Saturday, October 11, 2008
Erasmus was wrong. This is no tender statement of a Victorian morality in which one seeks not to hurt feelings or gently tickle the ears. It is not a hesitant tiptoeing around a problem. It is not an overstatement. Erasmus was wrong. It is a harsh statement but one that Martin Luther would most certainly have approved of. Of course, one here wonders, “Why was Erasmus wrong? What indeed did the poor soul do who could garner such a lead line?” It would be prudent to alert the reader to a certain debate that seems to have been present in the Church for many hundreds of years. This debate has raged since Paul when men hurled the furious objection, “Why does [God] still find fault? For who resists his will?” (Romans 9:19). It is a debate that has raged from the days of Origen and a debate that without a doubt found its full power in the days of Augustine and Pelagius. While this debate may have quelled in some more peaceful form for several hundred years it nonetheless remained on the minds of Christians in one form or another up until the Protestant Reformation. It was at this point that the debate exploded. What debate is this? It is none other than the pressing question, “Do I have a free will? Can my will trump God’s will?” During the early 16th century this issue began to be fiercely debated due in large part to Luther and in no small part to Erasmus of Rotterdam. So it was that Erasmus, the great rhetorician and unfortunate mediate between Rome and the Reformers came to write the incredibly explosive and highly controversial Diatribe on Free Will (De libero arbtitrio Diatribe sive collatio) which was an essentially polemic text against Luther and the Reformer’s stance on free will. So the question remains, “What on earth did poor Erasmus say that could garner such a fierce lead line? Why this thesis?” Let Erasmus speak for himself,
“Free will...is a power in the human will, by which, a man may apply himself to those things which lead unto eternal salvation, or turn away from the same.”1Perhaps Luther’s paraphrase of this statement may make it more palatable,
“Free will is a power of the human will, which can, of itself, will and not will to embrace the word and work of God...”2Erasmus was wrong, or so said Luther in his cornerstone work The Bondage of the Will (De servo arbitrio.)
I had always wanted to read Luther beyond the secondary sources and after enrolling in a European studies class at my longtime favorite Emmaus Bible College3 I was given the great opportunity to do so with The Bondage of the Will. I was certainly not disappointed and this book will remain in mind as formative on this issue of the will and the providence of God. Indeed, I could not have asked for a better place to start in understanding Luther and the Reformation than what I shall heretofore label simply Bondage. Until this book I was left totally in the dark as to where this whole raging, dare I say, flaming, debate about the will and providence of God had come from and where it should go. I did not really know any further than my favorite conservative reformed Baptist preacher what it meant to believe in the sovereignty of God. I was not even sure how to properly define the issue apart from a stern personal conviction that Paul was speaking of individual election in Romans 9 and Pharaoh was most certainly hardened by the sovereign God in the account of Israel’s Exodus from Egypt. But, I definitely did not have any well formed arguments (not being a terribly original thinker) to develop these thoughts. Luther’s Bondage changed all of that. This book has left no small imprint in my thinking and has opened doors for the enlargement of my mind in thinking about the sovereign God and the bound will of man.
The number one thing that I loved about this book and which was a most important theme in my reading of it was that it convinced me that predestination and the issue of the will really actually mattered. I am well acquainted with that mean and base saying from many of my friends and still many of my elders that the issues of free will and providence are tertiary issues and too insignificant to argue about. I have heard any number of excuses and have more than once been branded as argumentative and one who created dissension for insisting that the Bible said the will was bound and that to say otherwise bordered biblical ignorance. I have often heard ridiculous things about how this issue is “secondary.” I have never bought that and I still cannot buy that, I would face persecution at the hands of any number of people to stand up for the truth of the sovereign God who’s will most certainly is far greater than any will which man may have. I will continue to tell Arminians that even though they may be saved they have focused far too strongly upon man and are therefore in danger of making Christianity not a Chrsitocentric and Theocentric faith, but an Anthropocentric religion that elevates man as most glorious. I have been told, by many indeed, that as doctrine goes this is a lesser doctrine and that doctrine, as it goes, isn’t really so important as to argue about silly things like whether man’s will is bound or not. This is where Luther comes in. Luther faced the exact same charges from those of his day who preferred not to deal with this issue directly. Just listen to Erasmus. He said of himself that he was,
“So far from delighting in assertions, that [he] would rather go over at once to the sentiments of the skeptics, if the inviolable authority of the Holy Scriptures, and the decrees of the church, would permit [him].”4In so many words, Erasmus didn’t like doctrine and this doctrine he liked least of all. In his head, he would rather have been a skeptic than deal with the weighty assertions Luther was making at that time. Is this not indeed what we deal with on a daily basis? Erasmus said nothing more nor less than what I am told by some of my best friends and hear from much of the current scholarship. They would have me believe that this wasn’t such a great issue after all and I should just give up trying to understand it it. They claim, like Erasmus, a sort of theological agnosticism when it comes to question of the will. Luther was all over it.
