Kolb schools Luther and Formula on Free Will ("correction", "codicil", "cautioned"?)

      While researching my recent project on an essay by Dr. Walther on Melanchthon, a rather disturbing situation came to light regarding Dr. Robert Kolb's history and theology.  In particular, his analysis and reporting of matters relating to the doctrine of Free Will differ from orthodox teaching and history. Dr. Kolb does not hide his differences, but attempts to present his history in such a way that he appears to be orthodox while maintaining his differences. His readers are expected to accept his opinions because of his scholarship. But as Luther said to Amsdorf in 1534, scholarship is to serve Christ or it tramples Him under foot. Dr. Kolb places Luther's writing against Erasmus On the Bondage of the Will, or De Servo Arbitrio, under scrutiny. But does he keep in mind what Christ's Word says, that we are dead in our sins? (Eph. 2:5). — Now I present a "dialogue" between Drs. Robert Kolb and Martin Luther (emphasis mine):

Dr. Kolb says, in his book Bound Choice, p. 26: 

• "Luther may have regarded De servo arbitrio highly…" (may?)

But Dr. Luther says: 

• "For I acknowledge none of them to be really a book of mine, except perhaps the one On the Bound Will and the Catechism." (StL 21b, 2176; AE 50, 173)
• "He (Erasmus) 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." (Table Talk StL 22, 1081, Bente 225)

Dr. Kolb says, ibid. p. 26:

Luther "did not regard it [De Servo Arbitrio] as infallible."

But Dr. Luther says:

• “These thoughts must be opposed by the true and firm knowledge of Christ… For this is what He affirms of Himself, Mal. 3, 6: ‘I am the Lord, I change not,’ and Rom. 11:29: ‘For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.’ Accordingly, in the book De Servo Arbitrio and elsewhere I have taught that we must distinguish when we treat of the knowledge of God or, rather, of His essence. For one must argue either concerning the hidden or the revealed God." (StL 2, 176-177, Bente 224. Luther based his work on Holy Scripture, the infallible source and norm.)
• “It was my desire to urge and set forth these things, because after my death many will quote my books and by them try to prove and confirm all manner of errors and follies of their own. Now, among others I have written that all things are absolute and necessary; but at the same time (and very often at other times) I added that we must look upon the revealed God" (StL 2, 184-185;  AE 5, 50; Bente 224)

Dr. Kolb says:

• "…the reformer’s own 'correction' of his position [in De Servo Arbitrio] in his comments on Genesis 26 some fifteen years later." (Bound Choice, p. 9), 
• Luther "offered codicils to what he had be­queathed to his followers in De servo arbitrio." (p. 26)
• Luther ''cautioned against possible misinterpretations of De servo arbitrio" (p. 271)

But Dr. Luther says:

"He (Erasmus) 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." (Table Talk StL 22, 1081, Bente 225)

And the Formula of Concord says:

"Even so Dr. Luther wrote of this matter also in his book De Servo Arbitrio, i. e., Of the Captive Will of Man, in opposition to Erasmus, and elucidated and supported this position well and thoroughly, and afterward he repeated and explained it in his glorious exposition of the book of Genesis, especially of Gen. 26. [See StL 2, 174-177; AE 5, 42 ff.] There likewise his meaning and understanding of some other peculiar disputations introduced incidentally by Erasmus, as of absolute necessity, etc., have been secured by him in the best and most careful way against all misunderstanding and perversion; to which we also hereby appeal and refer others." SD 2, 44 (On Free Will)

The Formula speaks of Luther's De Servo Arbitrio in nothing but laudatory terms. And while Dr. Kolb asserts that Luther himself portrayed the elucidation in his Genesis Commentary as a "correction", the Formula says the opposite. The Formula of Concord is an integral part of the Lutheran Book of Concord and yet Dr. Kolb openly contradicts it. To assert that Luther's Genesis Commentary "corrects" his De Servo Arbitrio is unconfessional and is fiction. So how can he claim to be a "confessional" Lutheran? How can he claim "much greater precision" in his histories? (Kolb even goes so far as to say (Bound Choice, 28) "…the two were sometimes arguing past each other", essentially charging Luther with "arguing past" Erasmus!)

      By all appearances, Dr. Kolb is a follower of Germany's theologians at the time of the 1948-1949 Bad Boll conferences where it was reported by Prof. F. E. Mayer that

“Dr. [Werner] Elert maintained furthermore that the recent Luther studies…have shown that the Lutheran Confessions show a deviation from Luther. German Lutheran scholars therefore are interested more in the study of Luther than of the Confessions.” (The Story of Bad Boll, p. 16)

Reading the works of Dr. Robert Kolb, like those of Werner Elert, is an exercise in trying to follow circumlocutory, philosophical, nebulous language, where one ends up being confused on Christian doctrine, and even questioning one's faith. Kolb thought so highly of his Bound Choice book that he used it as an authority for his other historical writings. Shame on him for criticizing Nikolas von Amsdorf for standing with Luther on this very same doctrine against Free Will (Amsdorf, p. 164).

>>>   Back To Luther, not Kolb.   <<<