Jean Leon Iragena
Dr. MacMaster
IDST 1128-02
Spring Project
March 24, 2011

The Truth behind Free Will: Luther vs. Erasmus
The notion of free will is one of the most complex notions to define and to understand; it is defined differently according to one’s interpretation of the scriptures, especially the Bible.
Both Martin Luther and Desiderius Erasmus, influenced by their faith and beliefs, write respectively against and for free will. Both try to adequately answer the questions: Does man have free will? If yes, why and how? If not, how? Possible answers to these questions given by both authors and some scholars who write against or for each one of these opponents’ arguments highlight, especially, the differences in the conception of man’s free will. Luther and his supporters view free will as an imaginary or impossible and dangerous thing to have; Erasmus and his supporters defend that the existence of man’s free will is irrefutable for it is in human nature itself as the Bible says it. In spite of some of Luther’s good ideas that prove man’s absence of free will and Erasmus’ excellent interpretation of the Bible, neither of them fully responds to the human yearning of knowing the concept of free will. After a thorough and wise analysis of the defense and abnegation of man’s free will of these authors, I find it impossible to fully deny or prove the existence of man’s free will. It is important to take into account Luther’s argument and Erasmus’ before making a decision about the concept of free will. First of all, we are going to analyze the debate between
Luther and Erasmus. In this debate, we will also consider other writers’ opinions on the debate on free will. In the end we will, before introducing a new concept of free will, explain why standing on one side (Luther’s or Erasmus’) would not be academically or/and religiously wise. One of the ideas that Luther advances, in order to refute man’s free will, is that free will is a bad thing to have as with it man would do nothing else but evil. He says that there are only two works of free will: “to sin and to persevere and grow worse in sinning; to be thrown out and to wither” (116). Luther’s argument becomes more persuasive when he tries to link his opinion on the absence of free will with the Holy scriptures specifically Genesis 6[:5] and 8[:21]: “The understanding and every thought of the human heart is inclined to evil at all times’” (115). Without going further, one may find a contradiction in Luther’s argument. Luther’s attack against free will is not trustworthy for it is contradictory to some extent. On one side, Luther says that there is no free will by saying, “free will is a fiction among real things, a name with no reality” (118). And, on the other side, he says that evil comes from free will! This is a contradiction because nothing can come from nothing! If we don’t have free will, how would something (sin) come from something that doesn’t exist? Another contradiction is that Luther agrees that a man would do nothing but sin if he had free will. This is contradictory because in his previous argument he says that man’s deeds are all times sins. So, it seems to me that he is saying that man has free will for he does sin all the time. According to Luther, free will causes people to sin. Luther’s contradictions weaken his argument of the absence of free will.
Even if Luther seems to contradicts himself, some scholars, like Karl Donfried, prove him right to some extent. Donfried agrees with Luther that “all humans are enslaved to sin and are in need of God’s righteousness; where there is sin, righteousness is absent”(33). He means we don’t have free will to avoid sins. There is nothing we can do to be righteous enough to be saved; only God’s grace can save us. Donfried agrees with Luther’s doctrine. Dr. Steven Smith doesn’t think Luther’s argument is contradictory. He interprets the free will Luther talks about in two ways. He says there is a free will to do good things and a free will to do bad things. Dr. Smith says where Luther says we don’t have free will, he means that we don’t have free will to do good things. “Where he says we do have free will, he means free will to do bad things” Dr. Smith adds. According to this interpretation, one may say Luther, if that is what he means, is not clear enough for he uses the word: ‘free will” in either case without a clear differentiation. However, some other theologians don’t agree that all we do is evil. In The Confessions,
Saint Augustine says: “[man] ought to have free will because without it he would not be able to act rightly” (399). Besides Saint Augustine’s agreement about the existence of free will, the
Bible itself does show a couple passages that support man’s free will: In Dt.30:19, God says: “I have set before you: life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life.” And, in Joshua
24:15: “Choose you this day whom ye will serve. But as for me and my house, we will serve the
Lord.” By only considering Saint Augustine’s sentence and by valuing these two passages from the Holy Bible, and by knowing from experience that people do choose to do good things ─ donating, helping others, serving others ─ one may find Luther’s argument not totally right.
Based on what is real and evident, either from the Bible or from the real life, one can assume that man has, at least, a chance to contribute to his choices. However, even Saint Augustine himself does present some strong doubts about the existence of man’s free will. In the end of The Confessions, he does say: “[man] cannot exercise will unless some hint comes to him from outside through bodily sense” (410). Here, Saint
Augustine recognizes man’s will, but, for him, that will is not free. This sentence contradicts
Augustine’s sentence which supports the existence of free will in the previous paragraph.
