“To him who works,’ he says, ‘the reward is reckoned, not of grace, but of debt. But to him who does not work, but believes on him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness; according to the purpose of the grace of God.” Rom 4.4-5 DRA Then he adduces David speaking in like manner of the reckoning of grace; 721 saying, “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord has not imputed sin, ” etc. Psa 32.2
Nearly ten times in that same chapter, he repeats the word imputation. To be short, Paul compares the worker and the non-worker: leaving none between these two. He denies that righteousness is imputed to the worker; he asserts that righteousness is imputed to the non-worker, if he but believes. It is not possible for Freewill to escape or slip away here with her endeavour, or pains; for she must be numbered either with the worker, or the non-worker. If with the worker, you hear in this place that no righteousness is imputed to her; and if with the nonworker, whoever believes in God, righteousness is imputed to her. But then she would not be Freewill; she would be the new creature — the soul renewed by faith. 722 Now, if righteousness is not imputed to the one that works, it is plain that his works are nothing but sins, wicked and ungodly acts in the sight of God.
Nor is it possible for any Sophist to turn saucy, and say, ‘though the man is wicked, yet his work may not be wicked.’
For Paul lays hold, not on the person of the man simply, but on the man at work, for this very purpose: that he may declare in the most explicit terms, how the very works and endeavours of the man are condemned, whatever those may be, and under whatever name or species they may be classed. Moreover, he treats good works because he is discoursing about justification and merit. And when he speaks of a man who works, he speaks universally about all working men, and all their works; but especially about good and honest works. Otherwise, his division into worker and non-worker would not stand.
SECT. 20. Luther omits much which he might insist upon.
Here I omit those most powerful arguments which are drawn from the purpose of grace, from promise, from the power of the law, from original sin, and from the election of God. There is not one of these, that does not by itself, utterly take away Freewill. For if grace comes from the purpose or predestination of God, then it comes by necessity, not by our pains or endeavour, as I have already shown. So, if God promised grace before the law, as Paul argues both here and in Galatians, then it does not come from our works, or from the law; otherwise, the promise would be nothing. So too, if works have any efficacy, then faith would be nothing (though it is said that Abraham was justified by it before the law). So, because the law is the strength of sin — only manifesting sin and not taking it away — it makes the conscience guilty before God, and threatens wrath. This is what is meant by that saying, “The law works wrath.” Rom 4.15 How could it be, then, that righteousness is obtained by the law? And if we are not profited by the law, then how can we be profited by Freewill, when acting without it? 723
Again, seeing that we are all under sin and damnation through the one offence of the one man, Adam, how can we attempt anything which is not sin, and which is not damnable? For when he says all, he excepts no one — neither the power of Freewill, nor any workman; whether he works or does not work, endeavours or does not endeavour, he will necessarily be comprehended among the all, with the others. Nor could we have sinned, and been condemned, by that single sin of Adam’s, unless it were our sin. For who could be condemned for another man’s sin, especially in the sight of God? But that sin is not made ours by imitation, or by some subsequent act of ours, since this could not be that one sin of Adam, as though we had done it and not he; it becomes ours by birth. But this is not the place for discussing that question. However, original sin does not allow Freewill to do anything else, except sin and be damned. 724
These arguments, then, I omit, because they are most manifest, and most powerful. Besides, I have said something about them already. Now, if I had a mind to recite all that Paul has said only to the subversion of Freewill, I could not do this better than by discussing the whole of Paul’s writings in the form of a perpetual commentary; and by showing that this so-vaunted power of Free will is confuted in almost every single word of his — just as I have done in these third and fourth chapters. My special object in thus exhibiting these chapters has been first, to show the stupid drowsiness with which we have all nodded over his writings — reading them, clear as they are, in such a way as not to have the least idea that they contain the strongest possible arguments against Freewill — secondly, to show the folly of that confidence which leans on the authority and writings of the old doctors — and thirdly, that I might leave it as matter of thought, what these most manifest arguments are capable of effecting, if handled with diligence and judgment.
SECT. 21. Luther’s own view of Paul.
For my own part I am greatly astonished, that Paul so often uses those universal terms ‘All,’ None,’ ‘Not,’ ‘Nowhere,’ ‘Without.’ For instance, “They have all gone out of the way,” “There is none righteous,” “There is none that does good, no not one,” “All have been made sinners, and damned, by the offence of one.” “We are justified by faith without the law, without works.” So that, if a man had a mind to speak otherwise, he could not speak more clearly, or more explicitly. It is a matter of surprise to me, therefore, how it has come to pass that, in opposition to these universal words and sentiments, contrary words, indeed contradictory ones, have prevailed.
For instance; ‘There are some who do not go out of the way, who are not unjust, not wicked, not sinners, not damned. There is something in man which is good, and leans towards good — as if the man who inclines to good, whoever he is, were not comprehended in the words ‘All,’ ‘None,’ and ‘Not.’ For my part, I would not have anything to oppose or reply to Paul if I wished it. Rather, I would be compelled to comprehend the power of my Freewill, together with its endeavour, among those alls and nones of which Paul speaks — unless some new art of grammar, or some new use of speech, were introduced.
If Paul used such an expression only once, or in only one place, one might perhaps be allowed to suspect a trope, and to torture the words which I have selected, into some other meaning. But, in fact, Paul uses such expressions perpetually. And not only so, but he uses both affirmatives and negatives together, so handling his sentiment by way of contrast and distribution — by which he arrays the several parts against each other, on both sides — that not only the nature of the words, and the sentence itself, but also the subsequent, preceding, and immediate context, together with the scope and very body of the whole discussion, unite in establishing one common conclusion: that Paul means, ‘without faith in Christ, there is nothing but sin and damnation.’ 725
It was in this way, that I promised to confute Freewill, so that all my adversaries would not be able to resist me. I think I have done so, even if they do not yield to my sentiment, as vanquished, nor hold their peace. It is not within the compass of my power to bring them to this. That is the gift of God’s Spirit.
SECT. 22. Paul’s crown.
But before we hear the Evangelist John, let us add Paul’s finish to his argument on this subject. Where this will not satisfy, I am prepared to set the whole of Paul’s writings in array against Freewill, by a perpetual commentary. In Rom 8.5, after 726 dividing the whole human race into two parts, flesh and Spirit, as Christ also does in John 3, Paul speaks thus: “Those who are after the flesh, mind the things of the flesh; but those who are after the Spirit, mind the things of the Spirit.”
Here, Paul calls all ‘carnal’ who are not ‘spiritual.’ This is plain both from the division and opposition between flesh and Spirit, and also from Paul’s own words which follow: “You are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of Christ dwells in you. Now if any man does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” Rom 8.9 For what else does he mean here by the words, ‘You are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit,’ if not this: those who
