For the two other persons who are interested in this blog series, here’s part 2.
So far, Luther has been responding to Erasmus’ Preface. (The whole book is a response to Erasmus’ book on the matter).
Luther explains that all of God’s promises depend on his total sovereignty over all things, especially the Will. He says, “For when [God] 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…” To put it another way, to deny God’s total sovereignty is to make God merely a predictor of things he can’t do and/or hasn’t actually accomplished. All things in history arise from human decision, whether to birth a child, move locations, take a job, betray a friend, crucify a man, or any other thing. Accordingly, if God were not sovereign over the will, he could not promise to do anything (since all the factors leading up to various events required decisions outside his control).
He also addresses the argument that such debates and inquiries ought not happen because they create divisions. He has stated that salvation and the gospel are actually at issue for this matter informs us of our desperately humble state and God’s grace. However, he furthers his argument by saying “tumult” is natural when the Bible is taught. Should we not teach gladly the weighty things of Scripture simply because people will get upset? He challenges the premise common today that unity must be predicted at all costs. The issues that surround the “free will” conversation are central to the gospel (i.e. grace, human righteousness, sin, God’s power and promises,…)
Erasmus asserts that since such doctrines cannot be understood by people, we ought not to accept them. Understanding is necessary for acceptance. If we are not careful in selecting what we teach (says Erasmus), people could be adversely affected. However, Luther aptly replies, “What else do you mean by all this, than that the words of Scripture should depend on, stand on, and fall by, the will and authority of men?” How many of us hesitate to say things because it might cause people to be uncomfortable, humbled, or upset, though the Truth could save them from many worldly troubles or even hell? Truth will never find “consensus” (yet we may easily acts as if it should).
Finally, Luther advances towards a defining and explaining what is meant by people when they say “Free Will”. He speaks of two kinds of ability (better explained by Edwards 200 years later; I think I mentioned this in a previous post on being responsible for what we cannot do.) In short, he wants to explain that the Will always does what it wants. It cannot do other than what it wants. However, the will cannot change itself. All theologians agree on this point, including Erasmus, who says that God’s grace is necessary to affect the will. However, Luther points out that Erasmus undermine the “Free Will” argument when he say this. Why? Because if God’s grace is necessary for a person’s heart to be changed, then it cannot BY ITSELF do what God wills. Therefore he says “ ‘Free Will’ without the grace of God is, absolutely, not FREE; but immutably, the servant and bond-slave of evil, because it cannot turn itself unto good.” In other words, if the Will supposedly has some power, but this power is ineffective, then it has no power, no freedom. At he heart of the conversation is what is decisive…God’s grace OR the human will apart from grace.
