# Martin Luther's "Bondage of the Will"



## Calvin87 (Jun 16, 2010)

Hello everyone,

I have actually never been able to ask this question without getting utterly destroyed by pastors, deacons, elders and church members. Within minutes of asking the question I have people tell me that I need to keep reading the Bible. But I have spent many years reading and studying the specifics of the 'freedom of the will', or the lack thereof. And I must in truth admit that I have hit a wall. 

The day that I finished Martin Luther's "Bondage of the Will", I have never been able to think about "free will" the same way again. Even in my daily reading and meditation, comments in the book by Luther echo in my mind a lot. I have myself come to the conclusion that Luther does make a distinction between ultimate self-determination, and 'free will' as it exist apart from the work of salvation. I have since read the book a total of three times and reach the same conclusion every single time. Luther was absolutely apposed to 'free-will' in every shape form and fashion. No doubt the reader can ascertain this by Luther's seemingly loud, shouting style of writing. These are some of the quotes which give me pause to question whether or not I believe in 'free-will'. I will leave out the large quotations which would take a long time to write out.

"_Free-will' without God's grace is not free at all, but is the permanent prisoner and bond slave of evil, since it cannot turn itself to good_."

"_We do everything of necessity, and nothing by 'free-will'; for the power of 'free-will' is nil, and it does no good, nor can do, without grace_."

"_If 'free-will' is ascribed to men, it is ascribed with no more propriety than divinity itself would be-and no blasphemy could exceed that!! So it befits theologians to refrain from using the term when they want to speak of human ability, and to leave it to be applied to God only. The would do well also to take the term out of men's mouths and speech, and to claim it for their God, as if it were His own holy and awful Name_."

"_I stand secure upon the good sense, and upon my denial of 'free-will_'."

Now, needless to say as a reformed thinker, I in no way agree with antinomianism! Period! And I am in NO way suggesting that God is the author of evil. But I have begun to doubt very seriously if man has even the ability of himself to go where he pleases, or even think what he pleases. But is always subject to the will of God. I do believe however, that man lives in a state of perceived freedom, for Calvin says in the institutes:

"_God's care is much more than foreknowledge. His care is shown in continued action. To say that God governs the world in general without controlling each individual person , is not true. The human being does not move or act by accident, nor by his 'free-will'. God's care in the world today means that he continues to work in the affairs of men. The decision about what occurs in the world is not partly God's choice and partly man's-the choice is always God's._"

"_Often however, our minds are too dull to reach to the heights of understanding God's actions. Though all things are ordered by God's sure will, to us they appear to happen by chance. The purpose of many happenings is hidden from us._"

So you tell me what to think....I am truly turned around, and am exhausted of damaging spiritual relationships by simply asking questions...only last year I had a reformed pastor tell me that only "stupid thinkers", could believe that man does not have 'free-will'. I hope no one is offended by my asking.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jun 16, 2010)

Calvin87 said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> I have actually never been able to ask this question without getting utterly destroyed by pastors, deacons, elders and church members. Within minutes of asking the question I have people tell me that I need to keep reading the Bible. But I have spent many years reading and studying the specifics of the 'freedom of the will', or the lack thereof. And I must in truth admit that I have hit a wall.
> 
> ...


 
To answer the question of whether or not free-will exists, the term must first be defined. 

Man's will is free in a finite, creaturely sense. This means that man may choose that which he geneuinely desires, that which is in accord with his nature. This is the sense in which Edwards and some Reformed theologians affirm "free will." The Westminster Confession of faith calls this, "free agency." It is truly free in a depdendent, creaturely sense, meaning that it is always subject to and determined by God's will. 


Man's will is not free in the ultimate sense in which God alone is free. I believe that is how Luther is using the term in your quotations.


----------



## JBaldwin (Jun 17, 2010)

After reading "Bondage of the Will" I cooked up this image in my mind of a great land with a line dividing it. On one side there are a lot of people. These people for generations have been living in filth and poverty. Their children are born into it, and they know nothing better. They are in fact slaves of a cruel master who tells them every day they are free, but in reality, they can only do what they have been ordered to do. The worst part about it is, they love being slaves and would feel uncomfortable if they weren't slaves. They think they are doing what they want, but in reality, they are obeying their wicked master. From time to time, a kind Master (who really is the Master over the wicked Master) rescues one of these slaves. He not only delivers them from their slavery, but he cleans them up, gives them food and adopts them into His family. He changes them in every way possible. Not only are they free, but they can come and go as they please. They can cross over the line, they can tell the wicked Master to go take a hike. 

