Class Video:
Teacher Notes:
In December 1525, Martin Luther wrote a book titled The Bondage of the Will. Last year marked the five hundredth anniversary of its publication. Late in his life, Luther said that if all of his writings were destroyed, there were two he would want preserved. One was his shorter catechism. The other was The Bondage of the Will.
Luther wrote this book in response to Desiderius Erasmus, a Roman Catholic humanist scholar. Erasmus was a brilliant man, and we owe him a real debt in church history. His work on the Greek New Testament influenced the text later used by the King James translators.
But Erasmus taught that man possesses free will in spiritual matters. Luther responded forcefully that man’s will is not free but bound to sin until Christ sets him free. In fact, Luther famously said that free will is not merely weak, but a fiction.
Luther did not lack confidence in debate. If you read his exchanges with Erasmus, you will notice that he did not shy away from strong language. But behind the rhetoric was a serious theological concern. Luther believed that the nature of the will touches the heart of the gospel.
If someone asks me, “Do you believe in free will?” my answer is not an immediate no. My answer is, “What do you mean by free will?”
If by free will you mean that human beings make real choices according to their desires, then yes, I agree. People choose what they want. People act according to their desires.
But that is not the full question. The deeper question is this: are those desires themselves free?
To illustrate this, imagine a continuum. On one end is absolute free will. That would mean every choice you make is completely uninfluenced by anything external or internal. No coercion. No inclination. No bias. I do not know anyone who actually believes that.
On the other end is absolute determinism. That view says every action, down to the smallest detail, is directly and mechanically caused by God in such a way that all human responsibility disappears. That view collapses into fatalism. Unfortunately, I do know some people who believe that. I once heard a preacher say that when a man commits adultery, God commanded him to do it. That is not biblical sovereignty. That is moral chaos. But thankfully that type of thinking is not common.
Between these extremes are categories we must consider carefully: influence, enablement, coercion, and determination.
Do your decisions involve influence? Of course they do. External circumstances influence us. Internal desires influence us. And Scripture is very clear that the internal influence is not morally neutral.
Genesis 6:5 tells us that before the flood that every intention of the thoughts of man’s heart was only evil continually. After the flood, Genesis 8:21 says that the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. The flood judged wickedness, but it did not regenerate humanity.
Jeremiah 17:9 tells us that the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately sick. This is why the world’s advice to “follow your heart” is so dangerous. The Bible does not tell us to trust our hearts. On the contrary, it tells us that are hearts are deceitful.
Jesus Himself speaks this way when He says, “You being evil know how to give good gifts to your children.” Jesus does not say we are morally neutral. He describes men as evil. Paul summarizes this in Romans 3 by saying “there is none righteous, no not one.”
Sin flows from a corrupt heart. Before Christ saves us, Scripture describes us as slaves to sin. That is why we speak of bondage. The will is not neutral, it is bound.
This brings us to the heart of the Calvinistic concern. Can a person come to Christ apart from divine enablement?
Luther and Calvin agreed on this point. You cannot come to Christ unless God enables you to do so. That was the issue at the center of Luther’s debate with Erasmus, and it remains central today.
John 6 is critical here. In that chapter, Jesus addresses people who follow Him because He fed them. They want more bread, not repentance. Jesus tells them plainly that they have seen Him and yet do not believe.
Then He makes three statements that answer our question.
In John 6:37, Jesus says, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out.” Coming here is not physical proximity. These people already came physically. Coming is believing.
In John 6:44, Jesus says, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him.” The word draw does not mean a mere invitation. It is used elsewhere for dragging or pulling, like drawing water from a well. You do not woo water out of a well. You draw it.
In John 6:65, Jesus says, “No one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father.” Draw and grant are parallel concepts. God must act.
Why is this necessary? Because the natural man does not want Christ. The problem is not lack of information. It is lack of desire.
If divine enablement is required for someone to come to Christ, the question becomes “does God enable everyone?”
Arminian theology affirms the need for grace but teaches that God gives enabling grace to all people. This is called prevenient grace.
I disagree with that view, but Arminians are not heretics or enemies. They affirm the necessity of grace. Disagreement does not require vilification.
The Calvinistic position is that God chooses whom He will enable. This is what we call unconditional election. It is unconditional because fallen man cannot meet conditions. We are dead in trespasses and sins.
An illustrative question is this. Two people hear the same gospel. One believes. One does not. What made the difference? If the answer is something in the believer, then boasting is not fully excluded. If the answer is God’s mercy, then grace gets all the glory.
Finally, we must guard against determinism that destroys responsibility. Adam was not coerced to sin. God did not force him to eat the fruit. He made a real choice.
We believe God decrees all that comes to pass, but He does so without violating the will of the creature and without removing secondary causes. God uses means.
Joseph’s story illustrates this perfectly. His brothers meant evil. God meant good. The brothers were responsible. God was sovereign.
Here is a simple way to say it. All the good in me comes from God. All the evil I do comes from me. I cannot blame God for my sin, but I can thank Him for any grace I possess.
Next time, we will see the relationship between the bondage of the will and unconditional election. Until then…
Soli Deo Gloria
Sovereign Grace Academy is a biblical studies ministry provided by Sovereign Grace Family Church. Students of the ministry will be provided seminary quality instruction with no financial obligation. Courses are provided in a wide range of subjects.