Review of Martin Luther and Free Will

[loDebar]

https://www.chapellibrary.org/files/4913/7643/2893/botw.pdf

Martin Luther's arguments regarding the non existence of Free Will by the showing if one does not know or is not able to enact their will that it does not exist.
Each argument is actually to show will of man cannot save through inability or lack of understanding, as in #13 referencing Nicodemus with Jesus.

Luther was in response to Ersamus opposite opinion. Free Will and through Grace can lead one to salvation.

The will is not he action but the force behind action. Luther was in effect saying there is no will, because we are helpless in certain circumstances. We do not have the power or to save ourselves or even perhaps the knowledge that salvation is needed.

But one cannot know the will of another, Luther was saying there can be no action so there is no will, This is not true and rather legalistic. We do not save ourselves through our desire but only depending on God through the finished work of Jesus.

It is folly to continue in this logic that Free Will, alone does not exist when only inaction is evident

 

[Yeshua1]

https://www.chapellibrary.org/files/4913/7643/2893/botw.pdf

Martin Luther's arguments regarding the non existence of Free Will by the showing if one does not know or is not able to enact their will that it does not exist.
Each argument is actually to show will of man cannot save through inability or lack of understanding, as in #13 referencing Nicodemus with Jesus.

Luther was in response to Ersamus opposite opinion. Free Will and through Grace can lead one to salvation.

The will is not he action but the force behind action. Luther was in effect saying there is no will, because we are helpless in certain circumstances. We do not have the power or to save ourselves or even perhaps the knowledge that salvation is needed.

But one cannot know the will of another, Luther was saying there can be no action so there is no will, This is not true and rather legalistic. We do not save ourselves through our desire but only depending on God through the finished work of Jesus.

It is folly to continue in this logic that Free Will, alone does not exist when only inaction is evident

The Bondage of the Human Will book by Luther was perhaps the book that persuaded that calvinism view in regards to this issue was corredct, and not the free will thta I once held with as being in the scriptures!

 

[loDebar]

The Bondage of the Human Will book by Luther was perhaps the book that persuaded that calvinism view in regards to this issue was corredct, and not the free will thta I once held with as being in the scriptures!

That is what this is about. It is in error to include self action to determine will

THE BONDAGE OF THE WILL by Martin Luther (1483-1546)

 

[Wesley Briggman]

Hopefully, someone can give an insightful meaning of the "free" part of freewill.

 

[TCassidy]

Hopefully, someone can give an insightful meaning of the "free" part of freewill.

Asked and answered several times. Free: NOT in bondage. Not in chains. Not locked in a prison cell. A denial of Romans 8:2.

 

[loDebar]

Asked and answered several times. Free: NOT in bondage. Not in chains. Not locked in a prison cell. A denial of Romans 8:2.

but we have free will within that prison cell, just little choices. We are "bound" to sin but be less or more degenerate as possible. The will might be limited but it exists.

Free will is not to do anything we want or can imagine.

 

[atpollard]

The basic argument for "free will" is that man has the ability to choose between accepting or rejecting salvation. The "free will" argument against man being in bondage, is that it is unjust because it makes steals from man the ability to choose.

To properly comprehend the reality of a will in bondage, I ask you to consider the following question:

Who desires to be saved but is not saved?
Who is saved, but does not desire it?

If man had true "free will", then there should be people who want to be forgiven, but simply do not know how to obtain this elusive "grace". Has anyone ever met one of them? I have not. Those without God may be dissatisfied with their circumstances, but they do not desire to surrender their autonomy. After "believe in Me", the next most common thing that Jesus calls his followers to do is "die to self".

An observation from life is that people are who they are. They will typically return to what they were because that is what they are comfortable with. Even something as trivial as quitting smoking is the exception rather than the rule. So people are free to do as they please, and what they please to do is sin.

 

[Yeshua1]

The basic argument for "free will" is that man has the ability to choose between accepting or rejecting salvation. The "free will" argument against man being in bondage, is that it is unjust because it makes steals from man the ability to choose.

To properly comprehend the reality of a will in bondage, I ask you to consider the following question:

Who desires to be saved but is not saved?
Who is saved, but does not desire it?

If man had true "free will", then there should be people who want to be forgiven, but simply do not know how to obtain this elusive "grace". Has anyone ever met one of them? I have not. Those without God may be dissatisfied with their circumstances, but they do not desire to surrender their autonomy. After "believe in Me", the next most common thing that Jesus calls his followers to do is "die to self".

An observation from life is that people are who they are. They will typically return to what they were because that is what they are comfortable with. Even something as trivial as quitting smoking is the exception rather than the rule. So people are free to do as they please, and what they please to do is sin.

There will be none in hell who will say that we really wanted Jesus to save us, that we pleading with God to do that!

