The Bondage of the Will

by Martin Luther, J.I. Packer (Translator), O.R. Johnston (Translator)

First published in 1525, Martin Luther's "Bondage of the Will" is acknowledged by theologians as one of the great masterpieces of the Reformation. It is Luther's response to Desiderius Erasmus's "Diatribe on Free Will, " written in his direct and unique style, combining deep spirituality with humor. Luther writes powerfully about man's depravity and God's sovereignty. The crucial issue for Luther concerned what ability free will has, and to what degree it is subject to God's sovereignty. For Luther, this key issue of free will is directly connected to God's plan of salvation. Is man able to save himself, or is his salvation entirely a work of divine grace? This work is vital to understanding the primary doctrines of the Reformation and will long remain among the great theological classics of Christian history.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Religion, Christianity, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Classics

322 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1525

About the author

Martin Luther (1483-1546) was a German monk, theologian, university professor and church reformer whose ideas inspired the Protestant Reformation and changed the course of Western civilization.

Luther's theology challenged the authority of the papacy by holding that the Bible is the only infallible source of religious authority and that all baptized Christians under Jesus are a spiritual priesthood. According to Luther, salvation was a free gift of God, received only by true repentance and faith in Jesus as the Messiah, a faith given by God and unmediated by the church.

Luther's confrontation with Charles V at the Diet of Worms over freedom of conscience in 1521 and his refusal to submit to the authority of the Emperor resulted in his being declared an outlaw of the state as he had been excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. Because of the perceived unity of the medieval Church with the secular rulers of western Europe, the widespread acceptance of Luther's doctrines and popular vindication of his thinking on individual liberties were both phenomenal and unprecedented.

His translation of the Bible into the vernacular, making it more accessible to ordinary people, had a tremendous political impact on the church and on German culture. It furthered the development of a standard version of the German language, added several principles to the art of translation, and influenced the translation of the English King James Bible. His hymns inspired the development of congregational singing within Christianity. His marriage to Katharina von Bora set a model for the practice of clerical marriage within Protestantism.

Much scholarly debate has concentrated on Luther's writings about the Jews. His statements that Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated and liberty curtailed were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis in 1933–45. As a result of this and his revolutionary theological views, his legacy remains controversial.

Reviews

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just great. Little pieces of Erasmus flying everywhere. Also read in June of 1988.

[Jay Miklovic · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was very difficult to get through because so much was packed in each sentence. While reading this book I found myself on a number of occasions reading less than a page in a sitting. With that said, this book was worth the effort.

Luther absolutely obliterates Erasmus, and he is anything but cordial in doing so. This book is laden with sarcasm, insult, and downright nastiness at times. This book is as intense as a polemic could be. While I typically tire of fundamentalist polemics, this book carried with it something so much deeper than contemporary fundamentalist bickering. As you come to conclusion of this book you see Luther's heart in the entire matter. Erasmus and his Diatribe, were a convenient foil to a much greater issue in the mind of Luther. Luther's obliteration of Erasmus was really an obliteration of even the slightest notion that someone would contribute anything to the grace of God in salvation.

I highly recommend this book, but have a few pots of coffee and a bottle of painkillers with you because your mind is going to be tired and hurting as you plod through it.

[Yann · Rating 5 out of 5]

Désiré Érasme est une grande figure de l'humanisme : c'est un peu grâce à lui que j'ai commencé à lire, après que la biographie que Zweig lui a consacré me soit tombée dans les mains. J'ai apprécié son éloge de la folie, qui m'a attiré vers l'antiquité, et je me régale de ses Adages, qui ont été récemment réédités grâce à l'industrieuse érudition de nos savants. Luther, je le connais par la biographie rédigée par Michelet, et le personnage m'avait vivement intéressé. La question de la volonté libre, c'est le formidable essai sur l'entendement humain de John Locke, seul auteur à trouver grâce auprès de Voltaire, qui m'y a sensibilisé. Aussi, quand j'ai découvert ce livre, une controverse sur le libre/serf arbitre, entre Érasme et Luther, je me suis mis à bouillir d'impatience de la lire.

Ce livre en comprend deux: le premier est une Diatribe sur le libre Arbitre, écrite par Érasme, dans lequel l'humaniste attaque un point particulier de la doctrine du réformateur et le second est la réponse de Luther, le serf Arbitre, dans lequel il défend son opinion.

Les Égyptiens avaient introduit cette croyance suivant laquelle l'âme perdurait après la mort, et subissait un châtiment ou une récompense en fonction de ce qu'avaient été les agissement du défunt pendant sa vie. La religion des anciens grecs et romains nous parle de ce royaume d'Hadès, ces Enfers qui comprennent les Champs-Élysées où des élus coulent des jours heureux, et le Tartare où sont tourmentés les criminels, comme Tantale, Sisyphe ou Prométhée. Platon, dans sa lettre VII, recommande d'ailleurs que cette croyance du fait que l'âme soit jugée après la mort soit répandue dans le peuple, afin de le contraindre à la pratique de la vertu. C'est ainsi que les chrétiens, dont la croyance de la vie après la mort est au centre de la doctrine, adoptèrent cette opinion. Mais une controverse allait rapidement surgir : quels sont les critères suivant lesquels les hommes sont jugés après leur mort ? Ce n'est pas une question de faible importance, pour qui accorde sa foi au Christianisme.

