How did Martin Luther define 'freewill'?

[InSlaveryToChrist]

In order to make sense of the below quotes from Luther's "Bondage of the Will," I think it is impossible that Luther viewed freewill as merely an ability to desire contrary to one's will. It seems, since Luther ascribed freewill only to God, that he also had a unique definition of 'freedom.'

In my own thinking, I would view freedom of the will as freedom to will according to one's will. And this I would ascribe to both man and God. Yet, Luther would ascribe his view of freewill only to God.

But I'm just confused as to whether Luther's ascribing of freewill to God meant that God could desire contrary to His own will.



"Free-will' without God's grace is not free at all, but is the permanent prisoner and bond slave of evil, since it cannot turn itself to good."

"We do everything of necessity, and nothing by 'free-will'; for the power of 'free-will' is nil, and it does no good, nor can do, without grace."

"If 'free-will' is ascribed to men, it is ascribed with no more propriety than divinity itself would be-and no blasphemy could exceed that!! So it befits theologians to refrain from using the term when they want to speak of human ability, and to leave it to be applied to God only. The would do well also to take the term out of men's mouths and speech, and to claim it for their God, as if it were His own holy and awful Name."

 

[CharlieJ]

There are differences between Luther and Calvin on free will. Luther's presentation in Bondage is, in fact, a bit unorthodox. He really does deny an appropriate freedom of the will to humans. Calvin corrected Luther while trying to present Luther as if he really didn't need correction.

http://www.calvin.edu/library/database/dissertations/Choy_Kiven_S.PDF

Also, see Anthony Lane's introduction to Calvin's Bondage and Liberation of the Will.

 

[moral necessity]

But I'm just confused as to whether Luther's ascribing of freewill to God meant that God could desire contrary to His own will.

No, it did not mean that God was able to desire contrary to His own will, but rather that God is the determining factor in how the will of every creature plays out. Every creature's will is ultimately determined by and governed by the Sovereignty of God (and yet a freeness within the creature itself is not violated). The only one who's will is an exception to this subservience is God himself.

Blessings!

 

[Philip]

I think that what Luther is trying to say is that the unregenerate will is in slavery to sin and that the will is only truly free if it has been redeemed: freedom, for Luther, is a moral category. He's drawing on Anselm, who taught that the ability to sin is a restraint on freedom and that the freest of agents would be unable to sin. His point has to do with soteriology, not, I think, with the metaphysics of freedom---he's not talking about freedom in the sense that, say, Jonathan Edwards talks about it in Freedom of the Will.

 

[Unoriginalname]

I think that what Luther is trying to say is that the unregenerate will is in slavery to sin and that the will is only truly free if it has been redeemed: freedom, for Luther, is a moral category. He's drawing on Anselm, who taught that the ability to sin is a restraint on freedom and that the freest of agents would be unable to sin. His point has to do with soteriology, not, I think, with the metaphysics of freedom---he's not talking about freedom in the sense that, say, Jonathan Edwards talks about it in Freedom of the Will.

I always thought he was speaking metaphysically, if he is using freedom in a moral category would that make Luther more orthodox on freedom? In the end Samuel I think it would be better to not use Luther as your primary instructor on the nature of the will. Calvin is much better on the will. If you have Calvin's institutes look up Book 2 Chapters 4 & 5 and try also Book 3 chapter 2 which is on faith.

 

[Philip]

I always thought he was speaking metaphysically, if he is using freedom in a moral category would that make Luther more orthodox on freedom?

Yes---one of the confusions that we often have in reading premodern theologians is the differing definition of freedom. Anselm's Freedom of the Will is an excellent (and concise) resource on the subject.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

Thanks for the helpful responses, guys!