Bondage of the Will: Willing to Believe with R.C. Sproul

Summary

The script discusses the intellectual duel between Desiderius Erasmus and Martin Luther during the 16th century Reformation. Erasmus, a respected Catholic scholar, initially sided with Luther but later critiqued his teachings, particularly on free will, in 'The Diatribe Concerning Free Will'. Luther responded with 'The Bondage of the Will', arguing that human will is bound without divine grace, a stance rooted in Augustine's theology. The debate underscores the foundational Reformation doctrines of sola fide (by faith alone) and sola gratia (by grace alone), with Luther asserting the necessity of God's grace for salvation, in contrast to Erasmus' view that such teachings could lead to moral complacency.

Takeaways

• 📚 The debate between Erasmus and Luther was a significant theological duel in the 16th century, focusing on the Reformation's core issues.
• 🤔 Erasmus initially sided with Luther but later critiqued his teachings, particularly on free will, in his work 'The Diatribe Concerning Free Will'.
• 📖 Luther's response to Erasmus was 'De servo arbitrio', also known as 'The Bondage of the Will', which he considered his most important work.
• 🔍 The central issue of the Reformation was 'sola fide' or 'by faith alone', but Luther saw this as only the tip of the iceberg, with 'sola gratia' or 'by grace alone' as the foundational doctrine.
• 💡 Erasmus viewed the debate on free will as an academic point of little importance, while Luther believed it was vital for understanding God's grace and human will.
• 🙏 Luther emphasized that the understanding of salvation being solely God's work (Soli Deo Gloria) is crucial for the Christian's spiritual health and worship.
• 🤨 Erasmus was concerned about the practical implications of the Reformation's teachings, fearing they might lead to moral complacency.
• 🗣️ Luther countered that the inability of fallen humans to seek God is the very reason they need God's grace, and that this does not negate striving for righteousness.
• 🧐 Luther critiqued Erasmus' ambiguous stance on free will, arguing that it was essential to define the role of human will and God's grace in salvation.
• 👉 Luther made a clear distinction between God's foreknowledge and coercion, asserting that God's omniscience does not necessitate human actions.
• 🌟 The debate highlights the deep theological differences between humanism and Reformation theology, particularly on the topics of grace, free will, and predestination.

Q & A

What was the theological duel between Desiderius Erasmus and Martin Luther centered on?

The theological duel between Desiderius Erasmus and Martin Luther was centered on the concept of free will and the extent to which human will is free or bound in matters of salvation and divine grace.

What work did Erasmus publish in 1524 that prompted the debate with Luther?

Erasmus published 'The Diatribe Concerning Free Will' in 1524, which provided a comprehensive critique of Luther's theology and the teachings of the Reformers.

How did Martin Luther respond to Erasmus' critique?

In 1525, Martin Luther responded to Erasmus' work with his book 'De servo arbitrio,' also known as 'The Bondage of the Will.'

What was the significance of the book 'The Bondage of the Will' to Martin Luther?

Luther regarded 'The Bondage of the Will' as his most important work, as it delved into the foundational underpinnings of justification and the doctrine of grace, which he believed were central to the Reformation.

What slogan of the Reformation is related to the concept of 'by faith alone'?

The slogan related to the concept of 'by faith alone' is 'sola fide,' which encapsulates Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone.

What is the relationship between 'sola fide' and 'sola gratia' according to Luther?

For Luther, 'sola fide' (by faith alone) grows out of and depends upon 'sola gratia' (by grace alone), as it is through divine grace that individuals are justified by faith.

What was Erasmus' view on the importance of the free will debate in the Reformation?

Erasmus considered the issue of free will to be of little importance, viewing it as an academic point or technicality that could be left to scholars rather than being a central concern for the general populace.

How did Luther respond to Erasmus' concern about the potential negative consequences of preaching the doctrine of election?

Luther argued that the character of God and the truth of the Bible's teachings on human dependence on divine grace were of utmost importance, even if it meant opening a 'floodgate of iniquity' by acknowledging the reality of human moral inability.