Le Christ n'aborde pas directement la question dans les évangiles, où il est plus occupé à améliorer le sort des hommes dans ce monde, à les ramener à la vie et à la santé plutôt qu'à les y soustraire. Ce sont plutôt dans les actes des apôtres, en particulier les écrits de Saul, ou Paul de Tarse, que l'on trouve des éléments de réponse. Il est en effet affirmé très clairement dans l'épitre aux Romains qu'il suffit de croire pour être sauvé, et de ne pas croire pour être damné, peu importe les œuvres durant la vie. Cette opinion, propre à gagner plus facilement une foule de fidèle pour une religion naissante, pouvait conduire à des désordres au sein d'une religion déjà établie, et manquer de coercition. Des interprétations ont vu le jour pour nuancer ce point de vue, en particulier par chez Jérôme, traducteur de la bible en latin, et Origène, qui vont introduire cette notion de libre-arbitre. Elle sera redébattue par Augustin et Pélage, ... mais je ne voudrais pas être trop long, et surtout je ne suis pas théologien !

Venons-en à la renaissance : Luther a vu Rome, et n'en a pas conçu une grande estime. Quand il attaque les turpitudes de l’Église, il prend appui sur une autorité supérieure : les Écritures, que l'érudition d’Érasme à fait apparaître sous une lumière nouvelle. On connaît le scandale des indulgences, mais au cœur du débat réapparait la question du libre arbitre: Luther le nie totalement ; tout advient par une nécessité connue de Dieu, et les efforts des hommes pour le fléchir sont vains, lui seul accorde la grâce.

Dans la Diatribe, Érasme va attaquer ce qu'il identifie comme étant le nœud gordien : l'assertion de Luther qui nie totalement l'efficacité du libre arbitre dans la grâce lui semble trop radicale: d'une part, il rappelle les nombreux endroits de l'écriture qui plaident pour une interprétation plus nuancée, ensuite, il reproche à Luther de mettre sur la place publique une question difficile, qui risque de provoquer des troubles et des dissensions inutiles si elle est mal comprise : il prophétise bien! Il plaide pour une position moyenne, le libre arbitre intervenant de concert avec la grâce pour le salut. Son souci est de ramener la concorde et d'appeler Luther à plus de retenue: il montre l'exemple en prenant un ton d'abord humble, mais mais bientôt sévère, puis hautain.

La réponse de Luther aussi cinglante qu'abondante. Comment sur une question d'une telle importance, Érasme peut-il se contenter d'être aussi indécis? Luther va le reprendre de bien plus haut, et au lieu de faire preuve d'une déférence affectée ou d'un quelconque air plâtré, il va bel et bien abreuver Érasme d'insultes, d'invectives et de quolibets. Et vraiment, cette plume donne vie à ce vers du Tasse : l'indignation est la pierre sur laquelle s'aiguise la vertu! Il n'y a guère que chez Marx que j'ai vue une telle force. Alors qu’Érasme avait rassemblé une foule d'arguments issus de nombreux passages des écritures, Luther va tous les reprendre un par un, et les détruire en les rendant à leur première interprétation. Là où Érasme s'appuie sur l'autorité des pères de l'église, des siècles et des conciles, Luther s'appuie sur celle des apôtres, sur les règles de la grammaire, sur la connaissance des langues. Des troubles pourraient arriver, si ces questions sont soulevées ? Mais qu'importe! N'est ce pas qu'un détail, par rapport au sort de l'âme des chrétiens ? Est-ce là, interroge Luther, qu'il faut être prudent ?

Mais là où Luther est encore le plus habile, c'est qu'il parvient encore à étouffer son contradicteur par un véritable "baiser de la mort". S'il nie à Érasme toute autorité comme théologien, il lui rend un hommage appuyé et, je crois, sincère pour ses apports dans l'étude des textes antiques. Tout le texte de Luther fourmille de ces adages dont Érasme à répandu l'usage. Il n'en faudra pas moins pour que prenne corps l'accusation contre Érasme, d'avoir "pondu les œufs que Luther à couvé", et que ses ouvrages si universellement loués se retrouvent à l'index. Comme l'écrit Luther à Érasme: "on ne te laisse parler que parce que tu t'élèves contre moi".

Enfin, ce qui est émouvant, au delà de la violence de cette controverse, c'est le rapport d'estime réciproque et de déception, d'amour et de haine, qui lie les deux hommes. Au fond, les deux sont de fervents chrétiens, amoureux de la vérité, passionnés par l'étude des textes dans leur pureté, attachés à la vertu. Leurs opinions ne sont pas si éloignées : tous deux accordent un pouvoir à la grâce, l'un se demandant juste si le libre arbitre n'y jouerait pas un rôle. Dans le fond, c'est une différence de méthode : l'un, pragmatique, souhaite la conciliation, l'autre, idéaliste, ne peut aller à l'encontre de la conviction que lui dicte sa conscience.

