Free Will and the Prescient God

Martin Luther's "The Bondage of the Will"

Reviewed by Aaron DeWeese

First, let's look at the later life of Martin Luther.  Antisemitism seems to hang darkly over him near the end of his life.  This shows that—perhaps to his ailing health which was said to have made him extremely cranky—there is a manifested imbalance within a once brilliant and Godly mind.

Conspiracy theorist Texe Marrs put it well when he said that "humanity is able to witness the worst and best within God's chosen race".  That's excellent.  The redeemer was Jewish, and it is only fitting that a Jew will head up the World System as the Antichrist.  Bible scholars are usually wrong though—he could be any race, or, if you wish to be really open minded about it, he might not be of the human race at all or even a he...or she.  Maybe both.

What is this "Bondage of the Will"?  What is Luther trying to say?  I don't know what theological evolution has turned predestination into, but it is that which most charismatics flee from—towards Erasmus' free will philosophy.

Really this is quite simple to understand.  Erasmus' diatribe poorly attempted to show that man has a  "Free Will".  Martin Luther responded with "Bondage of the Will," and in such a wonderful thought out way that I honestly believe logical people who place with their reason a faith in the Gospel cannot deny.  Don't get me wrong, Luther gets quite complex—dashing to pieces with sound reason the arguments of Erasmus' Free Will.  However, if we boil it down to Luther's essential point, it is this:

"IF GOD BE NOT DECEIVED IN THAT WHICH HE FOREKNOWS, THAT WHICH HE FOREKNOWS MUST OF NECESSITY, TAKE PLACE."

In other words of Luther:

"THIS...IS ALSO ESSENTIALLY NECESSARY AND WHOLESOME FOR CHRISTIANS TO KNOW:  THAT GOD FOREKNOWS NOTHING BY CONTINGENCY, BUT THAT HE FORESEES, PURPOSES, AND DOES ALL THINGS ACCORDING TO HIS IMMUTABLE, ETERNAL AND INFALLIBLE WILL.  BY THIS THUNDERBOLT, "FREE WILL" IS THROWN PROSTRATE AND UTTERLY DASHED TO PIECES.  THOSE, THEREFORE WHO WOULD ASSERT "FREE WILL," MUST EITHER DENY THIS THUNDERBOLT, OR PRETEND NOT TO SEE IT, OR PUSH IT FROM THEM."

God is prescient.  In Frank Herbert's "Dune" we see that the will of the universe lies in bondage to Paul Atreides.  There is none but His will, in all things.

Why is this important?  Let us not forget that Luther's work here was a response.  Erasmus was held in high regard by the Catholic church.  Luther in a letter mentions that Erasmus' work was distributed WITHIN the churches and widely read.  Erasmus and his humanism were being used to reinforce the strength of the Papacy, which was facing attacks on its divine authority.  The Catholic church had the same problem that authoritarian systems face today—materialism and corruption from within.

Luther points out that if Erasmus didn't serve the purpose of the Papacy, they would not even consider mingling with the adviser to Peter the Great, Russian Czar and homosexual.  I'm reminded of Erasmus' "On Civility in Children" in which he advises:

"Retain the wind by compressing the belly."

If only he would have followed his own advice, we most likely would have never heard of Martin Luther—and for this Luther himself thanks Erasmus.

Martin Luther really pins down Erasmus.  He shows that he is not at all knowledgeable of the Scripture, being able to copy them and place his own interpretation on them, but having absolutely no understanding of them, especially contextually.  Luther really cracks me up with his abundantly comical and varied addresses to Erasmus.  

Here, within a letter to Nicolas Armsdoff, concerning Erasmus of Rotterdam,  Luther gives a most succinct description of Erasmus, the satanically subtle:

"Our king of ambiguity, however, sits upon his ambiguous throne in security, and destroys us stupid Christians with a double destruction.  First, it is his will [sic], and it is a great pleasure to him, to offend us by his ambiguous words:  and indeed he would not like it, if we stupid blocks were not offended.  And next, when he sees that we are offended, and have run against his insidious figures of speech, and begin to exclaim against him, he then begins to triumph and rejoice that the desired prey has been caught in his snares.  For now, having found an opportunity of displaying his rhetoric, he rushes upon us with all his powers and all his noise, tearing us, flogging us, crucifying us, and sending us farther than hell itself; saying, that we have understood his words calumniously, virulently, satanically; (using the worst terms he can find;) whereas, he never meant them to be so understood."

Luther pointed to Erasmus referring to the Incarnation of God as "the intercourse of God with the Virgin", with the intent of offense—also showing that it is a story not unlike the intercourse of Mars with Rhea, Jupiter with Semele; and that "Christianity might be reduced to a level with one of the fabulous stories of old, and men represented as fools and pitiable madmen for believing such a story to be serious and true, not considering what turpitudes and obscenities were the objects of their faith an worship.  And therefore, Christians, that stupid set of creatures, were to be admonished by means of figures like these, to begin to doubt, and then, from doubting to depart from the faith; that thus, religion might be utterly destroyed before any one could be aware of it.

Thus, Luther shows us the need to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves".  Respond dutifully to challenges with logic and sincerity.  Actual Biblical knowledge is highly recommended when debating, you charismatics of sleeping security.

Luther also reminds us that:

"For this it was, that even the public laws of the Roman empire condemned this manner of speaking, and punished it thus.  —They commanded, 'that the words of him who should speak obscurely, when he could speak more plainly, should be interpreted against himself.'

Luther warns us of what a language of eloquence with nature lost will profit us:

"Where would be that wisdom of the Lord Christ, which all the adversaries shall not be able to resist?  What would become of logic, the instructor of teaching rightly?  What would become of rhetoric, the faculty of persuading?  Nothing would be taught, nothing would be learned, no persuasion could be carried home, no consolation would be given, no fear would be wrought:  because, nothing would be spoken or heard that was certain."

Behold brethren.  I give you the postmodern world of Erasmus' humanism, willed by God's mysterious nature.

Really I could go on and on, commenting on Luther's brilliant and scriptural responses to Erasmus' lame "proofs of free will".  I'll limit myself to saying that Mr. Jim Brown of "Grace & Truth Ministries" got me interested in Martin Luther by challenging my perceptions of faith, freewill, predestination, and the etymology of "idiot"

I quote from Mr. Brown:

"II Peter 1:20  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any "private interpretation".

Prophecy here is the word propheteia which means "inspired" words spoken by an inspired preacher who is of God.  The word "private" in this text is the word "idiotes" from which we get our word idiot.  This word idiotes means "unlearned".  The word "idea" comes from the word idiotes.  Man has his own "idea" or opinion when he redefines a word of scripture, especially a word with all the depth of predestination.  Such a man is an "idiot", and he is unlearned.