What is the concept of 'Soli Deo Gloria' and how does it relate to the debate on free will and divine grace?

'Soli Deo Gloria' means 'to God alone the glory.' It relates to the debate by emphasizing that salvation is entirely God's work, and believers should not attribute any part of their redemption to their own efforts or merits.

How did Luther address the issue of necessity and free will in his response to Erasmus?

Luther distinguished between the necessity of consequence (God's infallible foreknowledge) and the necessity of the consequent (coercion), arguing that while God knows what will happen, He does not coerce individuals' actions, which are still freely chosen, albeit wickedly.

What was the central issue that Luther believed was more foundational than the doctrine of justification?

Luther believed that the doctrine of 'sola gratia' (by grace alone) was more foundational than justification, as it underpins the understanding of human fallenness, the strength of the human will, and the extent of divine grace in salvation.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Theological Duel: Erasmus vs. Luther

This paragraph introduces a historical theological debate between the Catholic scholar Desiderius Erasmus and the Protestant reformer Martin Luther in the 16th century. Erasmus, known for his reconstruction of the New Testament text and his satirical critique of the Catholic clergy's corruption, initially sided with Luther but later disagreed on key Reformation issues, maintaining his loyalty to the Catholic Church. The debate's pivotal moment came in 1524 with Erasmus' 'Diatribe Concerning Free Will,' critiquing Luther's theology, prompting Luther's 1525 response, 'The Bondage of the Will.' This work is considered by Luther and many theologians as his most significant, deeply exploring the doctrines of election, original sin, and the concept of 'sola fide' or justification by faith alone, which Luther saw as rooted in 'sola gratia' or salvation by grace alone.

05:07

🤔 The Debate on Free Will and Human Will's Role in Salvation

In this paragraph, the discussion delves into the foundational aspects of the debate on free will and its significance in the doctrine of grace. Erasmus considered the debate on free will to be of minor importance, an academic technicality, and suggested suspending judgment on the matter. However, Luther vehemently disagreed, arguing that understanding the role of human will in salvation is crucial for Christian piety, worship, and dependence on God. He criticized Erasmus for creating confusion and for not defining the limits of human will's action in relation to divine grace. The paragraph highlights Luther's assertion that the question of salvation being solely God's work or partially achieved by human effort is of utmost importance for the Christian's religious stance and understanding of God's grace.

10:07

🏆 Soli Deo Gloria: The Sovereignty of Divine Grace

This paragraph focuses on the Reformation principle 'Soli Deo Gloria,' which emphasizes that all glory for redemption belongs to God alone. It contrasts the idea of self-righteousness with the understanding that salvation is entirely a gift from God, not something that can be earned or partially achieved by human effort. Luther argues against Erasmus' concerns about the potential negative consequences of preaching the doctrines of election and human moral inability, stating that even if these doctrines might discourage some from striving for righteousness, they are essential for upholding the character and glory of God. Luther's response to the practical objections raised by Erasmus is unyielding, asserting that the truth of God's sovereignty in salvation is paramount, even if it means accepting that people, in their natural state, are incapable of seeking God.

15:08

🔍 Exploring the Nature of Free Will and Divine Sovereignty

The paragraph examines the concept of free will, with Luther challenging Erasmus' definition and understanding of it. Luther suggests that the will's power to choose or reject is not separate from the act of willing itself and criticizes the idea that the will has a separate faculty that elicits action. He argues that the will's inclination towards or away from God is the key determinant in an individual's response to divine grace. The discussion touches on the complexity of why one person might accept God's grace while another rejects it, highlighting the role of desire and inclination in making such choices. Luther emphasizes that the right choice is not due to human righteousness but rather a gift from God, thus avoiding the trap of self-righteousness.

20:10

🗝️ The Distinction Between Divine Foreknowledge and Coercion

In this paragraph, the conversation centers on the relationship between God's foreknowledge and human freedom. Erasmus argues that if God knows everything in advance, then all events occur by necessity, which would negate human freedom. Luther counters this by distinguishing between the necessity of God's infallible knowledge and the necessity of events being coerced. He asserts that while God knows with certainty what humans will freely choose, this does not imply coercion. Luther explains that humans are not forced by God to make their decisions; rather, they choose according to their desires, which are inherently wicked due to the fall. The paragraph clarifies that divine sovereignty and foreknowledge do not negate human responsibility or freedom, as humans act according to their will, which is influenced by their sinful nature.

