It has frequently been asserted that Luther in his later years recalled
his book _De Servo Arbitrio_, and retracted, changed and essentially
modified his original doctrine of grace, or, at least silently,
abandoned it and relegated it to oblivion. Philippi says in his
_Glaubenslehre_ (4, 1, 37): "In the beginning of the Reformation [before
1525] the doctrine of predestination fell completely into the
background. But when Erasmus, in his endeavors to restore
Semi-Pelagianism, injected into the issue also the question of
predestination, Luther, in his _De Servo Arbitrio_ with an overbold
defiance, did not shrink from drawing also the inferences from his
position. He, however, not only never afterwards repeated this doctrine,
but in reality taught the very opposite in his unequivocal proclamation
of the universality of divine grace, of the all-sufficiency of the
merits of Christ, and of the universal operation of the means of grace;
and he even opposed that doctrine [of _De Servo Arbitrio_] expressly as
erroneous, and by his corrections took back his earlier utterances on
that subject." Endorsing Philippi's view as "according well with the
facts in the case," J. W. Richard, who, too, charges the early Luther
with "absolute predestinarianism," remarks: "But this is certain: the
older Luther became, the more did he drop his earlier predestinarianism
into the background and the more did he lay stress on the grace of God
and on the means of grace, which offer salvation to all men (_in omnes,
super omnes_) without partiality, and convey salvation to all who
believe." (_Conf. Hist._, 336.)
Time and again similar assertions have been repeated, particularly by
synergistic theologians. But they are not supported by the facts.
Luther, as his books abundantly show, was never a preacher of
predestinarianism (limited grace, limited redemption, etc.), but always
a messenger of God's universal grace in Christ, offered in the means of
grace to all poor and penitent sinners. In his public preaching and
teaching predestination never predominated. Christ Crucified and His
merits offered in the Gospel always stood in the foreground. In _De
Servo Arbitrio_ Luther truly says: "We, too, teach nothing else than
Christ Crucified." (St. L. 18, 1723; E. v. a. 7, 160.) Luther's sermons
and books preached and published before as well as after 1525 refute the
idea that he ever made predestination, let alone predestinarianism, the
center of his teaching and preaching. It is a fiction that only very
gradually Luther became a preacher of universal grace and of the means
of grace. In fact, he himself as well as his entire reformation were
products of the preaching, not of predestinarianism, but of God's grace
and pardon offered to all in absolution and in the means of grace. The
bent of Luther's mind was not speculative, but truly evangelical and
Scriptural. Nor is it probable that he would ever have entered upon the
question of predestination to such an extent as he did in _De Servo
Arbitrio_, if the provocation had not come from without. It was the
rationalistic, Semi-Pelagian attack of Erasmus on the fundamental
Christian truths concerning man's inability in spiritual matters and his
salvation by grace alone which, in Luther's opinion, called for just
such an answer as he gave in _De Servo Arbitrio_. Wherever the occasion
demanded it Luther was ready to defend also the truth concerning God's
majesty and supremacy, but he always was and remained a preacher of the
universal mercy of God as revealed in Christ Crucified.
Nor is there any solid foundation whatever for the assertion that Luther
later on retracted his book against Erasmus or abandoned its doctrine,
--a fact at present generally admitted also by disinterested historians.
(Frank 1, 129. 135. 125.) In his criticism of the _Book of Confutation_,
dated March 7, 1559 Landgrave Philip of Hesse declared: "As to free
will, we a long time ago have read the writings of Luther and Erasmus of
Rotterdam as well as their respective replies; and, although in the
beginning they were far apart, Luther some years later saw the
disposition of the common people and gave a better explanation (_und
sich besser erklaeret_); and we believe, if a synod were held and one
would hear the other, they would come to a brotherly agreement in this
article." (_C. R._ 9, 760.) But Flacius immediately declared that this
assertion was false, as appeared from Luther's _Commentary on Genesis_
and his letter to the Elector concerning the Regensburg Interim. (Preger
2, 82.) Schaff writes: "The Philippist [Christopher] Lasius first
asserted, 1568 that Luther had recalled his book _De Servo Arbitrio;_
but this was indignantly characterized by Flacius and Westphal as a
wretched lie and an insult to the evangelical church. The fact is that
Luther emphatically reaffirmed this book, in a letter to Capito [July
9], 1637, as one of his very best." (_Creeds_ 1, 303.) In his letter to
Capito, Luther says: "_Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum nisi forte
'De Servo Arbitrio' et 'Catechismum_,'" thus endorsing _De Servo
Arbitrio_ in the same manner as his Catechism. (Enders 11, 247.) Before
this Luther had said at his table: "Erasmus has written against me in
his booklet _Hyperaspistes_, in which he endeavors to defend his book
_On Free Will_, against which I wrote my book _On the Enslaved Will_,
which as yet he has not refuted, and will never in eternity be able to
refute. This I know for certain, and I defy and challenge the devil
together with all his minions to refute it. For I am certain that it is
the immutable truth of God." (St. L. 20, 1081.) Despite numerous
endeavors, down to the present day, not a shred of convincing evidence
has been produced showing that Luther ever wavered in this position, or
changed his doctrine of grace.
Luther's extensive reference to _De Servo Arbitrio_ in his _Commentary
on Genesis_, from which we freely quoted above, has frequently been
interpreted as a quasi-retraction. But according to the _Formula of
Concord_ these expositions of Luther's merely "repeat and explain" his
former position. They certainly do not offer any corrections of his
former fundamental views. Luther does not speak of any errors of his
own, but of errors of others which they would endeavor to corroborate by
quoting from his books--"_post meam mortem multi meos libros proferrent
in medium et inde omnis generis errores et deliria sua confirmabunt_."
Moreover, he declares that he is innocent if some should misuse his
statements concerning necessity and the hidden God, because he had
expressly added that we must not search the hidden majesty of God, but
look upon the revealed God to judge of His disposition toward us--
"_addidi, quod aspiciendus sit Deus revelatus.... Ideo sum excusatus_."
(CONC. TRIGL., 898.) Luther's entire theological activity, before as
well as after 1525, was an application of the principle stressed also in
_De Servo Arbitrio, viz._, that we must neither deny nor investigate or
be concerned about the hidden God, but study God as He has revealed
Himself in the Gospel and firmly rely on His gracious promises in the
means of grace.