[755] Ibid., p. 754 = 317, 318. Luther here shows a quite enigmatical want of comprehension for Erasmus’s exposition of the ancient Catholic doctrine concerning the co-operation of the will with grace.
[756] “De servo arbitrio,” p. 615 = 133.
[757] Ibid., p. 619 = 138.
[758] Taube, p. 19 f.
[759] “De servo arbitrio,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 636; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 158.
[760] “De servo arbitrio,” 7, p. 724 seq. = 276.
[761] Ibid., p. 730 = 284.
[762] Ibid., p. 712 seq. = 259 seq.: cp. p. 627-629 seq. = 147, 150 seq.: Kattenbusch, ibid., p. 12.
[763] Loofs, “Dogmengesch.,”4 p. 758: “God’s universal action and His sovereign will determines [according to Luther’s theory] man’s destiny.” That passages of the Bible, such as 1 Timothy ii. 4, as urged in the “Diatribe” of Erasmus, contradict this, Luther will not admit. “Illudit sese Diatribe ignorantia sua, dum nihil distinguit inter Deum prædicatum et absconditum, hoc est inter verbum Dei et Deum ipsum. Multa ... Deus ... vult, quæ verbo suo non ostendit se velle; sic non vult mortem peccatoris, verbo scilicet, vult autem illam voluntate illa imperscrutabili.” In connection with such thoughts Luther does not shrink from saying (p. 731 = 284): “Si placet tibi Deus indignos coronans, non debet etiam displicere immeritos damnans,” and (p. 633 = 154): “Sua voluntate nos necessario damnabiles facit.” The passage here quoted on the “Deus absconditus” is to be found in Luther’s “De servo arbitrio,” p. 685 = 222, and has many parallels, for instance, p. 684, 689 = 221, 227. Of such passages Kattenbusch says (p. 17, ibid.): “Luther expressly advances it as a theory that God has two contradictory wills, the secret will of which no one knows anything, and another which He causes to be proclaimed.” Luther assumes that God makes use of His “exemption from the moral law which binds us” by “not being obliged actually to strive after what He proclaims to be His intention [the salvation of all men]—in other words, that He is free to lie.” According to Luther there is a great difference “between God not considering Himself bound by His word, and man acting in the same way” (ibid.).
[764] Taube, p. 35.