Does Martin Luther believe in Free Will?

The following is an excerpt from pages 49 to 51 of the book Bondage of the Will, edited by J.I. Packer, regarding Martin Luther's thoughts on the idea of "Free Will", as opposed to his worthy opponent Erasmus.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This was just what Erasmus would not say. Standing in the semi-Pelagian Scholastic tradition, he champions the view that, though sin has weakened man, it has not made him utterly incapable of meritious action; in fact, says, Erasmus, the salvation of those who are saved is actually determined by a particular meritorious act which they perform in their own strength, without Divine assistance. There is, he affirms, a power in the human will (though, admittedly, a very little power only), 'by which man may apply himself to those things that lead to eternal salvation,' and thereby gain merit (though, admittedly, a very little merit only). It is by this meritorious application to spiritual concerns that salvation is secured. In expounding this opinion, Erasmus echoes the Scholastic theory of a distinction between congruent merit (meritum de congrou) and condign merit (meritum de condigno). The first of these, according to the theory, was that which a man attained by what he did in his own strength (ex puris naturalibus) in applying himself to spiritual concerns. It's effect was to make him a fit subject for the gift of internal grace. It did not positively oblige God to give internal grace (from this point of view, it was meritorious only which has hitherto stood in the way of God's giving it, i.e man's unworthiness of it and his unpreparedness for it; however, it was held to be a certain fact that God in mercy gives internal grace to all who have made themselves fit subjects for it. Grace (i.e. supernatural spiritual energy) having thus been given, it's recipient could use it to do works of a quality of goodness previously out of his reach, works which God was necessarily bound, as a matter of justice, to reward which further supplies of grace and ultimately, with heavenly glory. The merit which these works secured (condign merit) was meritorious in the strict sense, and put the Creator under a real obligation. The purpose of the whole theory was to hold together, on the one hand, the reality of God's freedom in giving salvation and, on the other, the reality of man's merit in earning it: to show that God really becomes man's debtor (because He is under obligation to reward man's merit) while yet at the same time remaining sovereign in salvation (because He gives grace which creates the merit freely and without obligation)

The distinction, of course, is purely verbal, and Luther sweeps it away. All ideas of merit, he insists, whatever names you give them and whatever distinctions you draw between them, come to the same thing - man performs some action independently of God which does in fact elicit a reward from God. On this basis salvation comes to man through God's response to what man has done. Man earns his passage; man, in the last analysis, save himself. And this is in principle Pelagianism. Erasmus had supposed that by stressing the smallness of the power which man can exercise, and of the merit offence of his Pelagian principles and moving closer to the Augustinian position, which denies all merit and ascribes salvation wholly to God. Not at all, says Luther; all that Erasmus and those whom he follows are really doing here is cheapening and debasing their own Pelagianism, by reducing the price of salvation. 'This hypocrisy of theirs results in their valuing and seeking to purchase the grace of God at a much cheaper rate than the Pelagians. The latter assert that it is not by a feeble something within us that we obtain grace. Now, if there must be error, those who say that the grace of God is priced high, and account it dear and costly, err less shamefully and presumptuously than those who teach that it's price is a tiny trifle, and account it cheap and contemptible' (pp. 293f).   To be an inferior kind of Pelagian in this way, however, is not, as Luther points out, to approach any nearer to the Augustinia position; it is merely to advertise to the world that, in addition to holding an unwarrantably high opinion of the natural powers of man, one also holds a shockingly low opinion of the oral demands of God's character. The semi-Pelagian compromise, says Warfield, amplifying Luther's thought at this point, 'while remaining Pelagian in principle, yet loses the high ethical position of works and fondly congratulating itself that it retains both, it merely falls between the stools and retains neither. It depends as truly as Pelagianism on works, but reduces those works on which it nevertheless depends to a vanishing point.' Pure Pelagianism is bad enough, for it tells us that we are able to earn our salvation, and this is to flatter man; but semi-Pelagianism is worse, for it tells us that we need hardly do anything to earn our salvation, and that is to belittle salvation and to insult God....

