If you know a few things about Martin Luther, you probably know that he wrote Bondage of the Will in response to Erasmus’ book about the freedom of the will (Discussion Concerning Free Will). Luther argued from Scripture that man, since Adam’s fall, is born in sin, dead in sin, and in bondage to sin. This means because his nature is corrupt and his will is sinful, an unregenerate person cannot obey and please God. A bad tree brings forth bad fruit. Luther did not like the term “free will” since it implies that fallen man is free to choose what is good and pleasing to God:
“This false idea of ‘free-will’ is a real threat to salvation, and a delusion fraught with the most perilous consequences.”
In other words, if man’s will even plays a little part in salvation, it robs God of glory and exalts man in a very unbiblical way. Luther did make a minor concession, however. He did say if we want to keep the term “free will,” we should use it differently than the semi-Pelagians or Pelagians use it:
“If we do not want to drop this term altogether – which would really be the safest and most Christian thing to do – we may still in good faith teach people to use it to credit man with ‘free-will’ in respect, not of what is above him, but of what is below him. That is to say, man should realize that in regard to his money and possessions he has a right to use them, to do or to leave undone, according to his own ‘free-will’ – though that very ‘free-will’ is overruled by the free-will of God alone, according to his own pleasure. However, with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, he has no ‘free-will’, but is a captive, prisoner and bondslave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.”
Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will, p. 106-7.
Shane Lems
Hammond, WI
The Reformed Reader Blog 