Bondage of the Will

Aug 28, 2012 Yann rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: germanie, pays-bas, religion, philosophie, renaissance

Désiré Érasme est une grande figure de l'humanisme : c'est un peu grâce à lui que j'ai commencé à lire, après que la biographie que Zweig lui a consacré me soit tombée dans les mains. J'ai apprécié son éloge de la folie, qui m'a attiré vers l'antiquité, et je me régale de ses Adages, qui ont été récemment réédités grâce à l'industrieuse érudition de nos savants. Luther, je le connais par la biographie rédigée par Michelet, et le personnage m'avait vivement intéressé. La question de la volonté li...more Désiré Érasme est une grande figure de l'humanisme : c'est un peu grâce à lui que j'ai commencé à lire, après que la biographie que Zweig lui a consacré me soit tombée dans les mains. J'ai apprécié son éloge de la folie, qui m'a attiré vers l'antiquité, et je me régale de ses Adages, qui ont été récemment réédités grâce à l'industrieuse érudition de nos savants. Luther, je le connais par la biographie rédigée par Michelet, et le personnage m'avait vivement intéressé. La question de la volonté libre, c'est le formidable essai sur l'entendement humain de John Locke, seul auteur à trouver grâce auprès de Voltaire, qui m'y a sensibilisé. Aussi, quand j'ai découvert ce livre, une controverse sur le libre/serf arbitre, entre Érasme et Luther, je me suis mis à bouillir d'impatience de la lire.

Ce livre en comprend deux: le premier est une Diatribe sur le libre Arbitre, écrite par Érasme, dans lequel l'humaniste attaque un point particulier de la doctrine du réformateur et le second est la réponse de Luther, le serf Arbitre, dans lequel il défend son opinion.

Les Égyptiens avaient introduit cette croyance suivant laquelle l'âme perdurait après la mort, et subissait un châtiment ou une récompense en fonction de ce qu'avaient été les agissement du défunt pendant sa vie. La religion des anciens grecs et romains nous parle de ce royaume d'Hadès, ces Enfers qui comprennent les Champs-Élysées où des élus coulent des jours heureux, et le Tartare où sont tourmentés les criminels, comme Tantale, Sisyphe ou Prométhée. Platon, dans sa lettre VII, recommande d'ailleurs que cette croyance du fait que l'âme soit jugée après la mort soit répandue dans le peuple, afin de le contraindre à la pratique de la vertu. C'est ainsi que les chrétiens, dont la croyance de la vie après la mort est au centre de la doctrine, adoptèrent cette opinion. Mais une controverse allait rapidement surgir : quels sont les critères suivant lesquels les hommes sont jugés après leur mort ? Ce n'est pas une question de faible importance, pour qui accorde sa foi au Christianisme.

Le Christ n'aborde pas directement la question dans les évangiles, où il est plus occupé à améliorer le sort des hommes dans ce monde, à les ramener à la vie et à la santé plutôt qu'à les y soustraire. Ce sont plutôt dans les actes des apôtres, en particulier les écrits de Saul, ou Paul de Tarse, que l'on trouve des éléments de réponse. Il est en effet affirmé très clairement dans l'épitre aux Romains qu'il suffit de croire pour être sauvé, et de ne pas croire pour être damné, peu importe les œuvres durant la vie. Comme cette opinion, propre à gagner plus facilement une foule de fidèle pour une religion naissante pouvait conduire à des désordres une religion déjà établie. Des interprétations ont vu le jour pour nuancer ce point de vue, en particulier par chez Jérôme, traducteur de la bible en latin, et Origène, qui vont introduire cette notion de libre-arbitre. Elle sera redébattue par Augustin et Pélage, ... mais je ne voudrais pas être trop long, et surtout je ne suis pas théologien !

Venons-en à la renaissance : Luther a vu Rome, et n'en a pas conçu une grande estime. Quand il attaque les turpitudes de l’Église, il prend appui sur une autorité supérieure : les Écritures, que l'érudition d’Érasme à fait apparaître sous une lumière nouvelle. On connaît le scandale des indulgences, mais au cœur du débat réapparait la question du libre arbitre: Luther le nie totalement ; tout advient par une nécessité connue de Dieu, et les efforts des hommes pour le fléchir sont vains, lui seul accorde la grâce.

