On the Bondage of the Will (Latin: De Servo Arbitrio, literally, "On Un-free Will", or "Concerning Bound Choice", or "The Enslaved Will") by Martin Luther argued that people can achieve salvation or redemption only through God, and could not choose between good and evil through their own willpower. It was published in December 1525. It was his reply to Desiderius Erasmus' De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio or On Free Will, which had appeared in September 1524 as Erasmus' first public attack on some of Luther's ideas.
The debate between Erasmus and Luther is one of the earliest of the Reformation over the issue of free will and predestination, between synergism and monergism, as well as on scriptural authority and human assertion.
Despite his own criticisms of contemporary Roman Catholicism, Erasmus argued that it needed reformation from within and that Luther had gone too far. He held that all humans possessed free will and that the doctrine of predestination conflicted with the teachings and thrust[1] of the Bible, which continually calls wayward humans to repent.[2]
Erasmus argued against the belief that God's foreknowledge of events caused those events, and he held that the doctrines of repentance, baptism, and conversion depended on the existence of free will. He likewise contended that divine grace first called, led, and assisted humans in coming to the knowledge of God, and then supported them as they then used their free will to make choices between good and evil, and enabled them to act on their choices for repentance and good, which in turn could lead to salvation through the atonement of Jesus Christ (synergism).
His book also denied the authority Luther asserted for Luther's own opinions on matters where Scripture was, in Erasmus' view, unclear: in such situations we should, in public for unity, assent to any teaching of the church, or be non-dogmatic and tolerant otherwise. For Erasmus, one of Luther's flaws as a theologian was his exaggeration:[3]:106 he imposed meaning on passages that did not support it.[5]
A reading of the introduction to De Servo Arbitrio or On the Bondage of the Will in the original Latin, with English subtitles.
Luther's response was to claim that original sin incapacitates human beings from working out their own salvation, and that they are completely incapable of bringing themselves to God. As such, there is no free will for humanity, as far as salvation is concerned, because any will they might have is overwhelmed by the influence of sin.[6]
If Satan rides, it [the will] goes where Satan wills. If God rides, it goes where God wills. In either case there is no 'free choice'.
Luther concluded that unredeemed human beings are dominated by obstructions; Satan, as the prince of the mortal world, never lets go of what he considers his own unless he is overpowered by a stronger power, i.e. God. When God redeems a person, he redeems the entire person, including the will, which then is liberated to serve God.
No-one can achieve salvation or redemption through their own willpower—people do not choose between good or evil, because they are naturally dominated by evil, and salvation is simply the product of God unilaterally changing a person's heart and turning them to good ends. Were it not so, Luther contended, God would not be omnipotent and omniscient[citation needed] and would lack total sovereignty over creation.
He also held that arguing otherwise was insulting to the glory of God. As such, Luther concluded that Erasmus was not actually a Christian.[8]
On the Bondage of the Will has been called "a brutally hostile book [...] accusing him [Erasmus] of being a hypocrite and an atheist."[3] Several writers express concern that Luther went too far, in expression at least. For Protestant historian Philip Schaff "It is one of his most vigorous and profound books, full of grand ideas and shocking exaggerations, that border on Manichaeism and fatalism."[9] "From beginning to end his work, for all its positive features, is a torrent of invective."[10]:6 Some historians have said that "the spread of Lutheranism was checked by Luther’s antagonizing (of) Erasmus and the humanists".[11]:7
Judgements on whether Erasmus or Luther made the better case are usually divided on sectarian lines, and rarely examine Erasmus' follow-up Hyperaspistes. Philosopher John Smith claims "Despite the force of Luther's arguments, in many ways Erasmus carried the day by laying the foundation for historico-philological biblical criticism—and so Luther's warnings, as some religious figures and communities stress to this day, were all too accurate, since Erasmus's Humanism did set the ball rolling down a problematic slippery slope toward nonbelief."[12]:24
Erasmus' rebuttal
In early 1526, Erasmus replied to this work with the first part of his two-volume Hyperaspistes ("defender" or "shieldbearer"), followed 18 months later by the 570-page volume II: a very detailed work with a repetitive paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttal of On the Bondage of the Will. Luther did not answer Hyperaspistes, and it never gained widespread scholarly engagement or popular recognition, not even being translated into English for almost 500 years.[13]
Erasmus satirized what he saw as Luther's method of repetitively asserting that tenuous scriptural phrases prove his position, by illustrating how he thought Luther would explain the Lord's Prayer; for example:
'Our Father.' Do you hear? Sons are under the authority of their fathers and not vice versa. There is thus no freedom of the will. 'Which art in heaven.' Listen: heaven works on what is below it, not vice versa. Thus our will does not act but is purely passive. 'Hallowed be thy name.' What can be clearer? If the will were free, the honor would belong to man and not to God.
