are thanking him, if we think that he does not do the things for which we thank him." There are also many Scripture passages which are applicable here. [Chemnitz cites the following: Eph. 1:7; 2:5; 4:7; Acts 26:18; 2 Cor. 4:6; Is. 11:2; Ps. 119:34; Jer. 31:33; 1 Cor. 12:3; and John 15:5]

"In John 15:5 Jesus says, "Without me ye can do nothing." He is not speaking about the universal presence of God in the affairs of this life, for Paul in Eph. 2:12 says of unregenerate gentiles, "Ye were without Christ, without God." Rather, Jesus here is speaking of spiritual fruits, among which he includes also the observance of God's commands: "Without me ye can do nothing." Nor does he speak this way in a Pelagian sense, as it is popularly said, "A knowledge of art without a natural inclination cannot produce good artists." For Christ declares that as the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, but draws its life and strength from the vine and withers apart from it, so also "without me ye can do nothing." Augustine carefully analyzes each word: "Christ does not say, 'Without me me ye can do little,' nor does he say, 'Ye cannot do anything difficult without me,' or 'Without me ye will do the task with great difficulty,' but, 'Without me ye can do nothing.' Nor does he say, 'Without me ye cannot complete it,' but 'Ye can do nothing without me.'" Note Solomon's prayer in 1 Kings 3:9; 8:58, and also Ps. 51:10, "Create in me a clean heart." Note also from the introductions and conclusions of St. Paul's Epistles how he prays for the churches and what he hopes for the believers.

"IV. Fourthly, it is also useful to set down together the shades and meanings of the words showing (1) how they describe the bondage of unregenerate man:...[Chemnitz goes on to cite: Eph. 5:8; 4:18; 4:19; 2:1; 2:12; 2 Cor. 4:4; 2 Tim. 3:8; Rom. 1:21; 2:5; 3:4; Heb. 3:10; Titus 3:3; Luke 24:25; Acts 28:26-17; Ezek. 36:26; Isa. 48:4; and Mark 6:53.]...

"... (2) The following words also describe the enlightenment of the mind and the conversion of the will and the healing of each through Christ. For thus the Holy Spirit speaks in Eph. 1:18: "The eyes of your understanding being enlightened"; and in 2 Cor. 4:6, "God hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God."

"Moreover, we must observe the stronger emphasis of Scripture: it speaks not only of the enlightenment of the eyes, but in Acts 26:18 says, "To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light." Note especially Deut. 29:4, "Unless God shall have given eyes to see and a heart to perceive, the word is heard in vain, and signs are seen in vain"; likewise Ps. 119:34, "Give me understanding, Lord." Augustine has also made this observation: "The grace of enlightenment is no less necessary for the mind than light for the eyes; rather, we ourselves open the eyes to see the light; however, the eyes of the mind, unless they are opened by God, remain closed."

"Finally, we observe an even stronger emphasis in the following passages: in 1 Sam. 10:26, God touches the heart; in 2 Sam. 19:14, he sways the hearts of men; in Job 12:24, he changes the heart. Thus Scripture speaks concerning external matters. But in regard to spiritual matters it declares: "Because thou hast heard the words of the book, thy heart is tender" (2 Chron. 34:27). "The Lord will circumcise thy heart" (Deut. 30:6). "I have broken their heart that was faithless, and revolted from me" (Ezek. 6:9). "They have brought a heart of stone, and I will give them a new heart" (Ezek. 11:19, 36:26). "Create in me a clean heart" (Ps. 51:10)...

"...God softens, converts, and opens the heart. But because our hearts are hard beyond measure, he wounds, circumcises, and even breaks them. When this avails nothing he takes the heart completely away, gives it new life, and even creates a new heart.

"Thus in Ps. 41:4 we read, "Heal my soul"; in Eph. 5:14, "Arise from the dead"; in Eph. 2:5, "When we were dead in sins he hath quickened us"; in 2 Cor. 4:16, "The inward man is renewed"; in Tit. 3:5, "The renewing of the Holy Ghost"; in 1 Pet. 3:3, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God"; in Eph. 2:10, "We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus"; in Eph. 4:24, "The new man which after God is created..." Observe that God heals the weak nature of man and applies remedies to it: "I will bind up that which was broken" (Ezek. 34:16). The heart must be renewed, raised from the dead, regenerated, so that it is born again. This is not only a healing, but a complete rebirth, a work of no small value, an actual creation. Therefore, each of these activities must be ascribed to God."

-The Doctrine of Man in Classical Lutheran Theology, ed. Herman A. Preus and Edmund Smits (Minneapolis, Minn: Augsburg Publishing House, 1962), 95-101.