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.
