Bondage of the Will: Willing to Believe with R.C. Sproul

Video Statistics and Information

Video
Captions Word Cloud
Reddit Comments
Captions
SPROUL: One of the most fascinating duels  that ever took place in the theological   arena between theologians was the duel  that erupted in the sixteenth century   between probably the most respected Catholic,  humanistic scholar of the era and Martin Luther.   It was Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam,  the man who reconstructed the received text   of the New Testament, who was known around the  world for his great scholarship and acumen,   who in the early stages of the Reformation  sided with Luther, and who wrote “The Praise   of Folly,” which was a bitter, sarcastic satire  against the corruptions of the clergy within the   Catholic church; but nevertheless, when it came  to the cardinal issues of the Reformation itself,   Erasmus broke with Luther and remained  faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and then   set about to critique the teachings of Martin  Luther. And the debate was prompted in 1524   when Erasmus published his work entitled the  “The Diatribe Concerning Free Will” in which he   gave an exhaustive and comprehensive critique  of the theology of Luther and the Reformers.   The following year, in 1525, Luther responded  to Erasmus’ work with his famous book De servo   arbitrio, which is called “The Bondage of the  Will.” Now, of the more than fifty volumes that   come down to us from the pen of Martin Luther,  Luther himself regarded as his most important   work his work on the bondage of the will and  the reply that he gave to Erasmus, and I believe   that for the most part church historians and  theologians have agreed with Luther’s assessment   that that was his most important work; and I  commend to you the reading of the “The Bondage   of the Will” as it remains a Christian classic  and certainly of vital importance to this whole   controversy over free will as it  relates both to the doctrine of election   and to the doctrine of original sin. We  know, for example, that the battle cry   of the Reformation and the central issue of  which the debate raged in the sixteenth century   was over this concept of sola fide which is the  slogan that means “by faith alone,” summarizing in   capsule form Luther’s doctrine of justification  by faith alone. However, Luther at this point,   regarded that in a certain sense the doctrine of  justification was merely the tip of the iceberg   of the controversy and that there was an even more  serious theological matter that was hidden beneath   the surface but was certainly engaged and in play  in the controversy that divided Christendom so   deeply in the sixteenth century, and  that was the doctrine of sola gratia. For Luther, sola fide grows out of  sola gratia and rests upon sola gratia   and depends upon sola gratia for its force,  and in his work on the bondage of the will,   Luther, in speaking of the doctrine of election  or predestination, which is so controversial,   made the comment that in his judgment  election is the core ecclesia,   or the very heart of the church. Again, you have  to remember that Luther was an Augustinian monk,   and his primary mentor theologically was  Augustine, and it was Augustine who had   emphasized so strongly centuries earlier his  concept of sola gratia, that we are saved by grace   and by grace alone. And it’s for that reason that  justification would have to be by faith alone   as Paul declares when he speaks in Ephesians  that we are justified by grace through faith.   And so, Luther was trying to probe beneath the  surface of the central issue of justification   and get to its foundational underpinnings in the  classical doctrine of grace, and that of course,   immediately touches on the issue of the extent of  our fallenness and the strength of our human will. And in his “Diatribe,” Erasmus argued that the  whole issue of free will in this debate was a   matter that was really not all that important.  It was an academic point – a technicality – that   could better be left to scholars and not something  that people should be all of that concerned about.   We recall that also in the “Diatribe,” if you  study Erasmus’ position you see how ambiguous and,   I frankly think, confused it is, and he vacillates  back and forth among various ideas of freedom   and of grace. But he also makes the observation  that on certain issues like this, as an   academician, he would prefer to suspend judgment  and not to come down on one side or the other   because he thought that that was the prudent thing  to do in matters of this sort to which Luther   replied by saying, in typical Lutheran fashion,  “Away with the skeptics! Away with the academics.   Spiritus Sanctus non es sceptitus.”  The Holy Spirit is not a skeptic,   and the truths that He has revealed  are more precious to us than   life itself. And with respect to the  importance of the question of the degree   of power the fallen human will has or lacks,  Luther makes this comment responding to Erasmus.   Erasmus had said that the doctrine of free  will is, “One of those useless doctrines   that we can do without.” Luther said, “It is  irreligious, idle, and superfluous, you say,   to want to know whether our will affects anything  in matters pertaining to eternal salvation   or whether it is wholly passive under the work  of grace? Well, here you speak to the contrary,   saying that Christian piety consists in striving  with all our might; and you say, apart from the   mercy of God, our will is ineffective. Here you  plainly assert that the will is in some respect   active in matters pertaining to salvation – or you  represent it as striving – and again you represent   it as the object of Divine action when you say  that without God’s mercy it is ineffective.   