The Bondage of the Will

WARNING - Do not buy Sovereign Grace Publishers Henry Cole translation of Bondage of the Will.

After slogging through 95 pages of its barely understandable jargon, I asked my dad, Pastor Gerry Mohr (LCMS) if Luther's reputation for intellect was, perhaps, a bit unearned. He replied, "Cole whipped out his translation effort in three months or less. Luther's original is a direct reply to a work by Erasmus directly aimed against what Luther was teaching. Cole does not take the time to understand either Erasmus or Luther; he gets a quick job finished. Good translation is not generally done like that. And Cole does not convey well the arguments and language of Luther in English.

"Read the translation by Packer & Johnston. These translators say, "This edition was originally to have been a revision of Cole's. It became evident, however, that the tortuous style of this translation so obscured the meaning and force of the original that it was better to attempt a completely new translation, which might more adequately convey the impetuous flow and dialectical strength of Luther's powerful Latin."

"Packer & Johnston (who are Reformed, not Lutheran) say in their introduction, "This, then, is the Luther whom we meet in The Bondage of the Will: a great-hearted Christian warrior; a thorough exegete (he wins the battle of the texts hands down); a profound systematic theologian; and above all, an unflinching defender of the grace of a sovereign God.""

Yes, this book is great for those seriously interested in debate between Erasmus and Luther on "Will" or "Free Will" (which is nothing at all). Luther debates Erasmus and gets into the Theological issues surrounding the will.

Question: What does Free Will mean to you? What does this really mean for our lives in Christ? What is the real meaning of the words "free will"?

Find the answers in this book. Remember this is a tough read and can be difficult to understand. Reading a couple times with plenty of prayer can give you a throrough understanding of the very important debate. Understanding can only come through the Holy Spirit.

This debate does indeed hold how you read the Bible and understand salvation. How does salvation work? Do we have this choice ourselves or is God somehow involved. Are we totally depraved and cannot save ourselves or can we "save ourselves" by the empty word "free will"?

This is the book to help you understand!!

The Bondage of the Will, by Martin Luther, is one of my favorites. The particular version I have read, and enjoyed, is translated(from the original Latin) by J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston. Luther wrote the book in response to a work by Desiderius Erasmus , Diatribe seu collatio de libero arbitrio(Discussion, or Collation, concerning Free-Will), who defended the idea that man has a free will, is not in bondage to sin and that his choices, good or bad, are not determined by God. Luther's reply De servo arbitrio(On the Bondage of the Will), thoroughly critiques Erasmus's 'Diatribe', (as Luther terms it) and shows the absurdity of his arguments. Luther defends God's freedom, and asserts than man is not free but a slave to his own desires.

I found this book not only instructive, but very 'entertaining' as well. The reason being that Luther uses sarcasm as a large part of his attempts to demonstrate the nonsense of the 'Diatribe's' statements. An example of this being where Luther deals with Erasmus's argument that Luther can't produce any miracles to prove that the Holy Spirit is with him, Luther replies by demanding that Erasmus hold himself to the same standard "Where now is your demonstration of the Spirit?...Where are your miracles?......You may choose to work as tiny a miracle as you like. Indeed, to prod your Baal (free-will)into action, I here challenge and defy you to create a single frog in the name and by the power of 'free-will'! Why, the godless heathen Magi in Egypt could create frogs in abundance!...I will suggest a more trifling matter still: take a single flea or louse... and combine all the powers and concentrate all the energies both of your god and of all your supporters; and if, in the name and by the power of 'free-will', you can kill it, you shall be conquerors, your cause shall be established and we shall at once come and adore that god of yours, the amazing louse-slaughterer!"(italics added. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will[Grand Rapids Michigan: Fleming H. Revell a division of Baker Book House Company, Sixteenth Printing 2004], 112-113.) Be warned though, Luther does get, I think, too sarcastic at times.

All in all, Luther does an excellent job at asserting the bondage of man to sin, and defending the freedom of God, God's right to do with man whatever He pleases. "God is He for Whose will no cause or ground may be laid down as its rule and standard; for nothing is on a level with it or above it, but it is itself the rule for all things. If any rule or standard., or cause or ground, existed for it, it could no longer be the will of God. What God wills is not right because He ought, or was bound, so to will; on the contrary, what takes place must be right, because He so wills it. Causes and grounds are laid down for the will of the creature, but not for the will of the Creator - unless you set another Creator over Him!"( Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will[Grand Rapids Michigan: Fleming H. Revell a division of Baker Book House Company, Sixteenth Printing 2004], 209.) I highly recommend this work.