“Not to delight in assertions is not the character of the Christian mind: no, he must delight in assertions, or he is not a Christian.”5And again,
“Take away assertions, and you take away Christianity.”6Further,
“Allow us to be assertors, and to delight in assertions: and do you favor your Skeptics and Academics until Christ shall have called you also. The Holy Spirit is not a Skeptic, nor are what he has written on our hearts doubts or opinions, but assertions more certain, and more firm, than life itself and all human experience.”7But Luther doesn’t stop there, after chiding Erasmus for so light and fluffy a view on doctrine (he elsewhere called the whole debate “irreligious, curious, and superfluous”) he drives the point home that,
“It is not irreligious, curious, or superfluous, but essentially wholesome and necessary, for a Christian to know, whether or not the will does anything in those things which pertain unto salvation. No let me tell you, it is the very hinge upon which our discussion turns. It is the very heart of our subject. For our object is this: to inquire what free will can do, in what it is passive, and how it stands with reference to the grace of God. If we know nothing of these things, we shall know nothing whatever of Christian matters, and shall be far behind all people on earth. He that does not feel this, let him confess that he is no Christian. And he that despises and laughs at it, let him know that he is the Christian’s greatest enemy. For if I know not how much I can do myself, how far my ability extends, and what I can do God-ward, I shall be equally uncertain and ignorant how much God is to do, how far his ability is to extend, and what he is to do toward me; whereas it is “God which worketh all in all” (1 Cor. 12:6). But if I know not the distinction between our working and the power of God, I know not God Himself. And if I know not God, I cannot worship Him, praise Him, give Him thanks, nor serve Him; for I shall not know much I ought to ascribe unto myself, and how much unto God. It is necessary, therefore, to hold the most certain distinction, between the power of God and our power, the working of God and our working, if we would live in His fear.”8This is a breath of fresh air for a Reformed person like myself surrounded by barking and occasionally vicious dogs (thanks to Calvin for that “dogs” phrase) who would have me believe that the issue of the will of man is really not that big a deal and who get their feelings hurt when I contend that it is, in fact, a huge deal as demonstrated by Luther above. It is of great comfort to know that this issue really and actually matters, and that I am not simply chasing after air when I wrestle with it both privately and publicly!
After so maligning Erasmus’ ridiculous arguments Luther turns to reason and to Scripture and proves wrong Erasmus’ statement,
“Free will...is a power in the human will, by which, a man may apply himself to those things which lead unto eternal salvation, or turn away from the same.”9After this statement, and this is my second favorite part of the book, Luther convinced me both Scripturally and from Reason that the human will was wholly depraved and therefore bound and not free. Luther most definitely makes an argument that God is sovereign and, therefore, the human will is bound and not free, but I have no time to go into that here. You should definitely read the book for yourself. For now, I focus on his argument that the human will is depraved. Through a set of arguments based upon the depravity of the human heart, Luther says,
“Free will, having once lost its liberty, is compulsively bound to the service of sin, and cannot will anything good, I, from these words, can understand nothing else than that free will is a mere empty term whose reality is lost. And a lost liberty, according to my grammar, is no liberty at all.”10Like Calvin, and Augustine, and Paul, Luther argues that the will of man is utterly depraved, that he does not choose good, and that he indeed cannot choose good. Therefore, as he says, “free will” is a liberty lost. This is simply it, one day, before the fall, man was created as a creature who had free will, but this will was totally corrupted at the fall and subsequently left all mankind reeling with the ability only to serve sin. So...how is that free will? How is a will which by nature serves only sin and Satan free? That’s just it, it isn’t! It is bound. Bound to sin, bound, Satan, and bound ultimately by the sovereign God of the universe. Luther says,