Dans la Diatribe, Érasme va attaquer ce qu'il identifie comme étant le nœud gordien : l'assertion de Luther qui nie totalement l'efficacité du libre arbitre dans la grâce lui semble trop radicale: d'une part, il rappelle les nombreux endroits de l'écriture qui plaident pour une interprétation plus nuancée, ensuite, il reproche à Luther de mettre sur la place publique une question difficile, qui risque de provoquer des troubles et des dissensions inutiles si elle est mal comprise : il prophétise bien! Il plaide pour une position moyenne, le libre arbitre intervenant de concert avec la grâce pour le salut. Son souci est de ramener la concorde et d'appeler Luther à plus de retenue: il montre l'exemple en prenant un ton humble, mais néanmoins sévère et hautain.
La réponse de Luther est cinglante, brutale et abondante. Comment sur une question d'une telle importance, Érasme peut il se contenter d'être aussi indécis? Luther va le reprendre de bien plus haut, et au lieu de faire preuve d'une déférence affectée ou d'un quelconque air plâtré, va bel et bien abreuver Érasme d'insultes, d'invectives et de quolibets. Et vraiment, cette plume donne vie à ce vers du Tasse : l'indignation est la pierre sur laquelle s'aiguise la vertu! Il n'y a guère que chez Marx que j'ai vue une telle force. Alors qu’Érasme avait rassemble une foule d'arguments issus de nombreux passages des écritures, Luther va tous les reprendre un par un et les détruire, en les rendant à leur première interprétation. Là où Érasme s'appuie sur l'autorité des pères de l'église, des siècles et des conciles, Luther s'appuie sur celle des apôtres, sur les règles de la grammaire, sur la connaissance des langues. Des troubles pourraient arriver, si ces questions sont soulevées ? Mais qu'importe! N'est ce pas qu'un détail, par rapport au sort de l'âme des chrétiens ? Est-ce là, interroge Luther, qu'il faut être prudent ?

Mais là où Luther est encore le plus habile, c'est qu'il parvient encore à étouffer son contradicteur par un véritable "baiser de la mort". S'il nie à Érasme toute autorité comme théologien, il lui rend un hommage appuyé et, je crois, sincère pour ses apports dans l'étude des textes antiques. Tout le texte de Luther fourmille de ces adages dont Érasme à répandu l'usage. Il n'en faudra pas moins pour que prenne corps l'accusation contre Érasme, d'avoir "pondu les œufs que Luther à couvé", et que ses ouvrages si universellement loués se retrouvent à l'index. Comme l'écrit Luther à Érasme: "on ne te laisse parler que parce que tu t'élèves contre moi".

Enfin, ce qui est émouvant, au delà de la violence de cette controverse, c'est le rapport d'estime réciproque et de déception, d'amour et de haine, qui lie les deux hommes. Au fond, les deux sont de fervents chrétiens, amoureux de la vérité, passionnés par l'étude des textes dans leur pureté, attachés à la vertu. Leurs opinions ne sont pas si éloignées : tous deux accordent un pouvoir à la grâce, l'un se demandant juste si le libre arbitre n'y jouerait pas un rôle. Dans le fond, c'est une différence de méthode : l'un, pragmatique, souhaite la conciliation, l'autre, idéaliste, ne peut aller à l'encontre de la conviction que lui dicte sa conscience.

Finalement, la réforme va, comme l'avait craint Érasme, jeter l'Europe dans des troubles formidables. Luther n'aura pas moins à combattre ceux qui vont devenir les catholiques, que les "enthousiastes", ceux qui adopteront avec trop de ferveur ses doctrines. Ces malheurs vont, dans les siècles suivants, peu à peu inspirer aux Européens l'horreur du fanatisme, et faire émerger des solutions: tolérance, séparation de l'église et de l'état, et laïcité.
(less)

1 like · like · see review

view all 8 comments

Yann Pierre, merci pour ta censure bienveillante! Pour être franc, comme je ne crois pas en la vie éternelle, je suis moins sensible au message magique qu'...more
updated Aug 29, 2012 01:24am

Pierre E. Loignon Oui, une interprétation personnelle très intéressante et très bien défendue! :)
Aug 29, 2012 07:37am

Mar 30, 2008 Paul rated it 2 of 5 stars Recommends it for: To all Catholics who believe that the Reformation was all Rome's fault

Recommended to Paul by: A Random Internet Calvinist

In the chapter before the conclusion of On the Bondage of the Will, Luther belches out this rather shocking paragraph:

"Only observe, therefore, the simplicity of the words By the law is the knowledge of sin; and yet, these alone are of force sufficient to confound and overthrow Free-will altogether. For if it be true, that of itself, it knows not what is sin, and what is evil, as the apostle saith here, and Rom. vii. 7-8, I should not have known that concupiscence was sin, except the law had sai...more In the chapter before the conclusion of On the Bondage of the Will, Luther belches out this rather shocking paragraph:

"Only observe, therefore, the simplicity of the words By the law is the knowledge of sin; and yet, these alone are of force sufficient to confound and overthrow Free-will altogether. For if it be true, that of itself, it knows not what is sin, and what is evil, as the apostle saith here, and Rom. vii. 7-8, I should not have known that concupiscence was sin, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet, how can it ever know what is righteousness and good? And if it know not what righteousness is, how can it endeavour to attain unto it? We know not the sin in which we were born, in which we live, in which we move and exist (emphasis mine), and which lives, moves, and reigns in us; how then should we know that righteousness which is without us, and which reigns in heaven? These works bring that miserable thing Free-will to nothing nothing at all!"

Buried in a relative clause is Luther's astonishing claim sin is the thing in which we live, move, and exist. It is hard to tell whether Luther here is simply guilty of a rhetorical excess or is really claiming that the ontological make-up of man is utterly and completely evil. If the latter, then the obvious question is how do we reconcile this claim with St. Paul's claim of precisely the opposite in Acts 17:28? Also, if man's very ontology is rooted in sin, then what of the Imago Dei, in which the book of Genesis tells us God created man and woman? According to Luther the Imago peccati has wholly supplanted it.

I claim that this is not a rhetorical excess. In his zeal to pulverize Erasmus and all his claims on behalf of Free Will, Luther is forced to deny man as a rational creature. Even if he makes the slightest acknowledgement of man's ability to reason, he has given Erasmus that tiny bit of free will that he had been arguing for all along. It is after all man's ability to reason that allows him to make free choices. To deny free will, therefore, Dr. Luther must deny reason. To deny this he must invert St. Paul's claim at Athens and thereby deny that man still retains any image of God in which God originally created him. Hence, Luther's assertion that man's ontology is not just wounded but entirely depraved is not, I argue, simply overheated polemic but the unavoidable consequence of his argument.

It is rather ironic that many Protestants will now object to Darwinian Theory because of the perception that this theory denies God's special creation of man. The founder of Protestantism staked his entire dispute with Rome on an argument that made this special creation of man by God null and void! By denying free will and by extension reason, Lutheran anthropology makes man at best no better than a brute who can only act on his basest instincts. Darwin says merely that we are descended from brutes. Protestantism says we are brutes.

Martin Luther was a madman. (less)

2 likes · like · see review

Aug 30, 2011 Amber Standridge rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: theology

Excellent engagement with the various passages used by Erasmus to support the Catholic view of free will in salvation. Also, very helpful images throughout to explain the arguments. One image I found particularly helpful: Erasmus posited that God would not give man a command (for instance, to believe unto salvation) without also giving him the ability to comply. Luther counters with the image of a man who is bound from head to toe in chains but who believes himself unencumbered -- One might comm...more

like · see review

Jun 08, 2011 Christopher rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: theology

Luther admitted he thought this was his best work and I am inclined to agree. In this response to Erasmus of Rotterdam he presents a compelling case for the exhaustive sovereignty of God over all of creation and particularly in electing and predestining those whom he saves, he also shows how this does not conflict with the idea that man is held responsible for his sin, addressing the same question Paul does in Romans 9, "How can [God] still blame us, if no one resists his will?" Luther's writing...more

like · see review

Dec 20, 2009 zanra added it

Shelves: 2009, school, theology, renaissance

Full of contradictions. Full of what is, in truth, despair--"We [human beings:] being evil by nature" and "For one devil is stronger than all men, and on these terms no man could be saved."

Reveals more than any other Luther-text I've read that Luther constructed his theology basically to placate his hyper-sensitive conscience. After he has achieved his own understanding of God, he has "the comfortable certainty that I please God, not by reason of the merit of my works, but by reason of His merc...more

like · see review

Apr 09, 2013 Charles Puskas rated it 4 of 5 stars

Empassioned defense by Luther of our human inability to win God's favor by making right choices and living an upright moral life. He is saracastic, satirical and whimsical in his rebuttal of the learned and famous Erasmus of Rotterdam who relied heavily on the interpretations of Jerome and Origen to bolster his support for a semi-Pelagian form of synergism. Erasmus, following Duns Scotus and other medieval scholastics, argues for our human abilities, damaged from the fall of humanity, but often...more

