[Vision2020] Luther and Bondage of the Will

[nickgier at adelphia.net]

Greetings to all Free-Willers and Four-Wheelers (I'm an All-Wheeler myself):

The world has allowed itself to be seduced by the flattering doctrine of free‑will which is pleasing to nature.
                            —Martin Luther

Therefore, to teach something [free‑will] which is neither prescribed by a single word inside the Scriptures nor demonstrated by a single fact outside them is no part of Christian doctrine.
                                    --Martin Luther

Our life is, at every moment supplied by him, our tiny, miraculous power of free‑will only operates on bodies which his continual energy keeps in existence – our very power to think is his power communicated to us.

                            -- C. S. Lewis  (Yes, it is indeed a miracle, C. S. !)

Before getting to Luther, let me just say that Paul, who posts have been civil and insightful, has confused freedom of the will with freedom of religion.

Even in a deterministic universe where free will did not exist, we could still have a government that allowed religious freedom, even though all religious choices would be rendered inevitable by antecedent conditions and causes.  When speaking of free will we are trying to get at the nature of our desires and choices, but freedom of religion simply means that the state places no obstacles for the execution fo those choices.

Also before I begin, I would just like to recommend a debate between Doug Wilson and a Grangeville pastor on the question "Is Calvinism Biblical?"  I would loan my copy, but I sent it to Forrest Church and he has lost it.  I'm sure there are some copies down at Anselm House.  Wilson usually handles himself quite well in debates, but he lost this one flat out.  The Grangeville pastor was especially good at pointing out passages in the Bible that clearly indicate free will and undermine the idea of Calvinistic predestination.

Someone, such as our dear Princess, who would recommend Martin Luther as a defender of free will has lost touch with reality. (Has she actually read "The Bondage of the Will"?) In 1524 the Christian humanist Erasmus held a debate with Luther, the former defending free will and the latter rejecting it.  Luther's title "The Bondage of the Will" says it all.  I will let Luther's words speak for themselves:

“You would not call a slave free, who acts under the sovereign authority of his master; and still less rightly can we call a man or angel free, when they live under the absolute sovereignty of God.”

“All is of necessity, for we...live and act not as we will, but as God wills.  In God's presence the will ceases to exist.”

“The human will is like a beast of burden.  If God mounts it, it wishes and goes as God wills; if Satan mounts it, it wishes and goes as Satan wills.  Nor can it choose its rider....The riders contend for its possession.”

Some philosophers believe that divine foreknowledge does not undermine the freedom of the will. Just because God knows that I will post three times on the Vision tomorrow does not mean that I don't freely choose what God knows.  The problem with this, however, is that God is omnipotent as well as omniscient.  Luther and Calvin have a view of divine power (I call it DP1) that completely precludes any power that we could have to drive our own wills and decisions.  Again, Luther's language is firm and unequivocal:

“God works all in all...God even works what is evil in the impious....[Judas'] will was the work of God; God by his almighty power moved his will as he does all that is in the world.”

 “Since God moves and does all, we must take it that he moves and acts even in Satan and the godless;...evil things are done with God himself setting them in motion.”
 
Erasmus, as well as Thomas Aquinas and many contemporary Christian philosophers, have a view of divine power (DP2) that allows for a divine creation in which there is a realm of self-regulating natural laws and a realm of self-determining wills.  (In an epigraph to the first edition of "Origin of Species" Darwin affirmed this view of divine power.)  Since this view allows for divine veto power, I argue that it collapses into DP1.  That's why I support divine persuasive power (DP3) of process theology.

For the Luther references see www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/godfreedom.htm; for my article "Three Types of Divine Power" see /3DP.htm; and for process theology see /process.htm.  For my co-authored article "Buddhism and the Freedom of the Will," I refer you to a fine volume published by MIT Press (2004) "Freedom and Determinism" edited by Joe Campbell and two other local philosophers.

Nick Gier