“Scripture describes man as corrupt and a captive; and added to that, as proudly [sic] conteming and ignorant of his corruption and captivity; and therefore, by those words, it goads him and rouses him up, that he might know, by a real experience, how unable he is to any one of those things [that Erasmus says he can do].”11Further,
“We can do nothing ourselves, and...if we do anything, God works that in us.”12After speaking from the Scripture infused reason (for the better part 70 pages!) Luther moves to Scriptural arguments in whole. Luther says it plainly,
“The Word of God is to be understood according to the plain meaning of the words.”13He then proceeds to work through Romans 1-3 and proves that the will is indeed depraved and therefore bound. He says,
“Paul, writing to the Romans, thus enters upon his argument, against free will, and for the grace of God. ‘The wrath of God ([sic]saith he) is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness’ (Rom. 1:18).”So Luther goes on,
“Do you hear this general sentence, ‘against all men,’ that they are all under the wrath of God? And what is this but declaring that they all merit wrath and punishment? For he assigns the cause of the wrath against them - they do nothing but that which merits wrath; because they are all ungodly and unrighteous, and hold the truth in unrighteousness.”And so, Luther concludes,
“Where is now the power of free will which can endeavor anything good?”14In other words, Romans 1 contends that man’s will can choose nothing good and, if it can choose anything at all, will choose only bad. This argument he makes throughout a, dare I say, genius exposition of Romans 1-3 which ends with the words,
“But let us hear Paul, who is his own interpreter. In the third chapter, drawing up, as it were, a conclusion, he says, ‘What then? Are we better than they? No, in no wise; for we have before proved both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin’ (Rom 3:9). Where is now free will! All, says he, both Jews and Greeks are under sin!...Thus he proves to them afterward from experience, showing them, that being hated of God, they were given up to so many vices, in order that they might be convinced from the fruits of their ungodliness that they willed and did nothing but evil.”15Does man have a will? Indeed, according to reason and to the Scriptural doctrine of depravity, even just by observing life in general, it can without a doubt be said, NO! Or at least, if there be any will it is a will that is wholly bound to sin and able to serve and choose only ungodliness!
Luther touches many other subjects and proofs, and I have only given a mere inkling of the whole work here. This said, I would advise a thorough reading of Martin Luther’s Bondage of the Will. Whether you are a so-called “Calvinist” or an Arminian in doctrine, this book will challenge you and hopefully work towards convincing you that God is the sovereign, almighty, ordaining, foreknowing, prescient God of the universe and that we should, as depraved and sinful men and women, be on our knees before Him in thanks and praise for Who He is and that we believe in the first place! It really doesn’t matter which side of the debate you fall on, I would argue that to ignore this book renders you historically unfit to partake in the debate at all. Even if you disagree with Luther in the end he presents arguments that must be answered and must be considered by both sides. Therefore I leave with my classic review ending cry:
Read This book!
--
Ryan Thompson's new favorite theologian is Martin Luther. On the average day Mr. Thompson can be found telling his best friends that they are "vile dogs" or that their best writings are, "words of eloquence so rare in vessels of dung." Clearly, he has begun to spend too much time around Luther! Come and tell him so over at his blog here.End Notes
1 Erasmus, Desiderius. Qtd. in Martin Luther. The Bondage of the Will. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008. pp. 91.2 Ibid., 94.