Keywords

💡Theological Duel

The term 'theological duel' refers to a significant intellectual and religious debate between theologians. In the context of the video, it describes the conflict between Martin Luther and Desiderius Erasmus, two prominent figures in the 16th century. This debate was not just an exchange of ideas but a pivotal moment in the Reformation, highlighting the deep divisions over religious doctrine.

💡Desiderius Erasmus

Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam was a renowned Catholic humanist scholar known for his work in reconstructing the New Testament text. The script mentions his initial alignment with Luther and his critique of the Catholic clergy's corruptions, as expressed in his satirical work 'The Praise of Folly.' However, Erasmus ultimately remained loyal to the Catholic Church and engaged in a theological debate with Luther, particularly on the issue of free will.

💡Martin Luther

Martin Luther is a central figure in the Protestant Reformation, known for his Ninety-five Theses and his doctrine of justification by faith alone. The script discusses his most important work, 'The Bondage of the Will,' which was a response to Erasmus' critique and a foundational text for the Reformation's views on free will, election, and original sin.

💡Reformation

The Reformation refers to a major schism within Christianity that began in the 16th century, leading to the establishment of Protestant churches separate from the Roman Catholic Church. The script highlights the Reformation's central issues, such as sola fide (by faith alone) and sola gratia (by grace alone), and the debates between Luther and Erasmus that contributed to its development.

💡Sola Fide

Sola fide, a Latin term meaning 'by faith alone,' is a core doctrine of the Reformation, emphasizing that salvation is attained solely through faith in Jesus Christ, without the need for good works. The script explains that Luther considered this doctrine as the tip of the iceberg, with deeper theological issues, such as sola gratia, underlying it.

💡Sola Gratia

Sola gratia, or 'by grace alone,' is another foundational Reformation doctrine that asserts salvation is a gift from God, not earned by human effort or merit. The script discusses how Luther believed sola fide to be a consequence of sola gratia, indicating that faith itself is a gift from God, thus making grace the central focus of the debate on salvation.

💡Election

Election, or predestination, is a controversial doctrine within Christianity that suggests God has chosen certain individuals for salvation before the foundation of the world. The script notes Luther's view that election is the core of the church and a key point of contention between him and Erasmus, reflecting the debate over God's sovereignty versus human free will.

💡

💡Original Sin

Original sin is the Christian doctrine that humanity inherits a tainted nature and a proclivity to sin as a consequence of Adam and Eve's disobedience in the Garden of Eden. The script mentions original sin in the context of the debate over human fallenness and the extent to which the human will is affected by sin, a central theme in the discussion of free will and salvation.

💡Free Will

Free will is the power of an individual to make choices without the constraint of divine determinism. In the script, Erasmus and Luther have differing views on the role of free will in salvation. Erasmus considers it a less critical issue, while Luther argues that understanding the limits of human will is essential for grasping the necessity of God's grace.

💡The Bondage of the Will

The 'Bondage of the Will' is a seminal work by Martin Luther that argues against the idea of free will and for the necessity of divine grace for salvation. The script describes it as Luther's most important work and a critical text in the debate with Erasmus, encapsulating Luther's views on human will and divine sovereignty.

💡Soli Deo Gloria

Soli Deo Gloria, a Latin phrase meaning 'to God alone the glory,' is a Reformation slogan that emphasizes the belief that all glory and honor belong to God alone. The script uses this term to highlight Luther's belief that salvation is entirely God's work and that any attempt to attribute it to human effort is contrary to the Christian spirit.

💡Divine Sovereignty

Divine sovereignty refers to the belief in God's absolute power and control over all aspects of the universe, including human actions and salvation. The script discusses Luther's view on divine sovereignty, particularly in relation to the doctrine of election and the human will, asserting that God's will is the determining factor in salvation.