But there is a deeper reason why the doctrine of merit, in all its shapes and forms, must be rejected. The idea of a meritorious act is an idea of an independent act which is in no way necessitated by God for man or performed by God in man, but is carried out by man acting in some sense apart from God. And there is no such action as this in God's universe. The Creator directly energizes and controls all the acts of His creatures. All events are necessitated by His immutable, sovereign will. Human actions are genuinely spontaneous, and authentically express each man' s nature, for God works in all things according to their nature; but the fact that it is God who works all man's works in him means that human action can never be independent of God in the sense required for it to acquire merit in the manner the Pelagians envisage. Man cannot put God in his debt, because man does not stand apart from God as a free and independent agent. Luther thus undercuts the whole conception of merit by affirming the direct sovereignty of God over His world. What he is saying is that the Pelagian idea of merit is a Deistic idea, and has no place in a Theistic order of things such as the Bible depicts, in which God works al in all according to the counsel of His own will. Luther does not shrink from stating this truth in its bluntest form. God, he says, works every human deed, whether good or evil. He works in the evil man according to that man's nature, as He finds it. it is true that evel man is proximately and directly governed by Satan, the strong man who keeps his goods in peace; yet it is God the Creator who energizes Satan, according to his nature, and such power as Satan held and exercised by God's own appointment. When Satan acts, according to his nature, as God's enemy, he is being used, according to God's purpose, as God's own agent. Behind the revealed dualism of cosmic conflict between the devil and God lies the hidden mystery of absolute Divine sovereignty; evil is brought to expression only by the omnipotent working of the good God. 'Since God moves and works in all, He moves and works of necessity even in Satan and the ungodly. But he works according to what they themselves are, and what He finds them to be; which means, since they are evil and perverted themselves, that when they are impelled to action by this movement of Divine omnipotence they do only that which is perverted and evil. It is like a man riding a horse with only three, or two, good feet; his riding corresponds with what the horse is, which means that the horse goes badly . . . and so it bound to be, unless the horse is healed. Here you see that God works in and by evil men, evil deeds results; yet God . . . is good, and cannot do evil; but he uses evil instruments . . . The fault which accounts for evil being done when God moves to action lies in these instruments, which God does not allow to be idle . . . ' (p. 204). Mysterious though this is in detail, yet if God is absolutely sovereign and omnipotent, working all in all, then it must in some form be true; and therefore we must reject out of hand all forms of the Deistic notion of God as an onlooker, passively watching the acts of man, in whose performance He plays no direct part. But that means that 'free-will' in Erasmus sense of an inherent power in man to act apart from God, simply does not exist. Only God has "free-will', for He is the only independent agent that there is. Man does not act independently of God's necessitating purpose (though he likes to hink he does), and therefore "free-will  is an empty name, an inapplicable title, when predicated of him.

Does God despise Ritualistic Worship?

When we consider the word "Ritual" in churches today, it is often used to describe Paganistic or "Religious" worship whereby certain procedures are followed in order to appease or pay respect to a certain deity. To the Jews, this most likely refers to the Temple and the Leviticus Sacrifices according to the Law of Moses for the Expiation (or Propitiation) of Sins.

For Christians today, we also follow typical Sunday program when we conduct Liturgies, Scripture readings and Singing Psalms Hymn, Spiritual Songs. These very involves a certain pattern or sequence of events which can be ritualistic by nature also. And of course as opposed to the Old Covenent, this is done out of gratitute and reverence of the Grace of God under the New Covenent, not to atone for Sins.

Unfortunately, there is a teaching that tells us that "Christianity is a relationship and not a Religion". Hence some modern Christian thinkers tend to be evasive of anything that involves tradition or religious practices. We all agree that Christianity is about having a Relationship with God, but is Christianity really NOT a religion at all? In fact, Revelations 5 is one of the many examples in the bible that involves sequence of Singing and Adoration; these too are "Ritualistic" or "Religious" by nature.

One of the popular text that some use to argue again Ritualistic Worship is Isaiah 66:1-2. Some people use these verses to justify that worship must come from a genuine heart of obedience and not merely an outward showing off of one's piety, which is definitely true. But some might go on to say that since worship is an internal attitude of adoration towards God, it must be conducted with bare minimum musical set ups, and some might suggest that it is not even necessarily important at all.

Is that true? Let's examine:

Isaiah 66:1-2

Thus says the Lord:
“Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool;
what is the house that you would build for me,
and what is the place of my rest?
2 All these things my hand has made,
and so all these things came to be,
declares the Lord.
But this is the one to whom I will look:
he who is humble and contrite in spirit
and trembles at my word.

In these verses, God has a message to the Post Exiles (who has yet to exist in Isaiah's time). Israel was filled with apostate Jews at that time, and they used the Levitical Sacrifices to outwardly show off their piety, when in reality they are void of true obedience and faith. This is consistent with Isaiah 1:11 when he begun the chapter saying that "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams" and in v14 he said "Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them.".

So it is true, God does not desire mere sacrifices from men, thinking that these rituals alone will appease him and give us blessings in return (same concept as Pagan religions). In fact, God desires for his followers to be genuinely faithful and thereby be obedient to his word (Isaiah 1:16-20).