You get the picture. I realize there are probably holes in my thinking, but it helps me understand what sanctification is all about. It is about learning who we really are now that we have been freed. It also helps me to remember how helpless I was before the Lord delivered me and changed my heart.


----------



## Calvin87 (Jun 17, 2010)

Riley,

So, if by your definition....If makes no sense to put 'free' in front of the word 'will'. Why not just say, "The will is always subject to, and determined by God's will." Why do we have to put free? Free to do what?

And I have thought very much about Luther speaking in a sense of our will differing from God's ultimate will (Which you're right, it absolutely does). But like I said, I have read it many times, and I am convinced that he is apposed to the 'free" sense of its use. It is a general assumption to quote his manner and dealing with 'free-will' as it pertains to God's ultimate freedom. Because he implies God's ultimate freedom by suggesting that we are subject to it, not as a comparison. 

"_free agency." It is truly free in a dependent, creaturely sense, meaning that it is always subject to and determined by God's will_. 

Once again, 'free' as it pertains to the will/agency is unnecessary. How do we mix words like 'free' and 'dependent'? Why do we not just settle for dependent? If we say, "God's will is supreme", what functional purpose does a "free-will" offer?

---------- Post added at 12:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 AM ----------

J Baldwin, 

Believe me, there are many holes in my thinking as well. I see what you are saying about sanctification. And agree with you absolutely! But that isn't where my trouble lies. I know that as a Christian, we are filled with the Holy Spirit and made into new creatures. And Thus we are able to will good. A sort of false perception of freedom. But I remember those words of the Apostle Paul in the great letter to the Romans, "For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate."(Rom 7:15). So even Paul with his new nature was still in conflict with his flesh. Was he indeed 'free' to cross that line of his own choosing?

But I wonder as to the freedom of the will as it pertains to God's government of man, the universe and of the world. Which is undoubtedly intertwined in every single facet of our existence.


----------



## cih1355 (Jun 17, 2010)

The expression "free will" is used in different ways. For example, some people use it to mean "acting according to one's desires." Other people have used it to mean "the power to choose between good or evil." If free will means "not being a slave of anything", then we don't have free will because the Bible teaches we are either slaves of righteousness or slaves of sin (Romans 6:17-18). 

Here is a quote from Calvin's book, _The Bondage and Liberation of the Will_. This is found in Book Two, page 68.

"Now as far as the term is concerned I still maintain what I declared in my Institutes, that I am not so excessively concerned about words as to want to start an argument for that cause, provided that a sound understanding of the reality is retained. If freedom is opposed to coercion, I both acknowledge and consistently maintain that choice is free, and I hold anyone who thinks otherwise to be a heretic. If, I say, it were called free in the sense of not being coerced nor forcibly moved by an external impulse, but moving of its own accord, I have no objection."

This is taken from the section of the book that is talking about free choice. If freedom or free choice means to act without being forced or coerced to do something, then Calvin would agree that we have free choice. Calvin goes on to say that when people hear the expression "free choice", they think that people have the power to do either good or evil. Since many people think that "free choice" means to have the power to do either good or evil, Calvin wishes that this expression were removed from common use. 

Calvin teaches that using the expression "free choice" to mean "not being forced or coerced" does not agree very well with the usage of Scripture. Freedom and bondage are contradictory. If the human will is in bondage, then it does not have freedom. Calvin said, "Therefore anyone who claims that choice is free uses a different expression from that of the Holy Spirit." p.69

Greg Bahnsen says that we have free will in the sense of acting voluntarily. He affirms that man, by nature, is in bondage to sin. He distinguishes between two different types of freedom. Here is a link that an article that he wrote concerning the subject of foreordination and free will. 

PT131


----------



## KaphLamedh (Jun 17, 2010)

Calvin87 said:


> "_Free-will' without God's grace is not free at all, but is the permanent prisoner and bond slave of evil, since it cannot turn itself to good_."



I am lutheran. But I was introduced to this by calvinists. I never have think about free-will in that way as I was teached the way pentecostals think about free-will.

What you wrote or actually quoted above is in nutshell what I understand on free-will. Yes we can do morally good things, like help people when they need help and we even can love people and we can even thing positive things about God, Jesus and christian religion, when we are not born again. But we cannot choose God as with our carnal mind or will. We simply cannot believe in Jesus Christ as our savior and God unless God give us belief. I think its simple thing but difficult to explain.




