A Short Response to Martin Luther's The Bondage of the Will

This post was originally written within an email response I wrote to someone who said that by not agreeing with Luther in The Bondage of the Will, I am also not agreeing with Paul in the Book of Romans. I respect deeply the person with whom I was corresponding and most certainly do not think that what is written below is absolutely true or that my interpretation of the Bible is without errors. This post is certainly limited in its scope and barely scratches the surface of many of the issues raised. But, if nothing else, it gives you a picture of my views on human choice. As always, I ask for any questions or challenges. (And if you would like some very basic information on John Calvin, James Arminius, and Martin Luther, please see one of my posts above.)

Let me begin by saying that I could not have more respect for Martin Luther (I often mention that I share the name Martin with two of the greatest reformers to ever walk the earth, Martin Luther and Martin Luther King). What we believe about the centrality of Scripture over Tradition in Protestantism, we owe not just to the God-given wisdom of Luther, but to His courage. I would say he choose to respond to what God was calling him to do. This however does not mean that I have to agree with the inevitable conclusions of his theology in The Bondage of the Will.

My biggest issue with Luther is that he leaves no room for the decision of the human being to follow Christ. Luther says we are saved by grace through faith. What is faith? If it is a response to grace (as I believe Luther would say), doesn't a response imply a human choice? I can choose to respond or not to respond.

We are saved by grace, but we must choose to either accept or reject this grace. Romans 3:22: "This righteousness from God comes from faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." "To all who believe." Why did Paul say this? Because there is no point in offering something to people, if you already know who will and will not accept it. Why offer it freely? Why even bother? If there is no choice, in essence, isn't Luther saying exactly what Calvin is saying in that Jesus is really only a mechanism for God's grace and not really the offering of God's free grace to all people, Jew or Gentile.

The passages you quoted from Romans 7 and Romans 9 do seem to prove your position. But these passages are meant to be looked at in light of all of Romans, which does not paint a picture of a God who asks us to make no choices. Romans 12 specifically is a strong testament to the importance of followers of Christ choosing to do good (offering our bodies as living sacrifices). I read Romans 7 as a honest and beautiful depiction of the despondent situation Paul would be in if he were saved by works and not by grace. Look at Romans 8:1 when Paul writes, "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death." Oh praise God, my frustration over the fact that I live in a sinful world, that I cannot seem to escape the sin around me, that I continue to sin even after accepting God's grace, does not mean I am going to hell, but this does not excuse me from making the choice to offer myself as a living sacrifice to God. I would argue further that this is not a one time decision. We must do this everyday. In the face of temptation, we must choose to throw ourselves at the foot of the Cross, sacrificing our sinful nature and allowing God to empower us to choose what is good.

Romans 8:28-29a says this (this is NIV, by the way): "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son." "For those who love him" implies that we must love God, in other words we must believe in Him and accept his will for our lives. Is not love a choice on the part of the follower of Christ? God's love for us beckons us to love Him, but it certainly does not force us to love Him. Also, notice how it says, "for those God foreknew, he also predestined" This seems to point to a view of predestination that presents an idea of God outside of time. (Time is a created thing. Therefore, God knows what will happen, but he does not force what will happen.) The final section of the passage says, "to be conformed to the likeness of his Son," which means that salvation is a daily process. Christ has already died and resurrected. We are still living on this earth and therefore we still struggle with temptation. We are called to resist sin. In the moment where pornography is staring me in the face, there is a choice that exists. I can give into the temptation or I can choose to resist and once again sacrifice my sinful nature. If human choice does not exist, what do I tell a person to do in this situation? Just pray and if God does not remove the desire, go ahead and sin. I mean this is kind of what absence of human choice sounds like to me. How are pastors to be pastoral if they cannot direct their congregation with biblical advice and counsel? We are daily being "conformed to the image of Christ," which requires daily sacrifice on our parts.

Chapter 9 is a description of God's Sovereignty in the face of Israel's disobedience and then a pointing to God's sovereign choice, God's sovereign election, in the person of Jesus Christ to save all who believe in Him. It is not meant to be a proof text for the abolition of man's ability to choose to accept or choose to reject God's free offering of grace through the person of Jesus Christ. In fact, it would seem that it becomes a proof text for my position.

So, I would say that my statement about disagreeing with the inevitable conclusion of Luther's The Bondage of the Will is not in contradiction to the writings of Paul, specifically in Romans.