 

[loDebar]

The basic argument for "free will" is that man has the ability to choose between accepting or rejecting salvation. The "free will" argument against man being in bondage, is that it is unjust because it makes steals from man the ability to choose.

To properly comprehend the reality of a will in bondage, I ask you to consider the following question:

Who desires to be saved but is not saved?
Who is saved, but does not desire it?

If man had true "free will", then there should be people who want to be forgiven, but simply do not know how to obtain this elusive "grace". Has anyone ever met one of them? I have not. Those without God may be dissatisfied with their circumstances, but they do not desire to surrender their autonomy. After "believe in Me", the next most common thing that Jesus calls his followers to do is "die to self".

An observation from life is that people are who they are. They will typically return to what they were because that is what they are comfortable with. Even something as trivial as quitting smoking is the exception rather than the rule. So people are free to do as they please, and what they please to do is sin.

There are many who realized they are sinners but do not know of Jesus nor how to learn of Him.
Many hear the Gospel but do not receive it, (Parable of the Sower)

None can be saved but do not desire it. However, they can be overun with the cares of the world. Not to loose salvation but as an unfaithful servant.

God will not intrude upon free will. to do good or evil. He will limit the exercise but not the intent. According to John is just as sinful.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

God will not intrude upon free will. to do good or evil.

I praise God that He intruded on mine!

 

[loDebar]

I praise God that He intruded on mine!

He did not. The Holy Spirit shows the need, and brings us to Jesus. The decision is ours, He stands at the door and knocks. We let Him in. He does not barge in. nor come in where He He is not welcome.
Neither does the Holy Spirit linger after repeated rejection

 

[loDebar]

Romans 8 :2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

This verse seems to be a stumbling block.
There is no law of sin in this verse but that the law shows us our sin and guilt and leads to death as opposed to the Grace of Jesus/
The law leads shows us guilty and thus worthy of death. Grace shows us pardoned not subject to the former consequences of the law, The Law of the Spirit of Christ hath made us free.


Sin has a law of sure returns.
Pro 22:8
He that soweth iniquity shall reap vanity: and the rod of his anger shall fail.

.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

He did not. The Holy Spirit shows the need, and brings us to Jesus. The decision is ours, He stands at the door and knocks. We let Him in. He does not barge in. nor come in where He He is not welcome.
Neither does the Holy Spirit linger after repeated rejection

In the account of Jesus dealing with Saul, Jesus did not consider Saul's freewill, not did Saul. Saul immediately submitted his will to Jesus.

I missed the part where Jesus knocked and asked permission from Saul. Neither did the Holy Spirit knock when He brought me to awareness of my sinful state.

If you can find scripture to refute the following verse, please share it.

Act 9:6 KJV - And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

 

[loDebar]

Saul as good knowledgeable Jew was aware of his sin. He thought he was serving God through persecution of Christians, He was willing to be obedient. He just did not know Jesus until then.

Act 9:4
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? ( in Hebrew)
Act 9:5¶
And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Act 9:6¶
And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do

A personal introduction is the same as any invitation.

Act 26:15
And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
Act 26:16
But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
Act 26:17
Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
Act 26:18
To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Could Saul have rejected the invitation?

 

[Rebel1]

Luther was influenced by Augustine. I don't know of anything good that came from Augustine.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Could Saul have rejected the invitation?

No. Galatians 1:15-16. 'But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me.......' There was never any question of Paul rejecting God's call. God chose him in eternity (Ephesians 1:4-6), called him in time and he came.

 

[1689Dave]

I think Luther is saying we have only two possibilities when it comes to making choices. Before the new birth we have only the flesh to create our desires and to base our choices on. He used Galatians 5:19-21 challenging Ersamus to find anything in the flesh that would want to repent and follow Christ.

“Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5:19–21)

Then he shows the Christian after the new birth, where the will is biased towards God.

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.” (Galatians 5:22–25)

But, the Catholics and others turned the gospel into a law the flesh can react to and keep. It doesn't take a supernatural transformation of our spirit for us to comply. So salvation becomes conditional and any who can stoop to pick up a nickle, can meet the supposed conditions of the legalistic gospel in the flesh.

 

[loDebar]

No. Galatians 1:15-16. 'But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me.......' There was never any question of Paul rejecting God's call. God chose him in eternity (Ephesians 1:4-6), called him in time and he came.

But God did not force His will on Paul, he was prepared for God's service.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But God did not force His will on Paul, he was prepared for God's service.

God does not 'force His will' on anyone; He changes our will by giving us a new heart, a new spirit, a new birth so that we delight to do His will (Psalm 40:8). 'But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)......' (Ephesians 2:4-5).

Dead men don't choose Christ. I know that some interpret 'dead' to mean 'not very well,' but actually, it means 'dead.'

 

[SovereignGrace]

But God did not force His will on Paul, he was prepared for God's service.

And if Saul/Paul said “no thanks”, then what?