Finalement, la réforme va, comme l'avait craint Érasme, jeter l'Europe dans des troubles formidables. Luther n'aura pas moins à combattre ceux qui vont devenir les catholiques, que les "enthousiastes", ceux qui adopteront avec trop de ferveur ses doctrines. Ces malheurs vont, dans les siècles suivants, peu à peu inspirer aux Européens l'horreur du fanatisme, et faire émerger des solutions: tolérance, séparation de l'église et de l'état, et laïcité.

[Graham Cammock · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have read a fascinating biography of Martin Luther, hence, I have thoroughly enjoyed reading his own book. Martin Luther initiated the Protestant Reformation and his Bondage of the Will is a defence of the idea that humans have no "free will" of their own, and that all of our actions are permitted through and by the will and the grace of God. Bondage of the Will is a defence against the "Diatribe" of Dutch humanist Erasmus (who believed that the Catholic church needed reforming, but who was not a Protestant), and who decided to side with the Catholic Church regarding "free will" and thus, attacked Martin Luther and his beliefs. I personally like the idea of no "free will", but justification through God's grace, it is comfortable and conservative. I like Martin Luther's writing, it is powerful, insightful and provocative, and I like his entire attitude and philosophy, which being a Protestant Western European myself - so greatly defined us as who we are as Western Europeans. I highly recommend that everybody learns as much as they can about the history and philosophy of the great historical figure, Martin Luther.

[Chad · Rating 5 out of 5]

Luther famously said that he hoped, after his death, people would still be reading two of his works: the Catechism and The Bondage of the Will. Clearly, he saw this work not merely as one of his best, but as the best distillation of his teaching, ministry, and writing. One cannot understand Luther—or the Reformation—without at least an elementary grasp of the bondage of the will.

Essentially, this means that in everything “above us,” we are bound to oppose God, reject him, and remain spiritually dead. The bondage of the will does not mean we are unwilling slaves forced to oppose God; rather, in all our willing that concerns God and his ways, we desire only what is against him. “He who commits sin is a slave to sin,” Jesus said. In other words, apart from Jesus, all that we are (including our wills) is in slavery.

This highlights grace: the only way we are saved is by God’s action alone. God does not merely help us to be saved or extend an invitation we accept by our “free will.” No—God alone calls us by the Gospel, works repentance and faith within us, and makes us his child. Every conversion is the spiritual resurrection of one who was dead in trespasses and sins. No dead person wills himself out of the grave; salvation is 100% a divine action.

Whatever your theological background, Luther’s Bondage of the Will is essential reading.

[Genna · Rating 2 out of 5]

Holy crap, what a dick.

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’m going to relate the movie ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ and a John Steinbeck novel to this book.

But first, after having read this book there is no doubt that there are still modern day reverberations from this author which still echoes around the world of today from various Christian apologist who believe in an all powerful, all knowing, all merciful, and everywhere creator God of the Bible such as Franklin Graham, W. L. Craig and Jerry Falwell Jr. claim to believe in and each of them offer less persuasive arguments than Luther did in 1525.

Luther uses a lot of bible quotes while defending his position. I glossed over those because bible quotes bore me. In general, Luther believes the devil is real, evil is out there even beyond the actions of people, he thinks Eve was mislead by a talking snake and that the Gospels reign supreme and Paul isn’t always talking for God when he doesn’t like what Paul is saying. Luther will say that nobody who believes in ‘free will’ can believe in Jesus as the Christ and savior and he quotes a bunch of bible verses ‘proving’ his point.

Luther in contrast to Epicureans believes evil exist as a thing in and of itself and there is a need for a devil. Steinbeck will say in ‘The Grapes of Wrath’ (and this is not the Steinbeck novel I alluded to in my first sentence above, btw, so just bear with me), ‘there is no sin, there is no virtue, there’s just people doing things’. That is an incredibly great summation for what an Epicurean believes in. The Epicurean will give the universe form and structure through the random chance and time of the swirling atoms from the void and for the last moment they hypothesize a ‘swerve’ allowing for free will, but from them that is mostly just a clever word game they provide in order to be able to judge humans for their actions within their own terms.

Luther is no Epicurean. He seems to use that word as one of his three most vile of all insults and he routinely heaps it upon his ‘friend’ Erasmus. His other two most favorite insults would be Arian and Pelgagian and he doesn’t spare using those also on Erasmus.

In the movie ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ Freddie Mercury’s father says to him ‘good thoughts, good words, and good deeds’ as a blessing and a coda to live by. That sentiment would be anathema to Luther, but is foundational for Freddie Mercury’s father who is a Zoroastrian, and it would also be for a Pelagian too. Pelagian’s think that merit can be earned by our good deeds, good words and good thoughts and the pursuit of the Good would be our highest divine purpose or meaning. Thomas Aquinas would also tend to agree with that. Luther has no place for the Zoroastrian coda and almost for sure would not be aligned with Aquinas, and Luther would disagree with the Pelagians’ belief that we are not born with an evil nature and that our behavior merits consideration for us from a four or five omni God such as the God of Luther.