💡Foreknowledge

Foreknowledge, in a theological context, is God's omniscient knowledge of all events, including human actions, before they occur. The script addresses the debate between Erasmus and Luther on the relationship between God's foreknowledge and human free will, with Luther arguing that God's knowledge does not negate human freedom but rather ensures the certainty of His own perfect knowledge.

Highlights

Desiderius Erasmus and Martin Luther's theological duel in the 16th century

Erasmus, a respected Catholic scholar, initially sided with Luther but later critiqued his teachings

Erasmus' work 'The Praise of Folly' satirized corruption within the Catholic Church

Luther's response to Erasmus was 'The Bondage of the Will', considered his most important work

Debate centered on free will, election, and original sin in relation to salvation

Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone summarized as 'sola fide'

The concept of 'sola gratia' as the foundation of 'sola fide'

Luther's view that election is at the core of the church

Erasmus' ambiguous stance on free will and his preference for suspending judgment

Luther's assertion that the Holy Spirit is not skeptical and that divine truths are precious

Luther's argument that understanding our role and God's in salvation is vital for Christian life

Erasmus' concern about the practical consequences of the Reformation's teachings on human inability

Luther's response to the potential moral implications of the doctrine of election

Luther's distinction between the necessity of consequence and the necessity of the consequent

The importance of recognizing that salvation is entirely God's work, not ours

Luther's critique of the idea that our salvation could be partly due to our own efforts or merit

The debate's focus on the role of human will in accepting or rejecting God's grace

Luther's explanation of the inclination of the soul as the determinant of one's response to grace

Transcripts

SPROUL: One of the most fascinating duels  that ever took place in the theological  

arena between theologians was the duel  that erupted in the sixteenth century  

between probably the most respected Catholic,  humanistic scholar of the era and Martin Luther.  

It was Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam,  the man who reconstructed the received text  

of the New Testament, who was known around the  world for his great scholarship and acumen,  

who in the early stages of the Reformation  sided with Luther, and who wrote “The Praise  

of Folly,” which was a bitter, sarcastic satire  against the corruptions of the clergy within the  

Catholic church; but nevertheless, when it came  to the cardinal issues of the Reformation itself,  

Erasmus broke with Luther and remained  faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and then  

set about to critique the teachings of Martin  Luther. And the debate was prompted in 1524  

when Erasmus published his work entitled the  “The Diatribe Concerning Free Will” in which he  

gave an exhaustive and comprehensive critique  of the theology of Luther and the Reformers.  

The following year, in 1525, Luther responded  to Erasmus’ work with his famous book De servo  

arbitrio, which is called “The Bondage of the  Will.” Now, of the more than fifty volumes that  

come down to us from the pen of Martin Luther,  Luther himself regarded as his most important  

work his work on the bondage of the will and  the reply that he gave to Erasmus, and I believe  

that for the most part church historians and  theologians have agreed with Luther’s assessment  

that that was his most important work; and I  commend to you the reading of the “The Bondage  

of the Will” as it remains a Christian classic  and certainly of vital importance to this whole  

controversy over free will as it  relates both to the doctrine of election  

and to the doctrine of original sin. We  know, for example, that the battle cry  

of the Reformation and the central issue of  which the debate raged in the sixteenth century  

was over this concept of sola fide which is the  slogan that means “by faith alone,” summarizing in  

capsule form Luther’s doctrine of justification  by faith alone. However, Luther at this point,  

regarded that in a certain sense the doctrine of  justification was merely the tip of the iceberg  

of the controversy and that there was an even more  serious theological matter that was hidden beneath  

the surface but was certainly engaged and in play  in the controversy that divided Christendom so  

deeply in the sixteenth century, and  that was the doctrine of sola gratia.

For Luther, sola fide grows out of  sola gratia and rests upon sola gratia  

and depends upon sola gratia for its force,  and in his work on the bondage of the will,  

Luther, in speaking of the doctrine of election  or predestination, which is so controversial,  

made the comment that in his judgment  election is the core ecclesia,  

or the very heart of the church. Again, you have  to remember that Luther was an Augustinian monk,  

and his primary mentor theologically was  Augustine, and it was Augustine who had  

emphasized so strongly centuries earlier his  concept of sola gratia, that we are saved by grace  

and by grace alone. And it’s for that reason that  justification would have to be by faith alone  

as Paul declares when he speaks in Ephesians  that we are justified by grace through faith.  