Luther was proud of his On the Bondage of the Will, so much so that in a letter to Wolfgang Capito written on 9 July 1537, he said:
Regarding [the plan] to collect my writings in volumes, I am quite cool and not at all eager about it because, roused by a Saturnian hunger, I would rather see them all devoured. For I acknowledge none of them to be really a book of mine, except perhaps the one On the Bound Will and the Catechism.[14]
Notes
↑ "They also disagreed on the interpretation of Scripture. Gerhard O. Forde represents Erasmus' method as a 'box score' method, whereas Luther might rely on just 'one passage' to convince of truth. Erasmus also held the view that Scripture should be interpreted carefully by trained scholars, whereas Luther thought the Bible should interpret itself and that everyone should read it for themselves." See 'Peckham' p. 276.
1 2 Kimmerle, Heinz (8 April 2024). "The Arguments of Erasmus in His Debate with Luther about Free Will". Scriptura, Geist, Wirkung: 97–108. doi:10.1515/9783111315348-006.
↑ "Furthermore, Luther’s exegetical method of taking a word from the Holy Scriptures and making it general in every aspect is disagreeable for Erasmus. For instance, Erasmus notes how Luther quotes from Isaias 40:68, 'All flesh is grass...' indicating that all human beings are incapable and fallen, which devalues the works of those who served God and his glory. Erasmus answers: 'If someone wants to contend that even the most distinguished human quality is nothing but flesh, i.e. a godless disposition, it would be easy to agree, except that he first proves this assertion from Scripture.'"[4]:18
↑ "What is above us is no concern of ours." This proverbial statement from De servo arbitrio epitomizes how Luther dissociates himself from scholastic speculations on God’s metaphysical being. According to Luther, sin fundamentally limits human cognition of God and causes humans to experience God as Deus absconditus; an incomprehensible and terrifying presence inducing human suffering. In opposition to natural theology, Luther maintains that God’s goodness is only recognizable in the weakness of the crucified Christ suffering pro nobis. Thus, according to Luther, God reveals himself to sinners wearing a Janus face of both wrathful law and loving mercy. Consequently, believers should be "seeking refuge in God against God". Stopa, Sasja Emilie Mathiasen (1 November 2018). "'Seeking Refuge in God against God': The Hidden God in Lutheran Theology and the Postmodern Weakening of God". Open Theology. 4 (1): 659. doi:10.1515/opth-2018-0049.
↑ Free will was "a subject that in Erasmus' opinion ought not to provoke many violent emotions.... [Luther's response was[ the antitype of Erasmus' work, the most impassioned book he had ever written, a detailed and vehement onslaught on the man whom he saw as an enemy of the Christian faith." Augustijn, Cornelis (2001). "Twentieth-Annual Birthday Lecture". Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook. 21 (1): 1–13. doi:10.1163/187492701X00038.
↑ "[Luther says] The Diatribe (On Free Will) sleeps, snores, is drunk, does not know what it is saying, etc. Its author is an atheist, Lucian himself, a Proteus, etc." Augustijn, Cornelis (2001). "Twentieth-Annual Birthday Lecture: Erasmus as Apologist: The Hyperaspistes II". Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook. 21 (1): 1–13. doi:10.1163/187492701X00038.
