Program / Course 10: Salvation and Eschatology / Lesson 2.3
What you will learn
- Describe the occasion and the main arguments of Erasmus’s ‘On Free Will’ (1524) and Luther’s ‘On the Bondage of the Will’ (1525).
- Explain Luther’s distinction between the will’s freedom in earthly matters and its bondage before God.
- State Erasmus’s concern for moral responsibility and for the church’s tradition.
- See how later Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed teaching drew on or departed from each.
The big idea
In 1524 the humanist scholar Erasmus of Rotterdam published a short work defending free will against Martin Luther. Luther answered a year later with ‘On the Bondage of the Will’, a long book which he regarded as one of his most important. Erasmus held that the will cooperates with grace and that Scripture and tradition require it. Luther held that the fallen will can do nothing toward salvation and that salvation is wholly by God’s work. The exchange made monergism, the teaching that God alone saves, a defining mark of the Lutheran and Reformed churches.
Key terms
- Bondage of the will (servum arbitrium)
- Luther’s phrase for the teaching that, since the fall, the human will is held captive by sin and cannot choose the good that pleases God.
- Diatribe
- The Greek term Erasmus used for his book, meaning a discussion or comparison of arguments, not a harsh attack.
- Humanism
- A Renaissance movement that returned to the original languages and texts of the classics and the Bible. Erasmus was its leading figure in northern Europe.
- Assertion
- Luther’s term for a firm commitment to what Scripture teaches. He criticized Erasmus for preferring skeptical caution on matters Luther judged clear.
- Necessity of immutability
- Luther’s idea that God’s foreknowledge and will cannot fail, so that what God foresees happens necessarily. He insisted this is not compulsion.
- Hidden God and revealed God
- Luther’s distinction between God as he has revealed himself in Christ and the mysterious will that people should not try to pry into.
- Monergism
- The teaching that God alone works to bring a person to faith.
Background
By 1524 Luther had been excommunicated and had broken with Rome over the sale of indulgences, the authority of the pope and the teaching on justification. Erasmus, who had edited the Greek New Testament in 1516, shared some of Luther’s criticisms of church abuses but wished to remain within the Catholic Church. Under pressure from church leaders and from the English king, he chose a topic on which he thought Luther was vulnerable: free will.
Luther did not at first regard free will as the heart of his quarrel, but in his reply he thanked Erasmus for going to the hinge of the question instead of arguing about popes and indulgences. This lesson summarizes both works. Their tone is sharp, and each man was convinced the other had misunderstood him. The goal is to describe their arguments as each would recognize them.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Erasmus’s argument
Erasmus defined free will as a power of the human will by which a person can apply himself to what leads to eternal salvation, or turn from it. He claimed that Scripture is full of commands, exhortations and promises that would be meaningless if the will were not free: choose this day whom ye will serve (Joshua 24:15), and the invitations of Jesus.
He also appealed to the long tradition of the church and held that the matter is obscure. In his view the question is not clear enough in Scripture to justify the confidence that Luther showed. On the substance, he taught that grace is the principal cause of salvation and the will a secondary cause that cooperates. He compared it to a child who is taught to walk by a father: the father lifts the child and guides the steps, and the child’s small efforts count for something.
Step 2: Luther’s argument
Luther replied that Erasmus’s view makes Christians depend partly on themselves and so removes the comfort of the gospel. He argued from texts such as John 8:34 (“Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin”), Romans 3 and 8 and Ephesians 2:1, in which human beings are called dead in sin. A dead person cannot cooperate in his own raising.
Luther drew a line between the will’s power in things beneath it, such as work, eating and daily choices, and its power in things above it, namely salvation. In the first realm he allowed a certain freedom. In the second, he said, the will is like a beast that is ridden either by God or by Satan, and it cannot choose which rider it will have. Only God’s Spirit can free it.
Step 3: Foreknowledge and necessity
Luther also argued from God’s foreknowledge. If God foreknows and wills all things, he said, then what happens happens necessarily. He insisted that this is necessity of immutability, not compulsion: the will chooses what it wants, but what it wants is determined by whether God or Satan holds it. He added that the preacher must speak of the God who is revealed in Christ and not look into the hidden will of God, where no comfort is found.
Erasmus had worried that this reasoning would make God the author of evil. Luther admitted the difficulty and said that human reason cannot resolve it, and that Christians must trust the Word.
Step 4: What each feared
Erasmus feared that denying free will would lead to moral indifference and a God who is unjust. Why strive, if everything is decided? Luther feared that affirming free will would replace the gospel with a religion of self-help, in which a person is never sure that enough has been done. The deepest disagreement was about where assurance comes from: from God’s work alone, or partly from one’s own response.
Step 5: What came after
Luther’s book was strongly Augustinian and was taken up by Calvin and the Reformed tradition. Within the Lutheran churches, Philip Melanchthon later softened some of Luther’s language and spoke of the will as a kind of ‘non-resistance’ to grace. The Formula of Concord (1577) settled on a middle line: the will is utterly unable in spiritual matters to convert itself, and once the Spirit works, the will cooperates in the Christian life.
The Council of Trent, meeting from 1545 to 1563, taught that the will, weakened but not destroyed, can reject or cooperate with grace. It did not simply endorse Erasmus, who had also been criticized by Catholic authorities, but its decree on justification speaks of free will in terms Luther rejected.
- What does Erasmus fear will follow if free will is denied?
- What does Luther fear will follow if free will is affirmed?
- Is the picture of a child learning to walk a fair image of grace and effort? What does it leave out?
- Can a will be bound and yet responsible? How does Luther try to answer?