And so, Luther was trying to probe beneath the  surface of the central issue of justification  

and get to its foundational underpinnings in the  classical doctrine of grace, and that of course,  

immediately touches on the issue of the extent of  our fallenness and the strength of our human will.

And in his “Diatribe,” Erasmus argued that the  whole issue of free will in this debate was a  

matter that was really not all that important.  It was an academic point – a technicality – that  

could better be left to scholars and not something  that people should be all of that concerned about.  

We recall that also in the “Diatribe,” if you  study Erasmus’ position you see how ambiguous and,  

I frankly think, confused it is, and he vacillates  back and forth among various ideas of freedom  

and of grace. But he also makes the observation  that on certain issues like this, as an  

academician, he would prefer to suspend judgment  and not to come down on one side or the other  

because he thought that that was the prudent thing  to do in matters of this sort to which Luther  

replied by saying, in typical Lutheran fashion,  “Away with the skeptics! Away with the academics.  

Spiritus Sanctus non es sceptitus.”  The Holy Spirit is not a skeptic,  

and the truths that He has revealed  are more precious to us than  

life itself. And with respect to the  importance of the question of the degree  

of power the fallen human will has or lacks,  Luther makes this comment responding to Erasmus.  

Erasmus had said that the doctrine of free  will is, “One of those useless doctrines  

that we can do without.” Luther said, “It is  irreligious, idle, and superfluous, you say,  

to want to know whether our will affects anything  in matters pertaining to eternal salvation  

or whether it is wholly passive under the work  of grace? Well, here you speak to the contrary,  

saying that Christian piety consists in striving  with all our might; and you say, apart from the  

mercy of God, our will is ineffective. Here you  plainly assert that the will is in some respect  

active in matters pertaining to salvation – or you  represent it as striving – and again you represent  

it as the object of Divine action when you say  that without God’s mercy it is ineffective.  

But you do not define the limits within  which we should think of the will as acting  

and as acted upon. You take pains to engender  ignorance as to what God’s mercy and man’s will  

can affect by your very teaching as to  what man’s will and God’s mercy do affect.”

Now, what Luther is saying here is this: that the  question of what part God plays in my salvation  

and what part I play in my  salvation has everything to do  

with our religious posture before God and  everything to do with our understanding of  

the grace of God, our appreciation of the grace  of God, our worship of God, and our dependence  

on God. It’s a matter of critical importance,  according to Luther, as to whether we think  

in the final analysis our salvation is the work  of God or it is something that to a certain degree  

it is accomplished by our own efforts and our own  striving and our own merit. Here we see another  

one of the slogans of the Reformation  lurking behind the scenes, and that is  

the expression Soli Deo Gloria – to God alone the  glory. Am I to reduce the glory that belongs to  

God for my redemption and arrogate some of the  praise and glory to myself, or is it proper in  

the religious spirit of the Christian heart  to understand that salvation is of the Lord,  

that we have been rescued as slaves who could  not liberate themselves, as debtors who could  

not pay their debt so that we sing praises to  God’s grace throughout our lives. Luther said,  

“This is a matter of supreme importance to  the health of the Christian’s life, and so  

it is not just a matter that should be reserved  for the halls of academia or to scholars alone.

Now, again, Erasmus was concerned about some of  the practical consequences that might flow out of  

the Reformation teaching on the moral inability  of man and the sovereignty of Divine grace.  

He says, “What can be more useless than to  publish to the world the paradox that all we do  

is done not by free will but of mere necessity  and Augustine’s view that God works in us both  

good and evil, that He rewards His own good works  in us and punishes His own evil works in us.”  

Erasmus said, “This would open a floodgate of  iniquity and would spread such news openly to  

the people.” Then he raised this practical  question, “If this doctrine of election  

were to be taught, what wicked man  

would amend his life? Who would believe that God  loved him, and who would fight against his flesh?”