But you do not define the limits within  which we should think of the will as acting   and as acted upon. You take pains to engender  ignorance as to what God’s mercy and man’s will   can affect by your very teaching as to  what man’s will and God’s mercy do affect.” Now, what Luther is saying here is this: that the  question of what part God plays in my salvation   and what part I play in my  salvation has everything to do   with our religious posture before God and  everything to do with our understanding of   the grace of God, our appreciation of the grace  of God, our worship of God, and our dependence   on God. It’s a matter of critical importance,  according to Luther, as to whether we think   in the final analysis our salvation is the work  of God or it is something that to a certain degree   it is accomplished by our own efforts and our own  striving and our own merit. Here we see another   one of the slogans of the Reformation  lurking behind the scenes, and that is   the expression Soli Deo Gloria – to God alone the  glory. Am I to reduce the glory that belongs to   God for my redemption and arrogate some of the  praise and glory to myself, or is it proper in   the religious spirit of the Christian heart  to understand that salvation is of the Lord,   that we have been rescued as slaves who could  not liberate themselves, as debtors who could   not pay their debt so that we sing praises to  God’s grace throughout our lives. Luther said,   “This is a matter of supreme importance to  the health of the Christian’s life, and so   it is not just a matter that should be reserved  for the halls of academia or to scholars alone. Now, again, Erasmus was concerned about some of  the practical consequences that might flow out of   the Reformation teaching on the moral inability  of man and the sovereignty of Divine grace.   He says, “What can be more useless than to  publish to the world the paradox that all we do   is done not by free will but of mere necessity  and Augustine’s view that God works in us both   good and evil, that He rewards His own good works  in us and punishes His own evil works in us.”   Erasmus said, “This would open a floodgate of  iniquity and would spread such news openly to   the people.” Then he raised this practical  question, “If this doctrine of election   were to be taught, what wicked man   would amend his life? Who would believe that God  loved him, and who would fight against his flesh?” Now, if you recall, when we looked at  the system called semi-Pelagianism, and   we looked at the writings of Cassian, or  Cassianus, and we saw Cassianus reacting   against Augustine’s teaching on nature and grace,  that Cassianus raised these exact same objections   against Augustine, saying that if the  doctrine of election were to be taught   and man’s moral inability were to be proclaimed,  that it would be the end of preaching, it would be   the end of evangelism, it would be the end of  anybody’s seeking improvement in their character.   How does Luther respond to these questions? Well,  listen to them. Erasmus had said – Luther is   stating it this way: “You say, Erasmus, ‘Who will  try to reform his life?’” The answer Luther gives,   “Nobody.” Erasmus – “Who will believe that God  loves him?” Luther answers – “Nobody. Nobody can,   but the elect shall believe it, and the  rest will perish without believing it,   raging and blaspheming.” Erasmus said that a  floodgate of iniquity is opened by our doctrines.   Luther said, “So be it.” Luther’s willing to  go to the final point on this. He said, “Hey,   what’s at stake here is the character of God,  and if by teaching what the Bible teaches   about our utter dependence upon  the grace of God to redeem us,   is going to cause people not to strive to come  to God in their spiritual death” – he said,   “If that’s the floodgate of iniquity and that  it’s opened,” he said, “let it be open,” he said,   “because in the first place and the main  point is what? Who will try to amend their   lives? Who will incline themselves to the  things of God if we teach this doctrine?   Nobody, because nobody can anyway and  nobody does anyway.” That’s the whole point   as the apostle had made it clear. No one seeks  after God, that in our fallen condition we are   so much enslaved by our sin that we don’t want to  come to the things of God. That’s the very point   that Luther is trying to say. And so you say, “If  I teach people that in their fallen condition they   will never strive or incline themselves to  come to God, that that would cause them to   stop striving and inclining themselves to come to  God, when they can’t do it anyway.” That’s absurd.   Again, he’s saying, “The problem that we have in  our fallen condition is that nobody wants God.   We don’t want God in our thinking, we don’t want  God in our lives, and we are not pursuing God   over heaven and earth. We’re fleeing from  God as far and as fast as we possibly can;   and our only hope is that if God seeks us out  and turns us around and brings us to Himself. Later on, Luther deals with Erasmus’ definition  of free will by reproducing it in his own book.   He says, “I suppose then, that this power of  the human will means the power or faculty or   disposition or aptitude to will or not to will,  to choose or reject, to approve or disapprove,   and to perform all the other actions of the will.  Now, what it means for this same power to apply   itself or to turn away, I do not see, unless  it refers to the actual willing or not willing,   choosing or rejecting, approving or disapproving  – that is, the very action of the will itself. So   we must suppose that this power is something  that comes between the will and its action,   something by which the will itself  elicits the act of willing or not willing,   and by means of which the action of willing or not  willing is elicited, nothing else is imaginable   or conceivable.” Now, that may sound a little  bit arcane to you. That concept that I’ve just   read to you in Luther will be expanded in much  greater clarity later on by Jonathan Edwards,   but the simple point that Luther is  making here is he’s asking this question,   “If it all comes down to your willing or  not willing, your rejecting or accepting,   your choosing or not choosing to cooperate with  the grace of God – that is, God’s grace is given   to you, to this person, and to this person, but  in the final analysis, it’s up to your free will   or his free will to determine your destiny.  