1 like · like · see review

Sep 03, 2011 Ken rated it 5 of 5 stars

Luther’s, The Bondage of the Will, is a doctrinal treatise first arguing against Erasmus’ doctrine of free will, and then arguing for the Bible doctrine of the will’s bondage. Luther argues that, counter to Erasmus’ view, man is not able to freely choose Christ for his salvation. Man is enslaved in his sin and unable to act in any way towards his own salvation. Apart from divinely initiated grace, man is incapable of not only meriting salvation through his works, but of even choosing God. Luthe...more Luther’s, The Bondage of the Will, is a doctrinal treatise first arguing against Erasmus’ doctrine of free will, and then arguing for the Bible doctrine of the will’s bondage. Luther argues that, counter to Erasmus’ view, man is not able to freely choose Christ for his salvation. Man is enslaved in his sin and unable to act in any way towards his own salvation. Apart from divinely initiated grace, man is incapable of not only meriting salvation through his works, but of even choosing God. Luther’s style leaves little doubt as to what he believes. He argues boldly with passion and logic, first detailing the holes in Erasmus’ argument, before presenting a comprehensive response detailing Luther’s understanding of the bondage of the will.
Luther is direct and to the point. He doesn’t pull any punches. And he begins his argument by defending this approach. While Erasmus is critical of Luther for being overly bold in his assertions, Luther counters by stating that a true Christian delights in making assertions. Mockingly, Luther points out the problem of asserting one should make no assertions. The flow of his argument in chapter one begins with arguing that though Scripture can be read, discussed, quoted and even memorized it cannot be truly understand apart from the Spirit revealing the meaning. Then, responding to Erasmus’ charge that this subject is at best unnecessary and superfluous, and at worst incomprehensible, Luther charges that is indeed of great importance to know whether or not our salvation is contingent on our will or God’s.
Continuing deeper into this thought Luther then argues that God foreknows nothing contingently or depending on man’s choice as open theists assert today. Instead God plans and purposes all things according to his free will independent of man’s will. Further, Luther argues that if you take any other position the very promises of God are imperiled because if God’s will is dependant on what man chooses how could we trust that what He promises will come to pass. Luther concludes his first salvo with a passionate discourse responding to Erasmus’ argument that even if total depravity and election are true as Luther teaches they are liable to be misunderstood and create harmful results to the church. Luther responds that there are manifold benefits to his teaching including a humbling of man’s pride, a deepening understanding and appreciation for the grace of God, and a more accurate understanding of true Christian faith. Additionally, Luther argues that God does not force men’s wills to do evil, but that man willingly chooses sin over God and cannot choose anything else owing to his depravity unless God saves him. Luther then does not object to men having wills at all, only the term “free will” which seems to indicate a far more grandiose and powerful state of being then the Bible or observation indicate.
Luther begins his second part by arguing that even those who argue for free-will do not practice it in their relationship with God. He uses prayer as an example of this that men when praying come, not boasting of their free choice of God, but come in self-despair crying for his grace to save them. Luther than argues that if free will and the mind alone are able to discover salvation of their own strength, why didn’t the ancient Greeks who were certainly great minds and pursued truth with all that was in them, discover the true Gospel of Jesus Christ? Yet not one of them did. Their will, their search for truth, and their great minds availed them nothing towards the discovery of The Truth – Jesus Christ.
Part three begins with Luther taking issue with Erasmus’ definition of free will namely that man “may apply himself to those things that lead to eternal salvation…” Luther again declares that while certainly man has a will, calling it and defining it as free when it is actually a slave is a misnomer of the worst kind. He allows that calling man’s will a vertible-will or mutable-will would be more accurate. Luther then argues that no man apart from the Spirit of God ever understands much less longs for or believes in the salvation of Jesus Christ. Next, Luther takes up Erasmus’ argument that God would not command individuals to do something they could not do. Luther argues that God does in fact command men to do what they are unable to do with the express purpose of revealing to man his inability. He uses the example of a doctor telling a patient, who is in denial over his illness, to do something that he is physically incapable of doing to prove his weakness and need of treatment. So the law is not given because man is able to keep it or do it on his own, but to reveal to man his proud heart, sickness and need of a Savior. Continuing with this thought, Luther then argues that biblical statements that begin with “if you are willing” and the like serve not show man his ability, as Erasmus argues, but his duty. The commands of Scripture serve not to show man what he can do with the proper amount of effort, but what he ought to do, but cannot owing to his sinful flesh.
In Luther’s last section against Erasmus’ view, Luther points out where Erasmus has stretch the allowable understanding of Scripture. For example Luther points to Erasmus stating that the command to believe on Christ means “you can believe on Christ.” Or when Scripture says Pharaoh’s heart was hardened it only means “give an occasion of hardening, by not correcting the sinner at once.” These distortions are required according to Luther because of Erasmus’ insistence on free-will. Luther then addresses the issue of God being contaminated by evil if he is sovereign. If God is sovereign and man incapable of choosing righteousness, is not then God culpable for the evil in the world? Yet by faith, Luther argues, we should trust the goodness of God, understanding that though God works evil through evil men, it is man’s own bent towards evil not God’s forcing of evil upon them that produces this evil, and even this is used by God for his glory and our salvation. Luther than shows the audacity of trying to harmonize a wholly free human will with a free will of God and to deny the freedom of God’s will if it conflicts with man’s. He also states that though we cannot make it all work together, we cannot and must not deny that if God is omnipotent and if God is omniscient the doctrine of free-will is utterly destroyed. Indeed, all of Paul’s argument in Romans 9 is futile if God as the potter is not sovereign above man (the clay) and his will. Luther concludes his argument against Erasmus by stating he holds nothing personally against Erasmus, but is arguing so stridently because the cause of Christ is jeopardized by Erasmus’ argument.
Luther’s concludes his book with a positive statement of the doctrine of the bondage of the will. The basics of this argument are as follows. 1) The bible states all are sinners. No one escapes this designation. All are guilty. 2) All men according to scripture are dominated or controlled by sin, unable and unwilling even were they able to escape the corruption of sin. 3) The perfect law of God is out of reach for every man. 4) The law was given, not because man is able to do it, but to show man his sin and need and thus point him to Christ alone for his righteousness. 5) Man’s works and ability’s are totally denied as a basis for acceptance with God. Faith alone in Christ alone given by the grace of God alone is man’s only hope for salvation. Towards the end of his book Luther states that he is glad that salvation is not by his will, for if it were he could never be certain of his of salvation. But as God saves by His mercy and His grace apart from our own ability or works, we can place our trust fully on the grace of God for our salvation and eternal happiness.
Luther clearly is reacting against the claims of Erasmus. His writing is passionate and poignant. There is not a hint of political correctness in his writing. He says exactly what he thinks. Today, we often consider passion compelling, but often not logical. Like the sports fan, who says his team is the greatest though they have lost every game, we may appreciate his passion, but think him deluded by his passion. This is not the case with Luther. Though he clearly argues from a passionate, gut level, he marries his passion perfectly with reason and Biblical analysis. His view is well informed by Scripture and he repeatedly argues compellingly for God’s sovereignty and man’s bondage. Luther’s prose is intelligent, but not out of reach for the layman. His passionate rather than academic treatment of his subject creates an easy to read and compelling case for the bondage of man’s will.
(less)