Because of this ambiguity, a fair interpretation of The Confession cannot help in the quest of truth about the existence of man’s free will. One may say that Donfried does a better job because he only, like Luther, takes one side: man’s free will doesn’t exist. But, Donfried’s and Luther’s point become very critical when it comes to the Christian concept of Heaven. If no one is righteous enough and nothing we can do can save us, then no one deserves to go to Heaven, regardless of the good works he does. Yet the
Bible does say some people will go to Heaven. On the last day Jesus will call good people:
“come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you” (Mat 25:34). At this stage, one may ask himself this question: If no one deserves, by his good works, to go to heaven and it is revealed in the Bible that some people will go to heaven, then what will save them? Donfried does recognize this question and tries to provide an answer to this question of salvation for some people only. He says: “for there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by grace as a gift” (33). This seems to be a strong justification of Luther’s argument that we are saved by grace alone, not by good works.
Erasmus refutes this argument. According to Erasmus, by denying the existence of free will,
Luther and his supporters deny the justice of God. And, I think people are different and God is just; almost any Christian would believe this, including Luther. Then if God is just and grace is the only element that determines the way people are or act, then God would be giving a different amount of grace to people. This would make God unjust, yet we know God is not unjust. One may say that Erasmus deals well with the issue of God’s justice by saying that good works contribute to our salvation. If it is true that good works contribute to our salvation, then our choice to decide what to do is important and trustworthy. Without a free choice, good works shouldn’t contribute to our salvation for no one would have freely chosen to act badly.
On the other side, we cannot conclude about free will by only considering the last fact.
This is because in the same Bible that Erasmus uses, a fair interpretation of some passages may make one disbelieve in the last statement that good works contribute to our salvation. Paul, in order to value grace over good works, preached to the Ephesians that “by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works”
(Eph 2, 5). In this passage of the Bible, Paul affirms good works do not, to any extent, contribute to our salvation. However, even if there are some critics of Luther’s argument, it seems, in some passages of the Bible, that man does not have any freedom to contribute to his salvation. Paul, in his letter to the Romans did clearly mention election and predestination: “for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that called” (Rom.9:11-12). At this stage, there is nothing that can fully refute or agree with the argument of man having free will. The absence of free will is not true in terms that man can choose what he wants to do in real life. And on the other hand, one may say there is no free will for, according to some passages of the Bible, we can’t contribute to our salvation.
In some parts of the Bible, God does himself show the importance of good works in our salvation. It is written in the Bible that on the Day of Judgment God will take into consideration what we will have done. God will call good people to enter his kingdom: “you gave food and drink, you took in the stranger; you clothed the naked” (Matt 25:35-36). After only interpreting this passage, one may say that man has a liberty to choose what to do, the reason why God will reward those who choose to do well.
By trying to link Donfried’s argument and the passage from Mathew 25:35-36, we cannot draw a conclusion about the concept of human free will concept by referring to salvation. However, one may say that, in the Bible, God’s exhortations are an irrefutable proof of humans’ free will. As Robert Miola says: “Erasmus argues that the doctrine of predestination makes scriptural exhortations meaningless and that human will (a secondary cause) will operates with divine grace (a primary cause) in acts of virtue or vice” (123). It is true that one exhorts someone to choose something among many, or at least to choose! It is quite apparent that in the
Bible, God calls people to choose and to do what is right and just. God says: “come back to your senses, you transgressors” [Isa 46:8]; and “let every man turn from his evil way” [John 3:8]. The fact that God exhorts people many times shows that man has a chance to choose what he wants to do. In my opinion, it seems humans don’t only have the power to accept to follow God’s plans, but the power to refuse, as well. Christ’s weeping over the destruction of the city of
Jerusalem enshrines an exhortation that we have the power to refuse: “They will not leave one stone on another because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you” (Luke 19:41).
Here, Jesus gives an example where, in his choice, man refused to accept the good news brought by God himself. In addition, the fact that God gave us the Ten Commandments to follow can be a proof for human’s free will. God showed what is good and what is bad and he asked humans to
“freely” choose. “Isn’t that free will?” one may ask: Isn’t choice in one’s will? Forde would reply: “we are indeed willing beings. But the point is that we are not free” (55). Now the problem arises about what the freedom of will is. One would say I am free because nothing stops me from doing anything I want to do. In order to differentiate free will and free agency, Sproul and his group, in The Reformation Study Bible, say: “all humans are free agents in the sense that they make their own decisions about what they will do, choosing as they ‘please’ in the light of their conscience, inclinations, and thoughts” (1078). Here, Sproul accepts that our choice is free.
However, John Calvin, in his treatise on The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, says: “We deny that choice is free, because through man's innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil”(69). In order to deal with this opposition, Sproul and his group continue by saying that when it comes to heavenly things, man shouldn’t even try to say a word, for God is omnipotent and omniscient. It is visible that, according to Sproul and his group, man’s choice has limits as well.
Furthermore, Luther’s exhortations themselves can be a sign of a man’s free will. Why would Luther call people to protest against the Pope if they only do what is predetermined? Why all those exhortations? Wasn’t he trying to show people the “truth” so that they may choose to quit what he called the evil and join his Reformation? Why would he do that if people don’t have free will? Luther contradicts himself by exhorting people. To this point, one may buy Forde’s argument as the best one. For “an act can be done under an apparent freedom and contingency and at the same time happen under absolute divine foreknowledge” (53), one may say “be it much or be it little, we must claim at least some freedom to control our destiny”(55). The problem with refuting the existence of free will is that it “denies” God’s justice.