"As [bible scholar] Delitzsch well says, "God will have no temple at all if men think by temple-building itself to do him service." This is consistent attitude of all the prophets toward the whole Cultic enterprise. If cult is performed to curry favor with God, to satisfy God's supposed needs, and thereby get something for ourselves from him, we could shut the doors of the temple at once and abandon the whole thing. But if our attitude in worship is the opposite of such arrogance as to think  we can do something for God, and is instead the humble recognition that we can do nothing either for or to him (afflicted), the awareness that we deserve nothing but destruction from him (broken in spirit), and the desire to do nothing other than what he commands (trembles at my word), then the expression of such a spirit through the medium of ritual and symbolic worship is entirely pleasing to God... this is the point of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, and it is not in fundamental contradiction with what is being said here." 

- Page 667-338, John N Oswalt, Book of Isaiah Chapters 40-66, New International Commentary of the Old Testament.

In fact, the abomination of outward hypocritical worship is as good as sacrificing to pagan gods, which is simply idolatry:

Isaiah 66:3-4

“He who slaughters an ox is like one who kills a man;
he who sacrifices a lamb, like one who breaks a dog's neck;
he who presents a grain offering, like one who offers pig's blood;
he who makes a memorial offering of frankincense, 

like one who blesses an idol.
These have chosen their own ways,
and their soul delights in their abominations;
I also will choose harsh treatment for them
and bring their fears upon them,
because when I called, no one answered,
when I spoke, they did not listen;
but they did what was evil in my eyes
and chose that in which I did not delight.”

So yes, if our Christian beliefs focuses ONLY on outward expressions of worship, we can sing out loud and raise our hands high, we can play our hearts out on the piano and drums, we can show forth signs and wonders or even do good deeds. If these external activities are done mainly for the purpose of showing off our religious piousness, to show others "how great a worshiper I AM", God calls it nothing but Idolatry (Matt 6:1).

But rather God expects true worshipers to be one who is "he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word." (Isaiah 66:2). In other words, a true worshiper is broken in recognition of his Sinful state, thinks nothing of himself, exalts nothing of the flesh, but all he wants is to "tremble at His word", to glorify nothing else but the God most high.

So then, back to the question, since such ritualistic worship can be so dangerously pagan, should we then scrape all external expression of worship? Must worship and liturgies in churches be made artificially simple in order to avoid such pitfalls? Hardly so.

Isaiah 56:1-2 says, "Thus says the Lord:“Keep justice, and do righteousness, for soon my salvation will come, and my righteousness be revealed. Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who holds it fast, who keeps the Sabbath, not profaning it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil.”". While God despises hypocritical worship that exalts man and not Himself, he is certainly does not despise the act of Ritualistic worship itself. In fact, Isaiah is saying that a righteous Godly man WILL keep the Sabbath, which is a symbol of Ritualistic worship.

Some may argue that the Sabbath and Ritual Laws no longer applies to the New Covenant. But another way to look at this is, Isaiah only records worship as relevant to what he knows at his time; while we don't sacrifice bulls and burnt offering today, we still remember God through our singing, preaching and communion. That is why in the following verses, he further affirmed blessings for those who will worship him through his rituals, not out of a "I am holier than thou" attitude, but out of a contrite spirit according to Isaiah 66:2.

Isaiah 56:3-8

3 Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”; and let not the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.”
4 For thus says the Lord: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant,
5 I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.
6 “And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and holds fast my covenant—
7 these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.”
8 The Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, declares, “I will gather yet others to him
besides those already gathered.”

So what is the conclusion here?

1. Worship or any other works of the Christian faith for that matter, must be expressed out of a broken spirit, that we acknowledge our sinfulness, our inadequacy and lowliness in the presence of a mighty God. It must never be done out of boasting or to show forth our abilities, or even to get something out of God (that is what Magic is used for). God sees that as good as idolatry, which as deeds of unrepentant unbelievers that are doomed for destruction.

2. However, we should also not adopt a false sense of humility to artificially simplify or even abolish musical instruments just for the sake of outward humility. Worship is an expression for righteous believers in Christ as reverence to our God. Just as we can see in numerous examples in the Old Testament, God honors the offerings and sacrifices of the righteous, which translates to our sincere adoration in today's context. While the act of worship neither saves nor justifies, a true genuine believer (who obeys out of conviction of the gospel) WILL desire to express their love for our Savior.

Hence just as God commands Israel to keep his Sabbaths, to take time and effort to prepare for the burnt offerings, to give him reverence through his ritualistic worship, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the usage of good liturgy arrangement, music preparation and usage of multimedia as an outlet of expression to our God, as long as the 1st point is not violated.