Maybe this book, Luther’s Bondage of the Will, will find it’s way into my stocking this year. From the excerpt of the intro, this looks to be a very interesting read.

“In concluding the Introduction, Packer and Johnston make a stinging but accurate remark:

Much modern Protestantism would be neither owned nor even recognized by the pioneer Reformers. The Bondage of the Will fairly sets before us what they believed about the salvation of lost mankind. In light of it, we are forced to ask whether Protestant Christendom has not tragically sold its birthright between Luther’s day and our own. Has not Protestantism today become more Erasmian [and Roman Catholic in theology] than Lutheran [and Reformed]? Do we not too often try to minimize and gloss over doctrinal differences for the sake of inter-party peace? Are we innocent of the doctrinal indifferentism with which Luther charged Erasmus? Do we still believe that doctrine matters [in particular, the doctrine of The Bondage of the Will]? Or do we, with Erasmus, rate a deceptive appearance of unity as of more importance than truth? (59-60). To accept the principles which Martin Luther vindicates in The Bondage of the Will would certainly involve a mental and spiritual revolution for many Christians at the present time. . . . We are compelled to ask ourselves: If Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever–is any other position than Luther’s possible? Surely no more important or far-reaching question confronts the church today (60-61).“

Similar Posts:

This entry was posted on Saturday, December 1st, 2007 at 1:37 am.
Categories: Random Stuff.

Viewing 5 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Shawn.
    Its a good book. Its a pretty hard read at the same time. Not really a page turner. If you want one that might be slightly, and only slightly easier to read and understand, then check out John Edwards "Freedom of the Will". He tackles the same subject much like Luther did and is arguably the brightest mind that America had produced.
    • ^
    • v
    I'm all for reading, but I would balk at the suggestion that Protestantism has become more Roman Catholic than Lutheran. I suspect an honest evaluation of Luther would reveal that, in fact, he was far more Roman Catholic than we like to remember. This is why the more conservative Lutheran churches still don't look much different than RC churches. Consubstantiation, while a departure from Transubstantiation, still depends on a belief that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. Most Prostestants, especially in the Reformed camps, don't even take Eucharist seriously enough to care whether Christ is present in the elements.

    Presumably, without having read the book, what this guy wants to assert, is that we've abandoned justification by faith to adopt a justification by works. Calling that "Roman Catholic" isn't in any way accurate; in the first place, the RCC has issued plenty of statements outlining the justification by faith doctrine. The Roman Catholicism of Luther's day and the Roman Catholicism of our day are quite different.

    Furthermore, I don't know how to assert that if Christ is unchanging, then only Luther gets it right. Sheesh. So much for the 2000 year old witness of the Eastern Orthodox churches.

    Who knows, maybe you'll land a good book on Church history in your stocking to help sort all of this out.....
    • ^
    • v
    That's what I was hoping for.
    • ^
    • v
    Micah,
    Real quick. I don't think anyone would doubt that Luther was very Roman Catholic. That was the only church. He never intended to to make Protestantism, but was trying to reform the RC Church. That didn't happen so we get protestantism.

    I think Protestants take the Eucharist seriously, but obviously that is opinion and up for debate.

    The book isn't as much about the doctrine of Justification, but about the "will", and whether it it truly free. Luther rightly and biblically asserts that the will is free, but is totally depraved and its nature is one of sin. Therefore, we are free to choose, but can't not choose anything contrary to our nature. Like a lion's nature is to eat meat. He won't eat a salad even though he has the freedom to do so. You have to change his nature.

    Likewise, the human is in bondage to the sin nature. God first, yes first, has to change the nature before man can respond to God. The book is more about Calvinism vs. Arminianism than justification.

    Packer in his the intro is talking more about how many Protestant denominations have no idea where their doctrine of the sovereignty of God come down and don't see it as a big deal. "Hey we are all Christians right? So does doctrine really matter?" I think is the attitudes that Packer is asserting most Protestants have. It is a attitude of apathy toward doctrine and an inability of most Protestants to explain why they believe what they believe, that Packer is commenting on in this intro. Many Baptists, EV-Frees, Methodist, etc. have no idea if they believe in the bulk of Reformed theology or in Arminianism et. al.

    Again, Packer is talking about this one issue, the nature of the will, not all of Luther's theology. I think no one would tell you that Luther had it all right.

    Lastly,
    Micah you fell right into Shawn's hands. I suspect he was missing your blogging and contribution and has thrown out some theological bait to reel you in. I can't say much either, he got me too.
    • ^
    • v
    Like taking candy from a baby.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus