Bondage of the Will: Willing to Believe with R.C. Sproul
Summary
TLDRThe 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
📚 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.
🤔 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.
🏆 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.
🔍 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.
🗝️ 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Theological Duel
💡Desiderius Erasmus
💡Martin Luther
💡Reformation
💡Sola Fide
💡Sola Gratia
💡Election
💡
💡Original Sin
💡Free Will
💡The Bondage of the Will
💡Soli Deo Gloria
💡Divine Sovereignty
💡Foreknowledge
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.
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)