like · see review

May 03, 2009 Douglas Wilson rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: theology

Just great. Little pieces of Erasmus flying everywhere. Also read in June of 1988.

9 likes · like · see review

Mar 19, 2013 Drew Van gorder rated it 3 of 5 stars

This was a good book, although it had much to do with Luther's perspective on Erasmus' writings rather than Luther's opinions on what the Bible states about the human will. Luther still laid out much of his theological understanding of the human will and its inability to save itself from its own demise without the help of a loving merciful God. One of my favorite quotes from the entire book was when Luther wrote about Erasmus' eloquence of speech in comparison with his actual concepts, "I greatl...more

like · see review

Apr 11, 2011 Jay Miklovic rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: favorites

This book was very difficult to get through because so much was packed in each sentence. While reading this book I found myself on a number of occasions reading less than a page in a sitting. With that said, this book was worth the effort.

Luther absolutely obliterates Erasmus, and he is anything but cordial in doing so. This book is laden with sarcasm, insult, and downright nastiness at times. This book is as intense as a polemic could be. While I typically tire of fundamentalist polemics, this...more

1 like · like · see review

Oct 23, 2009 Mitch rated it 4 of 5 stars

A great handling of the Scriptures' references to human will and God's sovereignty. Luther spared no words in letting Erasmus have it for his assertions that human beings' "free will" can produce some good, while at the same time saying it could do no good without God's grace. The only flaw here is that Luther is answering some silly arguments. While he answers them well, you almost want to see him answer some better ones. Also, Luther finds a hundred ways to attack the same point and this did b...more

like · see review

Feb 07, 2009 Chuck Dotson rated it 4 of 5 stars

Martin Luther's classic exposition of why faith in Jesus is solely the work of God and not something we fallen and sinful humans can "just choose". It's Martin Luther at his peak: passionate and at times vitriolic. If you're puzzled and/or confused by "calvinism" (the quotes are there because much of the basis for calvinism is actually shared among all the churches of the reformation-- Calvin, Lutheran, and Anglican) this book is a wonderful start.

