# Did Luther and Edwards differ on the bondage of the will?



## RamistThomist (Nov 21, 2007)

Did Luther and Edwards differ on the bondage of the will? Both are known as rock-ribbed predestinarians, but did the differ in their formulations? Someone once told me they did but I can't remember how.


----------



## cih1355 (Nov 22, 2007)

I have Luther's book, _The Bondage of the Will_. He quotes and responds to the definition of free-will proposed by Erasmus. On page 137 of that book mentioned above, Luther responds to Erasmus by saying, "And, first, we will begin, as we should, from your actual definition. You define 'free-will' thus: 'Moreover, I conceive of free-will in this context as a power of the human will by which a man may apply himself to those things that lead to eternal salvation, or turn away from the same.' " Later on in the book, Luther says that the universal guilt of mankind disproves that we have free-will (page 273). Everyone is under the wrath of God. Man only does what merits wrath and punishment. Luther says, "Where now is the power of free-will to endeavour after some good?" (page 273). Luther gives another proof that we do not have free-will by arguing that all people are under sin, that we are slaves of sin (page 278). Man wills and does nothing but evil (page 278). 

According to Johnathan Edwards in his book, _The Freedom of the Will_, the will is always determined by the strongest motive (p. 6). Edwards makes a distinction between natural inability and moral inability. Edwards says, "We are said to be naturally unable to do a thing, when we cannot do it if we will, because what is most commonly called nature does not allow of it, or because of some impeding defect or obstacle that is extrinsic to the will; either in the faculty of understanding, constitution of the body, or external objects. (p. 28)" Moral inability is the lack of a desire to do something. Edwards argues against the Arminian notion of the freedom of the will in Part II, Section I of the book mentioned in this paragraph. Edwards rejects the idea that the will is self-determining. He denies libertarian freedom. He does not believe that the will is indifferent, that it has the power of contrary choice.

According to R.C. Sproul's book, _Willing to Believe_, on page 165, Edwards believed that man is morally incapable of choosing the things of God unless the Holy Spirit changes his heart. Unless God takes the initiative and regenerates a person, that person will never choose to come to Christ. The unbeliever's strongest motivation is to reject God and he will always act according to that motive unless God intervenes in his life and changes his heart. Man is in bondage to sin and only God can set him free.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 22, 2007)

cih1355 said:


> I have Luther's book, _The Bondage of the Will_. He quotes and responds to the definition of free-will proposed by Erasmus. On page 137 of that book mentioned above, Luther responds to Erasmus by saying, "And, first, we will begin, as we should, from your actual definition. You define 'free-will' thus: 'Moreover, I conceive of free-will in this context as a power of the human will by which a man may apply himself to those things that lead to eternal salvation, or turn away from the same.' " Later on in the book, Luther says that the universal guilt of mankind disproves that we have free-will (page 273). Everyone is under the wrath of God. Man only does what merits wrath and punishment. Luther says, "Where now is the power of free-will to endeavour after some good?" (page 273). Luther gives another proof that we do not have free-will by arguing that all people are under sin, that we are slaves of sin (page 278). Man wills and does nothing but evil (page 278).
> 
> According to Johnathan Edwards in his book, _The Freedom of the Will_, the will is always determined by the strongest motive (p. 6). Edwards makes a distinction between natural inability and moral inability. Edwards says, "We are said to be naturally unable to do a thing, when we cannot do it if we will, because what is most commonly called nature does not allow of it, or because of some impeding defect or obstacle that is extrinsic to the will; either in the faculty of understanding, constitution of the body, or external objects. (p. 28)" Moral inability is the lack of a desire to do something. Edwards argues against the Arminian notion of the freedom of the will in Part II, Section I of the book mentioned in this paragraph. Edwards rejects the idea that the will is self-determining. He denies libertarian freedom. He does not believe that the will is indifferent, that it has the power of contrary choice.
> 
> According to R.C. Sproul's book, _Willing to Believe_, on page 165, Edwards believed that man is morally incapable of choosing the things of God unless the Holy Spirit changes his heart. Unless God takes the initiative and regenerates a person, that person will never choose to come to Christ. The unbeliever's strongest motivation is to reject God and he will always act according to that motive unless God intervenes in his life and changes his heart. Man is in bondage to sin and only God can set him free.



So is there a difference between Edwards and Luther?


----------



## cih1355 (Nov 22, 2007)

I do not know if Luther made a distinction between natural ability and moral ability. If he did, there would be no difference between the two of them.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Nov 26, 2007)

Good point. I don't know if Luther mentioned this distinction between natural and moral inability. I believe Arthur Pink also spoke of man having the natural "capacity" to freely choose, but the moral inability to choose the things of God.

I can't recall. Does the WCF make this distinction?


----------

