Bondage of the Will - Luther - XIII - 'Discussion: Second Part' continued

Required reading
The Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther (Available from Amazon or free here) - Continue the 'Discussion: Second Part' by reading sections 98 to 110.

My summary
Firstly this week, Luther looks at Erasmus' explanations of Paul's comments about Jacob and Esau in Romans 9.  Erasmus claims: 'THIS place the Diatribe evades by saying — ‘that it does not properly pertain to the salvation of man. For God (it says) may will that a man shall be a servant, or a poor man; and yet, not reject him from eternal salvation.’'  Luther explains that Erasmus is basically trying to minimise the force of the text's claim that Esau is among the reprobate from the womb.

Secondly Luther provides similar comments on Erasmus' thoughts about Paul's illustration of the potter in Romans 9, which also draws on Isaiah and Jeremiah: 'THE next passage which the Diatribe takes up is that of Isaiah xlv. 9, “Shall the clay say to Him that fashioneth it, what makest Thou?” And that of Jeremiah xviii. 6, “Behold as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in Mine hand.” Here the Diatribe says again — “these passages are made to have more force in Paul, than they have in the places of the prophets from which they are taken; because, in the prophets they speak of temporal affliction, but Paul uses them, with reference to eternal election and reprobation.” — So that, here again, temerity or ignorance in Paul, is insinuated. '

What grabbed me
It was scary to see Erasmus flatly deny the plain meaning of the text: ' AND with respect to that of Malachi which Paul annexes, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated;” (Mal. i. 2-3). that, the Diatribe perverts by a threefold contrivance. The first is – “If (it says) you stick to the letter, God does not love as we love, nor does He hate any one: because, passions of this kind do not pertain unto God.” —

What do I hear! Are we now inquiring whether or not God loves and hates, and not rather why He loves and hates? Our inquiry is, from what merit it is in us that He loves or hates. We know well enough, that God does not love or hate as we do; because, we love and hate mutably, but He loves and hates from an eternal and immutable nature; and hence it is, that accidents and passions do not pertain unto Him. '

What an appealing idea - God is much less formidable if you just deny that he is capable of hatred!

Next week's reading
Continue the 'Discussion: Second Part' by reading sections 111 to 122.

Now it's your turn
Please post your own notes and thoughts in the comments section below.