1 2 Augustijn, Cornelis (2001). "Twentieth-Annual Birthday Lecture: Erasmus as Apologist: The Hyperaspistes II". Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook. 21 (1): 1–13. doi:10.1163/187492701X00038.
↑ LW 50:172–173. Luther compares himself to Saturn, a figure from Ancient Greek mythology who devoured most of his children. Luther wanted to get rid of many of his writings except for the two mentioned.
Luther, Martin. The Bondage of the Will: A New Translation of De Servo Arbitrio (1525), Martin Luther's Reply to Erasmus of Rotterdam. J.I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, trans. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1957.
Erasmus, Desiderius and Martin Luther. Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation. The Library of Christian Classics: Ichthus Edition. Rupp, E. Gordon; Marlow, A.N.; Watson, Philip S.; and Drewery, B. trans. and eds. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969. (This volume provides an English translation of both Erasmus' De Libero Arbitrio and Luther's De Servo Arbitrio.)
Career of the Reformer III. Luther's Works, Vol. 33 of 55. Watson, Philip S. and Benjamin Drewery, trans. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972.
External links
Bondage of the Will, by Martin Luther, translated by Henry Cole, London, March, 1823.
Arminianism is a movement of Protestantism initiated in the early 17th century, based on the theological ideas of the Dutch Reformed theologian Jacobus Arminius and his historic supporters known as Remonstrants. Dutch Arminianism was originally articulated in the Remonstrance (1610), a theological statement submitted to the States General of the Netherlands. This expressed an attempt to moderate the doctrines of Calvinism related to its interpretation of predestination.
Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus, commonly known in English as Erasmus of Rotterdam or simply Erasmus, was a Dutch Christian humanist, Catholic priest and theologian, educationalist, satirist, and philosopher. Through his vast number of translations, books, essays, prayers and letters, he is considered one of the most influential thinkers of the Northern Renaissance and one of the major figures of Dutch and Western culture.
Predestination, in theology, is the doctrine that all events have been willed by God, usually with reference to the eventual fate of the individual soul. Explanations of predestination often seek to address the paradox of free will, whereby God's omniscience seems incompatible with human free will. In this usage, predestination can be regarded as a form of religious determinism; and usually predeterminism, also known as theological determinism.
Philip Melanchthon was a German Lutheran reformer, collaborator with Martin Luther, the first systematic theologian of the Protestant Reformation, an intellectual leader of the Lutheran Reformation, and influential designer of educational systems.
Predestination is a doctrine in Calvinism dealing with the question of the control that God exercises over the world. In the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, God "freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass." The second use of the word "predestination" applies this to salvation, and refers to the belief that God appointed the eternal destiny of some to salvation by grace, while leaving the remainder to receive eternal damnation for all their sins, even their original sin. The former is called "unconditional election", and the latter "reprobation". In Calvinism, some people are predestined and effectually called in due time to faith by God, all others are reprobated.
The argument from free will, also called the paradox of free will or theological fatalism, contends that omniscience and free will are incompatible and that any conception of God that incorporates both properties is therefore inconceivable. See the various controversies over claims of God's omniscience, in particular the critical notion of foreknowledge. These arguments are deeply concerned with the implications of predestination.
The five solae of the Protestant Reformation are a foundational set of Christian theological principles held by theologians and clergy to be central to the doctrines of justification and salvation as taught by the Lutheranism, Reformed and Evangelical branches of Protestantism, as well as in some branches of Baptist and Pentecostalism.
In Christian theology, synergism refers to the cooperative effort between God and humanity in the process of salvation. Before Augustine of Hippo (354–430), synergism was almost universally endorsed. It characterized the so-called Semi-Pelagian position. It also characterized the position of the Second Council of Orange (529), often referred to as Semi-Augustinian. Synergism is affirmed by both the Catholic Church, and Eastern Orthodoxy. It is also present in various Protestant denominations, such as Anabaptist Churches, and is particularly prominent in those influenced by Arminian theology, such as the Methodist Churches.