J.I. Packer provides an introduction that unpack...more

like · see review

Jul 19, 2011 Calvin Coulter rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: theology

What a book! - Luther doesn't hold back much in this defence of his position on Freewill versus All of Grace. Many of the sections answer directly and in heavy going detail Erasmus' initial rebuttal of Luther in his 'Diatribe' and rightly or wrongly I struggled to see the modern day application, given that the arguments are not being had on such fine detail. However page after page underscored for me the need to come to the scripture as absolute truth and God breathed, and that even to understan...more

like · see review

Aug 08, 2010 Brandy Painter rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: theology

I would actually give it 4.5 stars.

Luther wrote this book as a response to a book Erasmus wrote on free will, attacking Luther's position. It is basically the hinge on which reformed theology swings. According to the writers of the introduction (J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston) it is Luther's magnum opus. In this book he clearly sets out the doctrines of man's total depravity in sin and God's sovereign election. Luther rends Erasmus to pieces and does it with a fair amount of snark. Employing snar...more

like · see review

Apr 29, 2013 James Rutherford rated it 5 of 5 stars

A great answer to the idea of free will. Most of the western church today could do with reading this book. Luther masterfully challenges and topples the idea free will as defended by Erasmus in his Diatribe. Some may be surprised at Luther’s bluntness, and often sharp tone (eg. “But if the Diatribe has enjoyed itself by trifling on such a vital matter, then let me too enjoy myself by publicly exposing its wilful stupidities”[269]); but Luther considered the debate on free will to be central to...more

like · see review

Feb 14, 2011 Aaron rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: christian, reformed-christian, theology

I wish I had known about this book when I was in high school. For much of my formative years I have struggled with seeing free will in the Bible, being taught about the "age of accountability" and told that it was very explicit in the pages of Scripture. It came down to a single decision: stand alone on the argument against free will or submit to the teaching of the church. Submit was what I thought was my only option.

Happy I was to find out more than a year ago that I was not alone: there are m...more

like · see review

Oct 18, 2011 Trice rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Recommended to Trice by: growing up in the RP Church and talking to my dad along the way

Shelves: theology-and-faith-studies, bookaddicts2011challenge, 2011

3/20/2011 halfway through the first part of the Discussion
Keep feeling like I'm taking it in great gulps and then realize only 30 pages have passed - this definitely takes more concentration as each sentence is full. I've ended up reading half of it out loud and for some reason it seems to be clearer this way. The parts where he focuses on the issue at hand are definitely better (more important? more informative? more grace-filled?) than the parts where he's lashing away at Erasmus, tearing him...more

3/20/2011 halfway through the first part of the Discussion
Keep feeling like I'm taking it in great gulps and then realize only 30 pages have passed - this definitely takes more concentration as each sentence is full. I've ended up reading half of it out loud and for some reason it seems to be clearer this way. The parts where he focuses on the issue at hand are definitely better (more important? more informative? more grace-filled?) than the parts where he's lashing away at Erasmus, tearing him into itty bitty teeny tiny pieces, although these latter are pretty hilarious in places too. The blurb on the back of the book says something about Luther's "gentle humor" which just makes me laugh even more and wonder if the writers actually read the book, or if maybe they were trying to soften the picture of the man - "biting" - I'd go with "biting humor" guys.
------------------------------------------------------
1/26/2011: finished the Preface (or response to Erasmus' preface): lots of food for thought, but the 2 meatiest sections were 24 and 25 where he starts to get into the nature of God and the nature of Man, all with reference to the idea of free will. Some of his insults to Erasmus still have me laughing - things along the lines of: "You assert that assertions are bad" and the fact that he compares Erasmus' publication to a pile'o'crap (but in much better language). Let's see... the direct quote is:

[I]t seems even superfluous to reply to these your arguments, which have been indeed often refuted by me; but trodden down, and trampled under foot, by the incontrovertible Book of Philip Melancthon "Concerning Theological Questions:" [reader starts to wonder if this can be found in English] a book, in my judgment, worthy not only of being immortalized, but of being included in the ecclesiastical canon: in comparison of which, your Book is, in my estimation, so mean and vile, that I greatly feel for you for having defiled your most beautiful and ingenious language with such vile trash; and I feel an indignation against the matter also, that such unworthy stuff should be borne about in ornaments of eloquence so rare; which is as if rubbish, or dung, should be carried in vessels of gold and silver.