I get the feeling from Luther that Arian’s have a special place in hell. I would note that Luther claims to be solely scripture based and that Erasmus had previously shown that the only verse in the New Testament demonstrating the Trinity (within II John) was not in the original Greek Translations and was added after the fact, and that no less than Isaac Newton an incredibly detailed bible based Christian was not a Trinitarian and leaned towards an Arian worldview. I’m just pointing this out to note that Luther sometimes extrapolated and used the church traditions when it sided with what he wanted to ‘prove’ but would ignore tradition or the development of the bible itself when it conflicted with his first principles (see Bart Erhman’s ‘How Jesus Became God’ for amplification).

When Luther got into the fact the original Hebrew does not have a grammatical difference between the ‘imperative’ and the ‘indicative’ verb moods and an expression such as ‘thou shalt’ can have two different meanings, I was reminded of John Steinbeck’s “East of Eden’, and to the point where I would bet Steinbeck read this book because that is within the deterministic/free will theme of ‘East of Eden’. Do we live in a world where fate determines who we are or do we have control over our own destiny; does the race go to the swiftest and bravest or does time and chance prevail? Luther gets into the distinction between the two verb moods just as the Chinese Cook from ‘East of Eden’ who spent 10 years reading all known translations of the bible in order to resolve that difference between the imperative and the indicative. ‘East of Eden’ main theme is whether or not fate is deterministic or do we have free will (choice). I highly recommend the Novel Conversations of East of Eden a less than 30 minute podcast for the book.

There’s a paradox within the human experience. Kierkegaard gets it and writes about it. Luther struggles and wants to get out of the paradox too. He instinctively understands the sentiment of Meister Eckhart's prayer to make himself "free of God since unconditioned Being is above God and all distinction", because not to rely on only yourself with your own free will would mean to not be able to believe in an all powerful God beyond yourself from your own volition. (I think the book, ‘Insistence of God’ by Caputo gets at some of this from a different perspective, and of course anything by Kierkegaard will point one in that direction, albeit in an opposite direction because Kierkegaard believes in the absolute freedom of the human will and the unearned mercy of God, grace, is not central to Kierkegaard, but as always sometimes a complementary system can equate to the original system).

Luther was for the plain text reading except for when he wasn’t. When he talks about the exodus and how ‘God harden Pharaohs heart’ his interpretation lead to the absence of grace as evil and did not grant Pharaoh free will or something along some lines that I really couldn’t follow. I’m not quite sure what he was getting at, but when I read that part of the bible, I see it as God doing something incredibly cruel and disgusting such that I don’t care if Pharaoh doesn’t have free will or not and ask myself why a four or five omni God would do such a thing. Luther saw it differently from me, and he thought it proved his view point that free will doesn’t really exist.

I never understand why modern day Christians (especially in this case Evangelical Christians) don’t read these kind of books instead of following the poor dumbed down imitations from today’s substance free preachers. If one enters into the hermeneutically sealed circle world of the four or five omni-God and believes the Gospels are written by God himself and the rest of the Bible is too except for the parts where Paul is speaking for himself as Luther does, one could extract a firm theological foundation from this book as long as they remain in the world of talking snakes, original sin and no relationship to empirical truths. As for me, I tend towards the Epicurean, Pelagian and non-Trinitarian world view until I come across a more compelling argument.

[Dave Betts · Rating 3 out of 5]

Three stars feels like injustice to Luther. At times his arguments against Erasmus are outstanding, but it was just such a slog to get through. As much as it feels like sacrilege to give this great reformer fewer than four stars, I'll take the plunge anyway.

Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.

[Greg · Rating 1 out of 5]

Luther is an utter jackass when writing this book. While there may be stylistic differences between how people wrote in the 16th Century to now, there's not a whit of Christian charity show in the tone of the book. I found myself more sympathetic to Erasmus than "The Great Reformer."

[Brian Jay Kane · Rating 3 out of 5]

No wonder Calvinists are so angry all the time.

That was a joke.

[Brent · Rating 5 out of 5]

An attractive unabridged translation of Martin Luther's magnum opus, "Bondage of the Will" stands out as a theological gemstone packaged into 250+ pages of Luther's diatribe at its best. Written as a response to the Catholic theologian Erasmus of Rotterdam's defense of freedom of the will, Luther sets out on one mission only: destroy any inclination of free-will. His weapon of choice? The scriptures alone, for they speaks for themselves; sharper than a double-edged sword, Luther smashes any effort by Erasmus to prove that man is an autonomous agent capable of any inclination of self-determination. Luther can be summed up as follows:

"For if God be in us, Satan is from us, and it is present with us to will nothing but good. But if God be not in us, Satan is in us, and it is present with us to will evil only" (102).

Our will is enslaved to sin, only set free by the efficacious gift of God's repentance, faith, mercy, and ultimately grace. Throughout this work, Luther shows off his skill as a prolific exegete and systematic theologian. Ultimately, the scripture speaks for itself: Praise be to God for His long-suffering, mercy, and grace on His elected remnant!

A personal note: This book changed my life. As someone who was struggling with the concept of self-determination, original sin, election, and predestination, I finally hit the ceiling one day when I realized the true implication of these doctrines, if they were true. I was leading a college Bible study at the time, and I didn't know what to do except pray and seek answers. The answer came through Luther's "Bondage of the Will" which ultimately set met free. After realizing my salvation had nothing to do with my own volition in any sense of a human's capacity to 'will,' I became very upset by and by, but moreover, God thereupon softened my heart forthwith. I knew that God had chosen to save me, among all the other saints as well, for no reason other than His good sovereign will. I remember crying in the street thanking and praising God, but still being very distraught over all those who would not be saved. God answered with one statement: 'Now go tell them; go preach the gospel.' I've never been the same since.
-Brent McCulley (10/6/13)

[Amber Standridge · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent engagement with the various passages used by Erasmus to support the Catholic view of free will in salvation. Also, very helpful images throughout to explain the arguments. One image I found particularly helpful: Erasmus posited that God would not give man a command (for instance, to believe unto salvation) without also giving him the ability to comply. Luther counters with the image of a man who is bound from head to toe in chains but who believes himself unencumbered -- One might command the bound man to lift his arms so that the bound man, although unable to lift his arms, would become aware of his chains. Similarly, in our sinful condition we remain blind to our sin and deceived, but God uses the law to make us conscious of sin. "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin." Romans 3:20 I gave the book only a 3.5 because I've read a number of "unwieldy tomes" and found it particularly difficult to access. Luther begins and continues for the great majority of the book countering Erasmus's arguments, spends a great deal of time spewing combative language, and only near the end of the book actually lays out the arguments in support of his position in a clear format.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very important book. Luther told Erasmus, "you, and you alone, have seen the hinge on which all turns, and aimed for the vital spot." And as Luther works to his fantastic conclusion, exhorting his readers to trust in the certain mercy and justice of God, that becomes very clear.

There were two aspects of the book that I found particularly helpful. Firstly, Luther's confidence in the authority and clarity of Scripture. Erasmus was basically of the belief that we can't really know what Scripture teaches. Luther leaves us in no doubt that "the Holy Spirit is no Sceptic." Secondly, Luther demonstrates emphatically our complete need for the grace of God. The Bible hinges on the truth that our "total depravity" demands that only through faith in Christ can we be redeemed, no merit can be credited to us!

It was at times a little tiresome having to wade through page after page of biting polemic. So I have knocked off a star, though, that is part of the charm of reading Luther. Nevertheless, a very necessary read for anyone who wants to understand the Reformation and even biblical Christianity itself.

[Jennifer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing! Luther is so clear, so blunt, so biblical. I thought reading this would be very difficult, but it was a joy. The translators have much to do with this experience, I'm sure, and their introduction was exceptionally helpful!

[Ken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Luther’s, The Bondage of the Will, is a doctrinal treatise first arguing against Erasmus’ doctrine of free will, and then arguing for the Bible doctrine of the will’s bondage. Luther argues that, counter to Erasmus’ view, man is not able to freely choose Christ for his salvation. Man is enslaved in his sin and unable to act in any way towards his own salvation. Apart from divinely initiated grace, man is incapable of not only meriting salvation through his works, but of even choosing God. Luther’s style leaves little doubt as to what he believes. He argues boldly with passion and logic, first detailing the holes in Erasmus’ argument, before presenting a comprehensive response detailing Luther’s understanding of the bondage of the will.
Luther is direct and to the point. He doesn’t pull any punches. And he begins his argument by defending this approach. While Erasmus is critical of Luther for being overly bold in his assertions, Luther counters by stating that a true Christian delights in making assertions. Mockingly, Luther points out the problem of asserting one should make no assertions. The flow of his argument in chapter one begins with arguing that though Scripture can be read, discussed, quoted and even memorized it cannot be truly understand apart from the Spirit revealing the meaning. Then, responding to Erasmus’ charge that this subject is at best unnecessary and superfluous, and at worst incomprehensible, Luther charges that is indeed of great importance to know whether or not our salvation is contingent on our will or God’s.
Continuing deeper into this thought Luther then argues that God foreknows nothing contingently or depending on man’s choice as open theists assert today. Instead God plans and purposes all things according to his free will independent of man’s will. Further, Luther argues that if you take any other position the very promises of God are imperiled because if God’s will is dependant on what man chooses how could we trust that what He promises will come to pass. Luther concludes his first salvo with a passionate discourse responding to Erasmus’ argument that even if total depravity and election are true as Luther teaches they are liable to be misunderstood and create harmful results to the church. Luther responds that there are manifold benefits to his teaching including a humbling of man’s pride, a deepening understanding and appreciation for the grace of God, and a more accurate understanding of true Christian faith. Additionally, Luther argues that God does not force men’s wills to do evil, but that man willingly chooses sin over God and cannot choose anything else owing to his depravity unless God saves him. Luther then does not object to men having wills at all, only the term “free will” which seems to indicate a far more grandiose and powerful state of being then the Bible or observation indicate.
Luther begins his second part by arguing that even those who argue for free-will do not practice it in their relationship with God. He uses prayer as an example of this that men when praying come, not boasting of their free choice of God, but come in self-despair crying for his grace to save them. Luther than argues that if free will and the mind alone are able to discover salvation of their own strength, why didn’t the ancient Greeks who were certainly great minds and pursued truth with all that was in them, discover the true Gospel of Jesus Christ? Yet not one of them did. Their will, their search for truth, and their great minds availed them nothing towards the discovery of The Truth – Jesus Christ.
Part three begins with Luther taking issue with Erasmus’ definition of free will namely that man “may apply himself to those things that lead to eternal salvation…” Luther again declares that while certainly man has a will, calling it and defining it as free when it is actually a slave is a misnomer of the worst kind. He allows that calling man’s will a vertible-will or mutable-will would be more accurate. Luther then argues that no man apart from the Spirit of God ever understands much less longs for or believes in the salvation of Jesus Christ. Next, Luther takes up Erasmus’ argument that God would not command individuals to do something they could not do. Luther argues that God does in fact command men to do what they are unable to do with the express purpose of revealing to man his inability. He uses the example of a doctor telling a patient, who is in denial over his illness, to do something that he is physically incapable of doing to prove his weakness and need of treatment. So the law is not given because man is able to keep it or do it on his own, but to reveal to man his proud heart, sickness and need of a Savior. Continuing with this thought, Luther then argues that biblical statements that begin with “if you are willing” and the like serve not show man his ability, as Erasmus argues, but his duty. The commands of Scripture serve not to show man what he can do with the proper amount of effort, but what he ought to do, but cannot owing to his sinful flesh.
In Luther’s last section against Erasmus’ view, Luther points out where Erasmus has stretch the allowable understanding of Scripture. For example Luther points to Erasmus stating that the command to believe on Christ means “you can believe on Christ.” Or when Scripture says Pharaoh’s heart was hardened it only means “give an occasion of hardening, by not correcting the sinner at once.” These distortions are required according to Luther because of Erasmus’ insistence on free-will. Luther then addresses the issue of God being contaminated by evil if he is sovereign. If God is sovereign and man incapable of choosing righteousness, is not then God culpable for the evil in the world? Yet by faith, Luther argues, we should trust the goodness of God, understanding that though God works evil through evil men, it is man’s own bent towards evil not God’s forcing of evil upon them that produces this evil, and even this is used by God for his glory and our salvation. Luther than shows the audacity of trying to harmonize a wholly free human will with a free will of God and to deny the freedom of God’s will if it conflicts with man’s. He also states that though we cannot make it all work together, we cannot and must not deny that if God is omnipotent and if God is omniscient the doctrine of free-will is utterly destroyed. Indeed, all of Paul’s argument in Romans 9 is futile if God as the potter is not sovereign above man (the clay) and his will. Luther concludes his argument against Erasmus by stating he holds nothing personally against Erasmus, but is arguing so stridently because the cause of Christ is jeopardized by Erasmus’ argument.
Luther’s concludes his book with a positive statement of the doctrine of the bondage of the will. The basics of this argument are as follows. 1) The bible states all are sinners. No one escapes this designation. All are guilty. 2) All men according to scripture are dominated or controlled by sin, unable and unwilling even were they able to escape the corruption of sin. 3) The perfect law of God is out of reach for every man. 4) The law was given, not because man is able to do it, but to show man his sin and need and thus point him to Christ alone for his righteousness. 5) Man’s works and ability’s are totally denied as a basis for acceptance with God. Faith alone in Christ alone given by the grace of God alone is man’s only hope for salvation. Towards the end of his book Luther states that he is glad that salvation is not by his will, for if it were he could never be certain of his of salvation. But as God saves by His mercy and His grace apart from our own ability or works, we can place our trust fully on the grace of God for our salvation and eternal happiness.
Luther clearly is reacting against the claims of Erasmus. His writing is passionate and poignant. There is not a hint of political correctness in his writing. He says exactly what he thinks. Today, we often consider passion compelling, but often not logical. Like the sports fan, who says his team is the greatest though they have lost every game, we may appreciate his passion, but think him deluded by his passion. This is not the case with Luther. Though he clearly argues from a passionate, gut level, he marries his passion perfectly with reason and Biblical analysis. His view is well informed by Scripture and he repeatedly argues compellingly for God’s sovereignty and man’s bondage. Luther’s prose is intelligent, but not out of reach for the layman. His passionate rather than academic treatment of his subject creates an easy to read and compelling case for the bondage of man’s will.

[Kelly · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very big book but very detailed reply of Luther to Erasmus about man's free will. Someone suggested to me that to be able to fully grasp what Luther is saying on specific sections, one must read the conclusion first and go back to the beginning.

[Hannah C. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading this was like being cc'd on an email chain of co-worker drama circa 1525. 10/10 entertaining and instructive.

[Laura Urban · Rating 5 out of 5]

I didn't entirely comprehend everything in this book but what I did understand made me want to jump up and down and cheer. Such logic, such rational thinking. Erasmus didn't stand a chance.

[zanra]

Full of contradictions. Full of what is, in truth, despair--"We [human beings:] being evil by nature" and "For one devil is stronger than all men, and on these terms no man could be saved."