Calvin87 said:


> So you tell me what to think....I am truly turned around, and am exhausted of damaging spiritual relationships by simply asking questions...only last year I had a reformed pastor tell me that only "stupid thinkers", could believe that man does not have 'free-will'. I hope no one is offended by my asking.


 
Could be that the reformed pastor haven´t fully understand the issue of free-will? Carnal minded says "I can do anything and be good as possible" and born again says: "I cannot do anything good without God".


----------



## Calvin87 (Jun 17, 2010)

Kiitos ajatuksia veli! Hyvää kamaa.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 17, 2010)

There are two main definitions of free will on offer. One of them is compatible with God's sovereignty, and the other is not. The one that is compatible with God's sovereignty is, appropriately enough, entitled "compatibilist" free will. This definition states that a person is free to do whatever it is in his nature to do. If he has only a sinful nature, then he can only choose among various sinful options. Incidentally, God has free will in this sense, too. God can only choose to do that which is in His nature to do. God has no evil in Himself at all. Therefore, God is NOT free to choose evil. 

The other definition of free will is that espoused by the open theists, which is called libertarian free will. This definition states that a person can choose one of two opposite poles: good or evil. He can choose to do A, or not A. He can choose to do a sinful action, or the complimentary holy action. When applied to God's sovereignty, this means that a person can choose to thwart God's plan, or not thwart it, and God has no control over man's choice. This is thoroughly unbiblical. 

Going back to the compatibilist definition, then, as soon as the Holy Spirit enters and changes a person, that person is once again free to do something that is genuinely good (although even there, all our actions are tainted by sin). But we can choose to please God in our Christian state, because our nature has been changed.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 17, 2010)

To further explore Calvin's (PB member Calvin, not the good Doctor) point, would compatibilist free will infer a freedom that is not meticulously ordained by God? Is my choice of shirt this morning ordained or incidental?

I think as reformed believers we would all agree that every speck of matter, motion of energy, and measure of time falls entirely within the ordained will of God. There are no independents floating around. Since science has shown that human thought is accompanied by/produces electrical and material effects, couldn't it be said that even these are meticulously ordained by God? I believe so, but I also believe that it has no bearing on human responsibility for thoughts and actions. God has decreed our wicked thoughts, but we willingly think them, and are thus culpable for them. Maybe there's error lurking in there, so I'm open to correction.

When I consider things like this, I think maybe I'm delving into the hidden things, and should just say as David, "Psa 139:1-6 O LORD, you have searched me and known me! (2) You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar. (3) You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways. (4) Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether. (5) You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me. (6) Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it."


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 17, 2010)

What is meant by bondage of the will in Luther and elsewhere?

The _will_ is bound by _its own sinful will_. Thus because it is _the will_ rather than e.g. the body that is bound, when someone says they can't believe in Christ, they also mean that they will not believe in Christ, and when they say they will not believe in Christ, they also mean that they cannot.

If e.g. a man couldn't do good or believe in Christ because his body was bound or impaired, he would have a case with God. But it is the will, therefore it is his responsibility.

Apart from that, under God's sovereignty the fallen and bound will can do many things it wants to, but without saving grace, cannot do things out of a true love for the true God, and cannot believe in Christ. Cannot do anything from a truly good motive.

God sovereignly ordains the free acts of those whose wills are bound in sin and those whose wills are set free by Christ. God can do this because nothing is too hard for Him, but sin.

In fact it's not biblical teaching that leads to determinism but atheism. Without a totally sovereign God free acts are not ordained, but man's will is determined by irrational and impersonal fate and chance.

Only the God of the Bible that is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, can maintain the freedom and responsibility of each man's soul at every moment in the World in which we live.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jun 17, 2010)

Calvin87 said:


> Riley,
> 
> So, if by your definition....If makes no sense to put 'free' in front of the word 'will'. Why not just say, "The will is always subject to, and determined by God's will." Why do we have to put free? Free to do what?



Free to follow what it wants, what it desires. The will may choose that which seems most good to it. This is a type of freedom.


----------



## KaphLamedh (Jun 18, 2010)

Calvin87 said:


> Kiitos ajatuksia veli! Hyvää kamaa.


 
Kiitos, kiitos veli!! Siunausta Jeesuksen Kristuksen nimessä!!!


----------