Now, if you recall, when we looked at  the system called semi-Pelagianism, and  

we looked at the writings of Cassian, or  Cassianus, and we saw Cassianus reacting  

against Augustine’s teaching on nature and grace,  that Cassianus raised these exact same objections  

against Augustine, saying that if the  doctrine of election were to be taught  

and man’s moral inability were to be proclaimed,  that it would be the end of preaching, it would be  

the end of evangelism, it would be the end of  anybody’s seeking improvement in their character.  

How does Luther respond to these questions? Well,  listen to them. Erasmus had said – Luther is  

stating it this way: “You say, Erasmus, ‘Who will  try to reform his life?’” The answer Luther gives,  

“Nobody.” Erasmus – “Who will believe that God  loves him?” Luther answers – “Nobody. Nobody can,  

but the elect shall believe it, and the  rest will perish without believing it,  

raging and blaspheming.” Erasmus said that a  floodgate of iniquity is opened by our doctrines.  

Luther said, “So be it.” Luther’s willing to  go to the final point on this. He said, “Hey,  

what’s at stake here is the character of God,  and if by teaching what the Bible teaches  

about our utter dependence upon  the grace of God to redeem us,  

is going to cause people not to strive to come  to God in their spiritual death” – he said,  

“If that’s the floodgate of iniquity and that  it’s opened,” he said, “let it be open,” he said,  

“because in the first place and the main  point is what? Who will try to amend their  

lives? Who will incline themselves to the  things of God if we teach this doctrine?  

Nobody, because nobody can anyway and  nobody does anyway.” That’s the whole point  

as the apostle had made it clear. No one seeks  after God, that in our fallen condition we are  

so much enslaved by our sin that we don’t want to  come to the things of God. That’s the very point  

that Luther is trying to say. And so you say, “If  I teach people that in their fallen condition they  

will never strive or incline themselves to  come to God, that that would cause them to  

stop striving and inclining themselves to come to  God, when they can’t do it anyway.” That’s absurd.  

Again, he’s saying, “The problem that we have in  our fallen condition is that nobody wants God.  

We don’t want God in our thinking, we don’t want  God in our lives, and we are not pursuing God  

over heaven and earth. We’re fleeing from  God as far and as fast as we possibly can;  

and our only hope is that if God seeks us out  and turns us around and brings us to Himself.

Later on, Luther deals with Erasmus’ definition  of free will by reproducing it in his own book.  

He says, “I suppose then, that this power of  the human will means the power or faculty or  

disposition or aptitude to will or not to will,  to choose or reject, to approve or disapprove,  

and to perform all the other actions of the will.  Now, what it means for this same power to apply  

itself or to turn away, I do not see, unless  it refers to the actual willing or not willing,  

choosing or rejecting, approving or disapproving  – that is, the very action of the will itself. So  

we must suppose that this power is something  that comes between the will and its action,  

something by which the will itself  elicits the act of willing or not willing,  

and by means of which the action of willing or not  willing is elicited, nothing else is imaginable  

or conceivable.” Now, that may sound a little  bit arcane to you. That concept that I’ve just  

read to you in Luther will be expanded in much  greater clarity later on by Jonathan Edwards,  

but the simple point that Luther is  making here is he’s asking this question,  

“If it all comes down to your willing or  not willing, your rejecting or accepting,  

your choosing or not choosing to cooperate with  the grace of God – that is, God’s grace is given  

to you, to this person, and to this person, but  in the final analysis, it’s up to your free will  

or his free will to determine your destiny.  What is it that is found in your fallen nature  

that will cause this person’s will to say,  “Yes,” and that person’s will to say, “No”?  

There is something between the ability to will  and the actual action of making the choice,  

and of course, what Augustine had said centuries  earlier and Luther is reiterating at this point  

is that it’s the inclination  of the soul, or the desire.  

If this person says, “Yes,” to grace, it can  only be because this person wants to say “Yes,”  

to grace, and if this person says, “No,” to grace,  it can only be because this person wants to say,  

“No,” to grace. What could  be more simple than that?