Does that qualify as a backhanded compliment? Your writing is beyond compare, sir... except for its content. I'm clearly not angry enough about Erasmus' writing - just can't work myself up to the level of sarcastic attack that Luther takes on and so far he hasn't really let up through 30 pages of dense-ish text, except where he goes to strong theological statement. To be fair here, though, the writer he's comparing Erasmus to he considers to be on the level of the divines, just below the authority of scripture. In a bunch of places I was wishing I could read Erasmus' diatribe to which Luther is responding here, as I wanted context for his comments. As a random aside, I was a bit surprised by how the topic jumped a bit from section to section.

Reasons Luther is so fired up about the topic of free will:

For, if I know not how much I can do myself, how far my ability extends, and what I can do God-wards; I shall be equally uncertain and ignorant how much God is to do, how far his ability is to extend, and what he is to do toward me: whereas it is "God that worketh all in all." But if I know not the distinction between our working and the power of God, I know not God Himself. And if I know not God, I cannot worship Him, praise Him, give Him thanks, nor serve Him; for I shall not know how much I ought to ascribe unto myself, and how much unto God. It is necessary, therefore, to hold the most certain distinction, between the power of God and our power, the working of God and our working, if we would live in his fear. (Sect. 7)

[F]or if these things be not known there can be neither faith, nor any worship of God: nay, not to know them, is to be in reality ignorant of God, with which ignorance salvation, it is well known, cannot consist. For if you doubt, or disdain to know that God foreknows and wills all things, not contingently, but necessarily and immutably, how can you believe confidently, trust to, and depend upon his promises? For when he 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; which is unbelief, the greatest of wickedness, and a denying of the Most High God! (Sect.12)

He also discusses the need to hold to and proclaim all truth, no matter how difficult it may seem or how the results of its revelation would seem to hold danger - God called for all of His Gospel to be revealed and we cannot keep some back for fear of people turning to sin or for fear of how earthly authorities might react.

"There are two causes which require such things [as free will and predestination] to be preached. The first is, the humbling of our pride, and the knowledge of the grace of God. The second is, Christian faith itself" (Sect. 24).

NOTE: I'm reading a translation from 1823 so the language and the punctuation don't exactly match modern expectations. This actually taught me a small something, as the translator, Henry Cole, talks in his own extremely brief Preface about 'inverted commas' and 'double commas' when talking about single and double quotation marks signifying inclusion of Erasmus' words or thoughts.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Sep 30, 2009 Jonathan rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: history, theology

I don't know whether it is the translators' translation or Luther alone, probably both, but Luther was killer. Erasmus did not have a prayer, literally, it seems.

A powerful wit:

One who talks as you do must imagine that the living God is no more than a wild inconsequent ranter shouting from a soap-box, whose words you may interpret, receive or refute as you please, according to their observed effect on the ungodly.

An insightful heart:

I frankly confess that, for myself, even if it could be, I shou

...more I don't know whether it is the translators' translation or Luther alone, probably both, but Luther was killer. Erasmus did not have a prayer, literally, it seems.

A powerful wit:

One who talks as you do must imagine that the living God is no more than a wild inconsequent ranter shouting from a soap-box, whose words you may interpret, receive or refute as you please, according to their observed effect on the ungodly.

An insightful heart:

I frankly confess that, for myself, even if it could be, I should not want 'free-will' to be given me, nor anything to be left in my own hands to enable me to endeavour after salvation; not merely because in face of so many dangers, and adversities, and assaults of devils, I could not stand my ground and hold fast my 'free-will'...but because, even were there no dangers, adversities, or devils, I should still be forced to labour with no guarantee of success, and to beat my fists at the air. If I lived and worked to all eternity, my conscience would never reach comfortable certainty as to how much it must do to satisfy God. Whatever work I had done, there would still be a nagging doubt as to whether it pleased God, or whether He required something more. The experience of all who seek righteousness by works proves that; and I learned it well enough myself over a period of many years, to my own great hurt. But now that God has taken my salvation out of the control of my own will, and put it under the control of His, and promised to save me, not according to my working or running, but according to His own grace and mercy, I have the comfortable certainty that He is faithful and will not lie to me, and that He is also great and powerful, so that no devils or opposition can break Him or pluck me from Him. [...:] Furthermore, I have the comfortable certainty that I please God, not by reason of the merit of my works, but by reason of His merciful favour promised to me; so that, if I work too little, or badly, He does not impute it to me, but with fatherly compassion pardons me and makes me better. This is the glorying of all the saints in their God.

Luther refutes our ability to save ourselves via free-will and shows that only God is free to save by His grace in Christ Jesus, who Himself is also our reward.(less)

1 like · like · see review

May 07, 2013 Al rated it 5 of 5 stars

One of the great foundational books of the Reformation, Bondage of the Will is a work of art both in logic and interpretation of the Scripture. You can expect nothing less than absolutely thorough work from Martin Luther as he moves toward his inexorable conclusion, that the will of fallen man is bound by his fallen-ness and God acts to save the individual.