Luther denies indirectly the justice of God. People are different and God is just; almost every
Christian would believe this, including Luther and Erasmus. Then if God is just and that grace was the only element that determines the way people are or act then God would not be just because he would be giving a different amount of grace to people as they act differently! It is written in the Bible that on the Day of Judgment God will take into consideration what we will have done. God will call good people to enter his kingdom: “you gave food and drink, you took in the stranger; you clothed the naked” (Matt 25:35-36). If we receive different amount of grace, why would then God judge us? It is believed that a man has a liberty to choose what to do, the reason why God will punish those who choose to act badly.
A fair comparison of both sides does not let one take a radical position on whether man will be saved by grace alone or by his good works.
Moreover, in some cases, the omnipotence and omniscience of God can deny the existence of man’s free will. After examining the highness of God, Rupp says: “If we believe it to be true that God foreknows and predestines all things, that he can neither be mistaken in his foreknowledge nor hindered in his predestination, and that nothing takes place but as he wills, then on the testimony of reason itself there cannot be any free choice in man or angel or any creature” (332). Even if, to some extent, Forde disagrees with a total control of humans by God
[“we are under necessity but not forced” (56)], he does accept that; “If God rules all things by absolute necessity, what ability or freedom does the creature possess to do anything on its own either to gain reward or to make just retribution for misdeeds?”(48). John Calvin did not accept we are not forced for we are have necessity but; “For where there is bondage, there is necessity.”
The fact that neither Rupp nor Forde made clear conclusions can make one believe how intriguing the concept of man’s free will is. A better understanding would result in putting together both views of the salvation of man and come up with a new idea of a complementarity of good works and grace in man’s salvation. It would be more logical to say that both good works and grace are inseparable things.
One would say who does good works receives grace or/and only does good works who receives
God’s grace. Even if good works were the source of salvation, no one would boost to have done it alone; “without me [Jesus], you can do nothing" (John 15:5). However, no one would ever say that he will do whatever evil he wants because God’s grace will save him; it is clear in the Bible that God wants us to do good things; “faith without works is dead” (James 2:26). Even if we don’t do good works on our own, we have, be it little or be it much, a contribution in choosing to act rightly. This reveals a little control of man on his doings. Finally, the concept of free will is controversial because some people may have different definition for it. If by free will we simply mean that we make real choices apart from external coercion, then man has free will for we do things willingly. Nothing takes control of our body and forces us to do so or so. But, if by free will we mean that we can choose any theoretically possible option, without being necessarily constrained by our natural inclinations, then man does not have free will because there is God who is omniscient and omnipotent.
In conclusion, one may say that man has a little freedom of his will to some extent, but not a complete free will. The fact that there are some passages in the Bible that one may find contradictory does not mean the Bible has contradictions; it is just the problem of the human weakness of not understanding what is beyond his knowledge. It is wiser to say that man is free for what is beneath him only; it is true that we can decide to decide to do small things in life; like eating, going, what to dress and what to study but we do not contribute to our destination. Those things that are beyond our understanding are not in our “free will”. Like every truth about God, the doctrine of election involves mystery, and sometimes stirs controversy. We are never going to understand the mind of God; he is God and we are creatures. It is not wise to say that the fact that the Bible, in some parts, buys the argument of predestination denies the justice of God. What we should never refute is that whatever God does is just. God’s justice is the purest one; we should never try to understand the justice of God in terms of what we call justice in our real
World. As Forde says, “We should use it (the language of free choice) with regard to those things that are beneath us but not with regard to those things above us”(49).

Works Cited
Calvin, John, A N. S. Lane, and Graham I. Davies. The Bondage and Liberation of the Will: A Defence of the Orthodox Doctrine of Human Choice against Pighius. Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster, 1996. Print.
Donfried, Karl P. "Paul and the Revisionists: Did Luther Really Get It All Wrong?" Dialog:Journal of Theology . 46.1 (2007): 31-40. Print.
Erasmus D. “A Defense of Free Will”. Macbeth: An Authoritative Text, Sources and Contexts, Criticism. A Norton critical edition. Ed. Shakespeare, William, and Robert S. Miola. New York: W.W.Norton, 2003.Print.
Forde, Gerhard O, and Steven D. Paulson. The Captivation of the Will: Luther Vs. Erasmus on Freedom and Bondage. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2005. Print. Luther M. “An attack on Free Will”. Macbeth: An Authoritative Text, Sources and Contexts, Criticism. A Norton critical edition. Ed. Shakespeare, William, and Robert S. Miola. New York: W.W. Norton, 2003: 115-122. Print.
Sproul, R C, and Keith A. Mathison. The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version, Containing the Old and New Testaments. Orlando, Fla: Ligonier Ministries, 2005. Print.
St. Augustine. “On Free Will”. Classics of Philosophy. Ed. Pojman, Louis P. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Print.
The New Oxford Annotated Bible. S.l.: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print
Wesley, John. “The Works of John Wesley”. Ed. S.Smith. Millsaps College. 2011.Print
Zondervan Niv Study Bible Hc Access. Gardners Books, 2003. Print