3 Let the reader beware, to accuse this beloved institution of indoctrinating me into that blanch worthy and dirty word known as “Calvinism” would be a hasty accusation indeed. No, the institution in no way leans a certain direction and I, of all the students at least, should know this. I have definitely been chided by teachers at this institution for holding so strongly to the Doctrines of Grace and have more than once been assigned books by, are you ready for this? Arminians. Yes indeed, several times I have been asked to read books by Arminians and this not necessarily in a critical fashion. I have many times had my own questions and concerns to my professors and others as to the validity of their weak belief in the Doctrines of Grace if they had any. In other words, I think they are too Arminian! Let this be a warning: to jump to the immediate conclusion that because I was assigned a book sympathetic with a strong view of the sovereignty of God Emmaus Bible College was somehow, “Calvinist” would be a totally incorrect snap judgment and I urge you not to assume this. I have so far been assigned at Emmaus to read the work of Egalitarians, Arminians, Postmodernists, Calvinists, Amyraldians, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans, the so-called Brethren, Augustinians, Hyper-Calvnists, Moderate Calvinists, Charismatics, Complementarians, Catholics, Presuppositionalists, Evidentialists, Fideists, Annhiliationists, Universalists, Open Theists, Amillennialists, Postmillennialists, Preterists, Permillennialists, and many many more. Saying that because I am Reformed, and am allowed to go to Emmaus, and do well there, and have relationships with teachers there, and am assigned books like, “The Bondage of the Will,” there, means that Emmaus must most certainly be “Calvinist” is not only a logical fallacy (if a is b and c is associated with a then c must be b) it would also be like saying that because I read and was assigned that abhorrent Egalitarian book known as “Discovering Biblical Equality” at Emmaus they must, therefore, be Egalitarians. They aren’t. I should know. I go there. Thus, it would most certainly be a wrong supposition to assume that because I have been assigned to read a book by Luther, Emmaus holds to everything he says. They don’t. I should know. I go there. I talk to faculty all the time. Take my word for it.
4 Erasmus. Qtd in Bondage, 17
5 Ibid., 17.
6 Ibid., 18.
7 Ibid., 22.
8 Ibid., 31.
9 Erasmus. Qtd in Bondage, 91.
10 Ibid., 103.
11 Ibid., 108.
12 Ibid., 134.
13 Ibid., 150.
14 Ibid., 231-232.
15 Ibid., 237.
4 comments:
*Deleted old comment with typos*
Well timed! I just read Luther's 'Bondage' yesterday, actually in two sittings. There's an audio version of the book, for free on Sermon Audio:
Audio version, here.
I found it to be a fun use of two and a half hours. The reader gets pretty impassioned at times, and I could only wish he had a German accent.
I agree, there were elements that were, to me, raw genius. Such as when Luther referred to himself in third person, like an ox or gorilla ready to smash Erasmus' arguments, saying,
"You called those men, 'men of the greatest understanding in the Scripture, and martyrs of Christ;' merely in order that you might blind the eyes of the inexperienced commonalty, and make work for Luther by loading his cause with empty words, odium, and contempt. But, however, I aver that neither of your assertions are true, and that both are false. For, first of all, I aver, that the Scriptures are quite clear: and next, that those men, as far as they asserted "Free-will," were most ignorant of the Sacred Writings: and moreover, that they neither asserted it by their life, nor by their death, but by their pen only; and that, while their heart was traveling another road."
He called Erasmus' flattery for what it was: a false flag.
As well, I appreciated the simplicity of his explanation about 'Imperatives versus Indicatives.' You recall, he said that to infer an indicative sense upon what may be an imperative passage is to upset all of biblical understanding. For instance, one may read 'Choose you this day whom you will serve,' and thereby infer that the word 'choose' indicates one's native ability to fulfill the command. However, if one is to use such exegetical methods consistently, he must also infer an indicative sense upon all other 'command' passages. For example, 'Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart' becomes either an indicative of a promise, that all people shall here on only love God perfectly, thus making a promise of the command, or that we are capable, of ourselves, of loving God perfectly. What need is there then for grace? And if one says, grace enables us enough to do these things by our free will, then we deny the very freedom of that will, showing that it needs enabling in order to do right!
Alas, I for on, and you already know these things.
Thanks for the review.
"And if one says, grace enables us enough to do these things by our free will, then we deny the very freedom of that will, showing that it needs enabling in order to do right!"
That was one of the most striking truths of the book for me. Amazing! I'm so very glad you got to delve the riches of this book if only by ear. I can never get anything from audio books. . .I drift!
I will be writing a monster of a paper concerning how the seeds of the solas, while not yet fully formed, are nonetheless all present in "Bondage." Would you care to read it when I am finished?
Loved the review. I've perused some of Jonathan Edward's "Freedom of the Will," but it looks like I'll have to be checking out Luther's as well.
I liked that quote you just mentioned in your comment too, Ryan! It's similar logic when the abortionists say that they are not "for" abortion, they are just for "choice." Well, if you are for choice, you are for whatever choice that might be. That means you are for abortion.
Well if the will must be freed to act freely, then it wasn't free. Nice. I love succinct sentences like that.
Post a Comment