Well that’s simple – to state the problem, or  to state the question is simple, but again, the  

difficulty is in determining why one person would  say “Yes,” and another person would say, “No.”  

Obviously the person who said, “Yes,”  has a positive desire towards God,  

before they’re even born of  the Spirit. The other person  

doesn’t have a positive inclination towards God,  and the person who has the right inclination will  

make the right choice. The person who has the  wrong inclination will make the wrong choice,  

and if it’s strictly on the basis of the operation  of the human will that determines that in the  

final analysis, that means that this person has  done the righteous thing, this person has done the  

evil thing. This person has something of which to  boast; this person has nothing of which to boast.

I’ll often express this to people in these  terms: I’ll say to them, “Why are you a Christian  

and your neighbor isn’t?”  

And they’ll say, “Well, because I chose to be and  they chose not to be.” And I’ll say, “Okay, is it  

because you’re more righteous than your neighbor?”  Now what’s the normal Christian to answer to that  

question? You know what it’s supposed to be. You  know you’re never supposed to stand up and say,  

“Well, the reason I’m a Christian and somebody  else isn’t is because I’m more righteous.”  

This is the zenith or the nadir really of  self-righteousness, to say that the reason  

I’m in the kingdom and somebody’s out of the  kingdom is because I am righteous and they are  

not. It sounds like the Pharisee in the temple  who was boasting of his relationship with God.  

Most Christians shrink from saying  that, “It’s because I’m more righteous,”  

but they’ll stop at that point. I’ll say,  “Well, is it because you’re more intelligent  

than that person?” No, they don’t want to  say that because they know if they do say it,  

the next thing I’m going to say is,  “Where did you get that intelligence?  

Did you earn it or did you receive it? Was it an  accomplishment or a gift?” And then the discussion  

on their part wants to end. They say, “It’s  not because I’m more righteous,” and I’ll say,  

“Why isn’t it because you’re more righteous?  Did you make the right decision?” “Yes.” “Did  

your neighbor make the wrong decision?” “Yes.”  “Is it good that you made this decision?” “Yes.”  

“Is it bad that they made that decision?” “Yes.”  “Then why don’t you say you’re more righteous  

than that person?” Because they know they’re  not supposed to, but they have to if they really  

believe that in the final analysis that which  determines their inclusion in the kingdom of God  

is the right and good choice that they  made when they had the opportunity.

Now, the other point that  Luther debated with Erasmus  

was this matter that I read moments ago  of Erasmus complaining about necessity.  

He says that according to Luther, if God knows  everything in advance and what is going to take  

place, then all things that happen in this world  happen by necessity, and if all things happen by  

necessity, then we can’t possibly be free at  all. For Erasmus, necessity means coercion.  

If my actions are necessary with respect to  God’s foreknowledge, according to Erasmus,  

than they must take place  through some kind of coercion.  

Luther said, “No, no, no, no, no, no.” He said,  “God does not force me to make the decisions that  

I make in my normal daily living, but they  are necessary with respect to His knowledge,  

because if God knows today what I am going  to do freely tomorrow, without His coercion,  

will I do that tomorrow? Is it certain  that I will do it tomorrow? It is  

of necessity of certainty insofar as it  most certainly will come to pass because  

God doesn’t make mistakes in His knowledge, but  that doesn’t mean that God is forcing me to do it,  

or that I’m forced by chance or anything else.  That God knows in advance what I’m going to do  

does not mean that He has to coerce me to do it so  that’s why Luther makes this distinction between  

the necessity of consequence and the necessity of  the consequent, which is a technical distinction  

to explain this. But what he’s saying  to Erasmus, “We are not teaching,  

with our view of election or divine sovereignty of  the fall of man, that God coerces sinners to sin.”  

He says, “People choose what they want,  

but the problem is what they want is wicked. It  is certain that they will choose what they want  

by virtue of God’s knowledge of it, but God  doesn’t force them – those who desire to do  

good – to do bad, nor does He force  people who want only evil to do good.