The first third of the book is a response to Erasmus' treatment of 'free-will'. The last two-thirds are a didactic on the Sovereignty of God...more

like · see review

Feb 23, 2010 Melissa rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: christian-classics, christian-nonfiction, reformation, audio

Acutally, I heard this on sermonaudio, which means not all of it sank in, but I got the gist of it. Luther was a deep thinker, and he has many good points here, most of which I agree with. At times he was perhaps a little too harsh and dogmatic, but overall a good book to sink your teeth into. It probably deserves more than three stars, but it was not the most easy listen, and thus not the most enjoyable to me.

1 like · like · see review

Feb 13, 2013 Hannah rated it 3 of 5 stars

Profound in spots and contradictory in many others. I did not care for Luther as an author by this sample of his writing, and did not like his style of argument, but I am still glad that I chose it for a college research paper. I like some of the passages, which are quite quotable, but some of it does get heavy. I would recommend this to serious students of theology and mature Christians.

like · see review

Jul 27, 2012 Alastair Manderson rated it 4 of 5 stars

Luther makes here a deep and important argument, that can be picked up without even glancing at the work of Erasmus' which this book responds to.

Luther's love for the Word and high-view of God shine through, and his wit and strong passion are evident also. However, I wonder about how good his opening "ramble" is, I feel, though very fun to read, it almost takes something away from the work.

like · see review

Mar 17, 2012 Aaron Smith rated it 4 of 5 stars

It's amazing to get the chance to live in Luther's mind that reading this book affords. I would not want to get in an argument with this fiery genius! Although some of his arguments made more sense than others, there was much in this book that challenged and informed me. As the book went on, I acquired a greater appreciation for his tone, seeing more clearly what was at stake. This is primarily a book about the sovereignty of God, the mystery of his will and about the danger of holding him to ou...more

like · see review

Apr 07, 2012 Josh Rickard rated it 4 of 5 stars Recommends it for: Everyone

This was a great book. Martin Luther writes a response to the Diatribe of the will by Erasmus. It's extremely thought out and well articulated. This book really opened my eyes to several issues of the will that I had not considered. It was refreshing to also see a defense rooted so much in scripture. Luther uses sound logic only as an assistant and not as the driving force to prove his points. I would more than recommend this book.

like · see review

May 21, 2011 Steve rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

A bit difficult to follow as I'm not as familiar with the details of Erasmus' claims, but several very clear themes are easy to pick out. It's amazing that some of the issues Luther addresses are still plaguing the church today. Worth reading more than once.

like · see review

Dec 21, 2011 Jeremy D. rated it 5 of 5 stars

This was really instructive, and also hilarious the way he deals with Erasmus. I'm not sure I should like that as much as I do, but just what I know about Luther and his earthiness, and the way he lights into Erasmus... I don't know. It's funny.

like · see review

Jul 15, 2012 Francesco rated it 4 of 5 stars

Key theological work on the subject of the relation between man's will and God's in salvation. Luther, a key figure in the history of the Christian church in the West, considered this to be his most important work. Forceful and compelling!

like · see review

May 27, 2009 The Gatekeeper rated it 3 of 5 stars Recommends it for: Christians interested in church history and theology

Recommended to The Gatekeeper by: my history/literature program

Shelves: books-i-read-for-school

I think that this was probably a really good book. The problem is, I had 2 weeks to read it. Because of all the tough theology and long, complicated arguments, that wasn't nearly enough time for me to really understand everything. I liked what I did understand, though. I like Luther's bluntness. :) I'll probably read the book again someday when I have time.

like · see review

Mar 02, 2012 Walt Murray rated it 5 of 5 stars

Luther's classic work on Original Sin and his destruction of Erasmus' heretical ideas on Free Will. In this volume you get to see Luther at his best. It can be challenging reading, but well worth the effort.

like · see review

Apr 22, 2013 Mike Conroy rated it 5 of 5 stars

A must read for all who wrestle with questions of free will. It’s a classic. Luther writes with such passion, it’s a shame not more books are marked by the same love for the truth.

like · see review

title link	preview: Bondage of the Will
avg rating	preview: Bondage of the Will Goodreads rating: 4.12 (1938 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/820966.Bondage_of_the_Will?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1347987673l/820966.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/820966.Bondage_of_the_Will?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther[/url]

Bondage of the Will

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (31)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Martin Luther

Books by Martin Luther

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About Bondage of the Will

Quotes from Bondage of the Will