- Why does Luther care so much about assurance?
- What do you make of Erasmus’s claim that the question is too obscure for firm assertions?
Examples
Dead or sick?
A student compares two images. One describes fallen humanity as sick, needing a doctor and willing to take medicine. The other describes it as dead, needing to be raised. She notices that Erasmus’s position fits the first image more easily and Luther’s the second. She also notices that Catholic and Orthodox thinkers often prefer healing language, while Lutheran and Reformed thinkers often speak of resurrection from death.
The sailor and the wind
A teacher explains Erasmus’s view with a sailor who must raise the sail but cannot make the wind. He explains Luther’s view with a man who is drowning and cannot raise anything, but must be pulled out. Students ask whether either picture does justice to Scripture, and the teacher answers that both traditions think so about their own. (A constructed illustration.)
Different perspectives
Catholic
Catholic teaching, set out at Trent, holds that the will is wounded but not destroyed, that grace comes first, and that the will can freely assent to or reject God’s call. Catholic theologians have often criticized Luther’s denial of any power in the will as contrary to the plain sense of Scripture and tradition.
Orthodox
Orthodox theology teaches that human freedom is not destroyed by the fall and that salvation involves synergy between God and the human will. Orthodox writers therefore find Luther’s position difficult, and they see the earlier Greek fathers as closer to Erasmus’s concern for responsibility, though not to every detail of his argument.
Lutheran
The Formula of Concord teaches that in spiritual matters the natural will is completely unable and that conversion is wholly the work of the Holy Spirit through Word and sacrament. After conversion, the believer’s renewed will cooperates in the good works that God works in him. Lutherans see Luther’s book as a defense of the gospel of free grace.
Reformed
Reformed theologians, including Calvin, defended the bondage of the will with arguments like Luther’s. The Westminster Confession says that man by his fall has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation. They add that God has not removed human responsibility.
Arminian and Wesleyan
Arminius and Wesley agreed with Luther that human beings cannot turn to God by their own power, but they said that God’s prevenient grace restores to everyone the ability to respond. They therefore stand closer to Erasmus’s concern for responsibility, while insisting that grace alone makes any response possible.
Why it matters
The debate between Luther and Erasmus names the question that divides Western churches still: when God brings a person to faith, does the person do anything, or only receive? The answer affects how Christians pray, how they preach and how they take comfort in trouble. Reading the original arguments also corrects caricatures, since Erasmus did not teach that people save themselves, and Luther did not teach that people are puppets.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Erasmus taught that human beings save themselves.
Correction: Erasmus taught that grace is the principal cause of salvation and that the will cooperates. His emphasis on responsibility is not Pelagian by his own account.
Misunderstanding: Luther denied all freedom of choice.
Correction: Luther allowed freedom in ordinary matters beneath salvation. He denied that the fallen will can choose God or contribute to its own salvation.
Misunderstanding: Luther made God the author of sin.
Correction: Luther rejected that charge. He taught that God works all in all, but that the evil in the wicked will comes from the will itself, and he admitted the matter is hard for reason.
Misunderstanding: Erasmus was Protestant.
Correction: Erasmus remained a Catholic and sought reform from within. He disliked both the abuses of the church and the violence of the Reformation.
Knowledge check
What was the occasion of ‘On the Bondage of the Will’?
It was Luther’s reply to Erasmus’s ‘On Free Will’ (1524). Erasmus, a Catholic humanist, had been urged to write against Luther. He defended free will in a measured tone. Luther answered in 1525 with a long work in which he argued that the fallen will cannot cooperate in its own salvation.
How did Luther distinguish the will’s freedom in different realms?
He allowed a limited freedom in things below the will, such as everyday choices. Before God, in matters of salvation, he taught that the will is bound by sin and cannot choose the good. He pictured it like a beast ridden either by God or by Satan, who cannot choose its rider.
What was Erasmus’s main concern?
He was concerned with moral responsibility, the force of biblical commands and invitations, and the church’s tradition. He held that grace is the principal cause but the will cooperates. He also thought the matter was too obscure for dogmatic assertion, and he feared that Luther’s view would lead to indifference or make God unjust.
How did the Lutheran confessions later handle the question?
The Formula of Concord taught that in spiritual matters the unconverted will is wholly unable to convert itself and that conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit. Once converted, the believer’s will cooperates with the Spirit in good works. This avoids both Luther’s sharpest phrasing and any teaching that the person contributes to conversion.
Think it through
- Where do you find comfort in the idea that salvation depends on God alone, and where do you feel its difficulty?
- Would you rather be told that you have a part to play, or told that you are not responsible for the outcome? How might each message fit the gospel?
- How can two thinkers who respect the Bible reach opposite conclusions on this point?
Independent assignment
A fair summary of two books
In your notebook, write 500 to 700 words. Read selected passages from Luther’s ‘On the Bondage of the Will’ (the library has Luther’s work) and a reliable summary of Erasmus’s ‘On Free Will’. Write one paragraph stating Erasmus’s case, another stating Luther’s, and a third stating what each most feared. Avoid language that makes either sound foolish. End by listing two texts from Scripture that each side would use.
Further study
- Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will Read the opening sections and the discussion of Romans for Luther’s argument.
- John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion Compare Book 2, chapters 2 to 5, on the will.
- Council of Trent (1545-1563), Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent Read the decree on justification for the Catholic reply on free will.
- Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3: The Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches Read the Formula of Concord’s article on free will.
- Joshua 24:15 Choose you this day whom ye will serve, a text Erasmus used.
- John 8:34 Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
- Ephesians 2:1 You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.
- Romans 9:16 It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.