What is it that is found in your fallen nature   that will cause this person’s will to say,  “Yes,” and that person’s will to say, “No”?   There is something between the ability to will  and the actual action of making the choice,   and of course, what Augustine had said centuries  earlier and Luther is reiterating at this point   is that it’s the inclination  of the soul, or the desire.   If this person says, “Yes,” to grace, it can  only be because this person wants to say “Yes,”   to grace, and if this person says, “No,” to grace,  it can only be because this person wants to say,   “No,” to grace. What could  be more simple than that? Well that’s simple – to state the problem, or  to state the question is simple, but again, the   difficulty is in determining why one person would  say “Yes,” and another person would say, “No.”   Obviously the person who said, “Yes,”  has a positive desire towards God,   before they’re even born of  the Spirit. The other person   doesn’t have a positive inclination towards God,  and the person who has the right inclination will   make the right choice. The person who has the  wrong inclination will make the wrong choice,   and if it’s strictly on the basis of the operation  of the human will that determines that in the   final analysis, that means that this person has  done the righteous thing, this person has done the   evil thing. This person has something of which to  boast; this person has nothing of which to boast. I’ll often express this to people in these  terms: I’ll say to them, “Why are you a Christian   and your neighbor isn’t?”   And they’ll say, “Well, because I chose to be and  they chose not to be.” And I’ll say, “Okay, is it   because you’re more righteous than your neighbor?”  Now what’s the normal Christian to answer to that   question? You know what it’s supposed to be. You  know you’re never supposed to stand up and say,   “Well, the reason I’m a Christian and somebody  else isn’t is because I’m more righteous.”   This is the zenith or the nadir really of  self-righteousness, to say that the reason   I’m in the kingdom and somebody’s out of the  kingdom is because I am righteous and they are   not. It sounds like the Pharisee in the temple  who was boasting of his relationship with God.   Most Christians shrink from saying  that, “It’s because I’m more righteous,”   but they’ll stop at that point. I’ll say,  “Well, is it because you’re more intelligent   than that person?” No, they don’t want to  say that because they know if they do say it,   the next thing I’m going to say is,  “Where did you get that intelligence?   Did you earn it or did you receive it? Was it an  accomplishment or a gift?” And then the discussion   on their part wants to end. They say, “It’s  not because I’m more righteous,” and I’ll say,   “Why isn’t it because you’re more righteous?  Did you make the right decision?” “Yes.” “Did   your neighbor make the wrong decision?” “Yes.”  “Is it good that you made this decision?” “Yes.”   “Is it bad that they made that decision?” “Yes.”  “Then why don’t you say you’re more righteous   than that person?” Because they know they’re  not supposed to, but they have to if they really   believe that in the final analysis that which  determines their inclusion in the kingdom of God   is the right and good choice that they  made when they had the opportunity. Now, the other point that  Luther debated with Erasmus   was this matter that I read moments ago  of Erasmus complaining about necessity.   He says that according to Luther, if God knows  everything in advance and what is going to take   place, then all things that happen in this world  happen by necessity, and if all things happen by   necessity, then we can’t possibly be free at  all. For Erasmus, necessity means coercion.   If my actions are necessary with respect to  God’s foreknowledge, according to Erasmus,   than they must take place  through some kind of coercion.   Luther said, “No, no, no, no, no, no.” He said,  “God does not force me to make the decisions that   I make in my normal daily living, but they  are necessary with respect to His knowledge,   because if God knows today what I am going  to do freely tomorrow, without His coercion,   will I do that tomorrow? Is it certain  that I will do it tomorrow? It is   of necessity of certainty insofar as it  most certainly will come to pass because   God doesn’t make mistakes in His knowledge, but  that doesn’t mean that God is forcing me to do it,   or that I’m forced by chance or anything else.  That God knows in advance what I’m going to do   does not mean that He has to coerce me to do it so  that’s why Luther makes this distinction between   the necessity of consequence and the necessity of  the consequent, which is a technical distinction   to explain this. But what he’s saying  to Erasmus, “We are not teaching,   with our view of election or divine sovereignty of  the fall of man, that God coerces sinners to sin.”   He says, “People choose what they want,   but the problem is what they want is wicked. It  is certain that they will choose what they want   by virtue of God’s knowledge of it, but God  doesn’t force them – those who desire to do   good – to do bad, nor does He force  people who want only evil to do good.
Info
Channel: Ligonier Ministries
Views: 18,340
Rating: 4.9225354 out of 5
Keywords: bondage of the will, will, the will, freedom of the will, willing, believe, willing to believe, martin luther, martin luther bondage of the will, sixteenth century, 16th century, martin luther reformer, reformation, reformer, Desiderius Erasmus, erasmus, free will, free, rc proul, dr rc sproul, ligonier, ligonier ministries, reformed, reformed theology, educational, christian, christianity, christian free will, god, jesus, jesus christ, the reformation, free will debate, debate
Id: k6DUX-lnH5Q
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 24min 11sec (1451 seconds)
Published: Wed Nov 18 2020
Related Videos
Note
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.