Reveals more than any other Luther-text I've read that Luther constructed his theology basically to placate his hyper-sensitive conscience. After he has achieved his own understanding of God, he has "the comfortable certainty that I please God, not by reason of the merit of my works, but by reason of His merciful favour promised to me; so that, if I work too little, or too badly, He does not impute it to me..." And yet on the next page he claims God is "wholly incomprehensible and inaccessible to man's understanding."

The following is false: "Had there been in Pharaoh any power to turn, or freedom of the will that might have gone either way, God could not with such certainty have foretold his hardening." Being able to foresee an event does not mean one causes it. (Ex: Sarah is such a reckless driver, she's bound to get into an accident one day. Here I can foresee what's going to happen, but I don't cause it to happen.)

Oh, and he swears: "God Immortal, Erasmus..." Not very Christian of him to take the name of the Lord in vain.

I actually felt a bit sorry for him in the end.

[Derric · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Fabius says, ‘An ambiguous word should be avoided as a rock.’...For to what does this hateful double-tongued way of speaking tend? It only furnishes an opportunity of disseminating and fostering in safety the seeds of every heresy under the cover of words and letters that have a show of Christian faith.”

This is the first book I’ve read by Luther and it’s great! I expected a theological treatise and got an apologetic debate with absolutely none of the ambiguous talk Luther condemns in the quote above… not even when it came to expressing his opinions of his opponent! There was a good bit of repetition but it was helpful. I give it 4 stars. I enjoyed it, you might too!

[Hannah · Rating 3 out of 5]

Profound in spots and contradictory in many others. I did not care for Luther as an author by this sample of his writing, and did not like his style of argument, but I am still glad that I chose it for a college research paper. I like some of the passages, which are quite quotable, but some of it does get heavy. I would recommend this to serious students of theology and mature Christians.

[Michael Cunningham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Difficult at times, but highly rewarding. Must read again!

[Gideon Robinette · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fantastic and highly recommended,
just love how humble and polite he is, while he rips Erasmus’s arguments apart.

[Hulda Gilca]

“It is clear from John 14:6, where Christ is said to be “the way, the truth and the life,” that salvation is to be found only in Jesus Christ. That being so, everything out of Christ can only be dark, false, and dead.” - Martin Luther

“There is life after this life, and all that is not punished and repaid here will be punished and repaid there. This life is nothing more than a preparation for, or rather, a beginning of the life that is to come. […] His judgment is beyond the understanding of human beings. A godly man believes that God foreknows and foreordains all things, and that nothing happens except by His will. […] satan is the prince of this world and holds all men in bondage unless they are released by the power of the Holy Spirit.” -Martin Luther

[Joshua Molden · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you are wrestling with the concept of “free will,” I would highly suggest this book. Not only will you get a treatment on the subject, but you will get it from a primary source. Luther’s response to Erasmus diatribe on this subject is comprehensive. He always deals with exact quotes from Erasmus’ work (Diatribe Concerning Free Will) and points out the errors in his view. After nearly 200 pages of responding to exact arguments of Erasmus, he spends the last 50 or so pages of the book give a positive statement of the bondage of the will.

The other thing I enjoyed about this book is the way the authors set up the historical context for this conversation. They give a brief background on both men and also how they knew each other before this conversation happened.

[Logan · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was a decent read but suffered from a few drawbacks.

Luther was responding to Erasmus' work so he doesn't really present a very clear picture of the will---he spends almost all his time mocking various phrases of Erasmus, much like a modern Internet commenter would take snippets of an opponent and comment on each, somewhat out of context. I found that of limited value and it was not presented in a very clear or straight-forward manner. Although Luther seems to really hit his stride mid-book, to me there was a lack of organization throughout (mainly because he was responding to Erasmus in order). I'm also not sure what benefit there is to mocking someone's logic or inconsistency, but that was the polemic of the day...and I suppose Erasmus was using his reputation as the buttress of his arguments and Luther felt compelled to attack that.

Despite that, there were a few gems in there: things like "This, as I have before observed, is from the arguments of human reason, which thinks that a man is mocked by a command impossible: whereas I say, that the man, by this means, is admonished and roused to see his own impotency."

Erasmus on the other hand seems to have been a pretty poor biblical commentator. He wrests the meaning of many passages out of context and seems to display an appalling ignorance of Scripture in general.

[Trice · Rating 4 out of 5]

3/20/2011 halfway through the first part of the Discussion
Keep feeling like I'm taking it in great gulps and then realize only 30 pages have passed - this definitely takes more concentration as each sentence is full. I've ended up reading half of it out loud and for some reason it seems to be clearer this way. The parts where he focuses on the issue at hand are definitely better (more important? more informative? more grace-filled?) than the parts where he's lashing away at Erasmus, tearing him into itty bitty teeny tiny pieces, although these latter are pretty hilarious in places too. The blurb on the back of the book says something about Luther's "gentle humor" which just makes me laugh even more and wonder if the writers actually read the book, or if maybe they were trying to soften the picture of the man - "biting" - I'd go with "biting humor" guys.
------------------------------------------------------
1/26/2011: finished the Preface (or response to Erasmus' preface): lots of food for thought, but the 2 meatiest sections were 24 and 25 where he starts to get into the nature of God and the nature of Man, all with reference to the idea of free will. Some of his insults to Erasmus still have me laughing - things along the lines of: "You assert that assertions are bad" and the fact that he compares Erasmus' publication to a pile'o'crap (but in much better language). Let's see... the direct quote is:

[I]t seems even superfluous to reply to these your arguments, which have been indeed often refuted by me; but trodden down, and trampled under foot, by the incontrovertible Book of Philip Melancthon "Concerning Theological Questions:" [reader starts to wonder if this can be found in English] a book, in my judgment, worthy not only of being immortalized, but of being included in the ecclesiastical canon: in comparison of which, your Book is, in my estimation, so mean and vile, that I greatly feel for you for having defiled your most beautiful and ingenious language with such vile trash; and I feel an indignation against the matter also, that such unworthy stuff should be borne about in ornaments of eloquence so rare; which is as if rubbish, or dung, should be carried in vessels of gold and silver.

Does that qualify as a backhanded compliment? Your writing is beyond compare, sir... except for its content. I'm clearly not angry enough about Erasmus' writing - just can't work myself up to the level of sarcastic attack that Luther takes on and so far he hasn't really let up through 30 pages of dense-ish text, except where he goes to strong theological statement. To be fair here, though, the writer he's comparing Erasmus to he considers to be on the level of the divines, just below the authority of scripture. In a bunch of places I was wishing I could read Erasmus' diatribe to which Luther is responding here, as I wanted context for his comments. As a random aside, I was a bit surprised by how the topic jumped a bit from section to section.

Reasons Luther is so fired up about the topic of free will:

For, if I know not how much I can do myself, how far my ability extends, and what I can do God-wards; I shall be equally uncertain and ignorant how much God is to do, how far his ability is to extend, and what he is to do toward me: whereas it is "God that worketh all in all." But if I know not the distinction between our working and the power of God, I know not God Himself. And if I know not God, I cannot worship Him, praise Him, give Him thanks, nor serve Him; for I shall not know how much I ought to ascribe unto myself, and how much unto God. It is necessary, therefore, to hold the most certain distinction, between the power of God and our power, the working of God and our working, if we would live in his fear. (Sect. 7)

[F]or if these things be not known there can be neither faith, nor any worship of God: nay, not to know them, is to be in reality ignorant of God, with which ignorance salvation, it is well known, cannot consist. For if you doubt, or disdain to know that God foreknows and wills all things, not contingently, but necessarily and immutably, how can you believe confidently, trust to, and depend upon his promises? For when he promises, it is necessary that you should be certain that he knows, is able, and willing to perform what he promises; otherwise, you will neither hold Him true nor faithful; which is unbelief, the greatest of wickedness, and a denying of the Most High God! (Sect.12)

He also discusses the need to hold to and proclaim all truth, no matter how difficult it may seem or how the results of its revelation would seem to hold danger - God called for all of His Gospel to be revealed and we cannot keep some back for fear of people turning to sin or for fear of how earthly authorities might react.

"There are two causes which require such things [as free will and predestination] to be preached. The first is, the humbling of our pride, and the knowledge of the grace of God. The second is, Christian faith itself" (Sect. 24).

NOTE: I'm reading a translation from 1823 so the language and the punctuation don't exactly match modern expectations. This actually taught me a small something, as the translator, Henry Cole, talks in his own extremely brief Preface about 'inverted commas' and 'double commas' when talking about single and double quotation marks signifying inclusion of Erasmus' words or thoughts.

[Truls Ljungström · Rating 3 out of 5]

Luther var en fantastisk retoriker. Det är en njutning att läsa denna text, som dessutom är riktigt välöversatt.

Substansen i argumentet är att fri vilja inte innebär förmåga att använda denna till att uppnå objektiv godhet, eftersom denna ofta kommer på kant med människors jordiska bästa. För dens skull menar Luther att fri vilja är för svag för att kallas fri. Detta är en invändning som inte stämmer överens med tidigare doktriner, där fri vilja inte innebär styrka att driva igenom viljan eller omdöme att använda den väl.

Jag menar att Luther här använder en övertalningsdefinition, men han är i alla fall öppen med varför.

Boken är roande och trevlig och spännande, och Luthers Gudskärlek är enorm, men trots det är inte denna bok allt för lärorik.

[Ashley Harp · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was nice to read something from Luther's hand and have it be the summation of what he fought for. A lot of it is a rebuttal to one of Erasmus's works, which can get long and redundant, which is why I give it a three star rating. The heart of the message, his use of Scripture, and the way he fleshes out both his and his opponents arguments, is great though.

[John Boyne · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've been wanting to read Luther's classic work on free will for a long time. I'm glad I was finally able to! While it is a challenge working through a 500 year old work that was translated from German, it was still an astonishing work on how misguided some people are in their reading of Scripture and how important it is to have men like Luther in the church to break free and preach the Word. Luther systematically breaks down the arguments set out by Erasmus of Rotterdam on the nature of human free will in the face of God. All arguments on free will turn to dust in the words of Luther's exposition of Scripture and wit. Many passages I had to reread due to my own difficulties but I also found myself laughing at Luther's ability to correct error. This book is a foundational piece of the Reformation and belongs on all believer's shelves.