The history of the Calvinist–Arminian debate begins in the early 17th century in the Netherlands with a Christian theological dispute between the followers of John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius, and continues today among some Protestants, particularly evangelicals. The debate centers around soteriology, the study of salvation, and includes disputes about total depravity, predestination, and atonement. While the debate was given its Calvinist–Arminian form in the 17th century, issues central to the debate have been discussed in Christianity in some form since Augustine of Hippo's disputes with the Pelagians in the 5th century.
Free will in theology is an important part of the debate on free will in general. Religions vary greatly in their response to the standard argument against free will and thus might appeal to any number of responses to the paradox of free will, the claim that omniscience and free will are incompatible.
The theology of Martin Luther was instrumental in influencing the Protestant Reformation, specifically topics dealing with justification by faith, the relationship between the Law and Gospel, and various other theological ideas. Although Luther never wrote a systematic theology or a "summa" in the style of St. Thomas Aquinas, many of his ideas were systematized in the Lutheran Confessions.
Roger Eugene Olson is an American theologian and Professor of Christian Theology of Ethics at Baylor University.
De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio is the Latin title of a polemical work written by Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam in 1524. It is commonly called The Freedom of the Will or On Free Will in English.
The theology of Ulrich Zwingli was based on an interpretation of the Bible, taking scripture as the inspired word of God and placing its authority higher than what he saw as human sources such as the ecumenical councils and the church fathers. He also recognised the human element within the inspiration, noting the differences in the canonical gospels. Zwinglianism is the Reformed confession based on the Second Helvetic Confession promulgated by Zwingli's successor Heinrich Bullinger in the 1560s.
The doctrine of the clarity of Scripture is a Protestant Christian position teaching that "...those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them". Clarity of scripture is an important doctrinal and Biblical interpretive principle for historical Protestants and, today, for many evangelical Christians; it is adhered to by the Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican and Methodist churches. Perspicuity of scripture does not imply that people will receive it for what it is, as many adherents to the doctrine of perspicuity of scripture accept the Calvinist teaching that man is depraved and needs the illumination of the Holy Spirit in order to see the meaning for what it is. Martin Luther advocated the clearness of scripture in his work On the Bondage of the Will. Arminius argued for the perspicuity of scripture by name in "The Perspicuity of the Scriptures".
De libero arbitrio may refer to:
Christian theology is the theology – the systematic study of the divine and religion – of Christian belief and practice. It concentrates primarily upon the texts of the Old Testament and of the New Testament, as well as on Christian tradition. Christian theologians use biblical exegesis, rational analysis and argument. Theologians may undertake the study of Christian theology for a variety of reasons, such as in order to:
Deus revelatus refers to the Christian theological concept coined by Martin Luther which affirms that the ultimate self-revelation of God relies on his hiddenness. It is the particular focus of Luther’s work the Heidelberg Theses of 1518, presented during the Heidelberg disputation of 1518. In Christian theology, God is presented as revealed or Deus revelatus through the suffering of Jesus Christ on the cross. Debate of the term is found in the field of philosophy of religion, where it is contested among philosophers such as J. L. Schellenberg. The term is usually distinguished from Luther's concept of Deus absconditus, which affirms the fundamental unknowability of the essence of God. However, Luther proposed that God is a revelation who uses the fog to obscure himself. This distinction which permeates his theology has been the subject of wide interpretation, leading to controversy between theologians who believe the terms to be either antithetical or identical. These two conflicting strands of thought present the main problem when interpreting Luther’s doctrine of the Revealed God. In recent years the term has been used to inform modern analysis of religious themes such as evolution.
Deus absconditus refers to the Christian theological concept of the fundamental unknowability of the essence of God. The term is derived from the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, specifically from the Book of Isaiah: "Truly, you are a God who hides himself, O God of Israel, the Savior". This concept was particularly important for the theological thought of the medieval Christian theologians Thomas Aquinas, Nicholas of Cusa, and Martin Luther.
Desiderius Erasmus was the most popular, most printed and arguably most influential author of the early Sixteenth Century, read in all nations in the West and frequently translated. By the 1530s, the writings of Erasmus accounted for 10 to 20 percent of all book sales in Europe. "Undoubtedly he was the most read author of his age."
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