I started to read this book in 2010 and then put it down. I forgot about until the following year. I decided to restart reading it in order to get into the feeling of the book. The writing style is rather dry due to the translation. In spite of this, Martin Luther's treatise (written in response to Erasmus Catholic 'freedom of will' tenet) is well-supported because Luther does add an emotional plea to his argument. he focuses on the legalistic aspect of faith and brings in grace which levels the ground. It was this and the fact that Luther goes into depth in the area being servants to God's will and not slaves. Being a former Catholic and a now a Christian, I understood and agreed with Luther's points. One must read this with an open mind to appreciate it.

"On the Bondage of the Will" was first published by Martin Luther in December 1525. It was written as a reply to Desiderius Erasmus' book called "On Free Will". Erasmus' book was a public attack on Luther in the topic of free will.

Luther writes the book to Erasmus and addresses him by name as if the reader is a voyeur in a dialog between two intellectuals. In a sweet tone Luther often refers to Erasmus as Friend Erasmus, while he rips him apart.

Luther vigorously affirms that Scripture undoubtedly teaches that man's "salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsels, efforts, will and works, and depends absolutely on the will, counsel, pleasure and work of Another - God alone."

Luther's hypothesis is as vital now as it was half a millennium ago. This is because human nature is defined by the tendency to stress its own autonomy outside of God. Regrettably, this is as true of Christians as it is of non-Christians.

Luther addresses the objections brought by Erasmus, gently considering each verse of Scripture that Erasmus uses, and showing the random character of his interpretation. He considers the arguments that Erasmus makes from "human reason", and considers other texts of the Bible that clearly teach the bondage of the will.

Luther's tone may seem odd to modern readers. We must not forget that he was answering a point where he knew that the very essence of the gospel was at stake.

This is a complex topic written in a digestible manner.

Horrible printing job on this book. Obviously the content is excellent but you will frustrate yourself to no end trying to read this edition. What brilliant publisher decided to make each page 7 to 8 inches wide, with small font, little line spacing, and NO MARGINS!? The text goes all the way into crease and you can't even read it all without pressing the book totally flat.
Buy a different version. I recommend ISBN # 9781434440655-- I have that one and it's much more readable.

It is safe to say that Martin Luther did not think that man's will is free. In some of the most funny, bitter, sarcastic, and theologically insightful pages found in any Christian work, Luther puts forth his position on "free-will" in The Bondage of the Will (also found in "Luther's Works," vol. 33, "Career of the Reformer pt. III). The title itself should show the reader which side of the Calvinist debate Luther finds himself on. This book is a response to Diatribe, by Erasmus, in which Erasmus critiqued Luther's view of election. Luther responds in theologically knee-deep sarcasm, and is very effective.

Luther shows that the main texts Erasmus uses are ripped out of context, twisted and contorted by a sinful mind, and are left violated. Luther begins the fourth section by telling the reader, "Here you will see what man-made smoke can do against the thunder and lightning of God" (161). "Man-made smoke" is Luther's most charitable description of Erasmus's work. Diatribe is personified, and throughout Luther's work referred to as a she. Specifically, Diatribe is referred to as a she without Divine reason, but only human conjecture. Luther than amplifies and says that Human Reason is "blind, deaf, stupid, impious, and sacrilegious with regard to all the words and works of God" (173). And this conjecture just described is considered too good of a label for Diatribe.

Luther's defense, which is actually more of an offense, has two main sections. First, Luther critiques the hermeneutics of Diatribe. Luther accuses her of copying Jerome and Origin, and then adds, "For hardly any of the ecclesiastic writers have handled the divine Scriptures more ineptly and absurdly than Origin and Jerome" (167). Luther then moves into the texts used by Diatribe. There are sections on the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, how Judas had no choice but to betray Christ, Jacob and Essau, and on the potter and clay analogy. Luther clearly shows that these passages do not need to be explained out of scripture, and should be interpreted literally. If done so, the reader will be left believing in a God that did indeed harden Pharaoh's heart, hate Essau before he was born, cause Judas to betray Christ, and crafts man's very soul with his hands.

All of these sections follow a familiar pattern. Luther shows us that the hermenutical principles used by Diatribe are not valid and compromise the integrity of scripture. Then he shows that if her argument is true, it is absurd. Luther then grants that her argument is true, and shows that even this does not justify freedom of the will.

But in between these sections are a couple of theological jewels. There is a section titled, "How God's Omnipotence Can be Said to Work Evil," and another titled, "How God's Foreknowledge Imposes Necessity." The former is the first work I have ever found persuasive on the subject. Luther uses an analogy of a horse with two lame legs. No matter the skill of the rider, the horse will always do poorly and will never be able to walk correctly. The only hope for the horse is to be healed. Similarly, Luther says, we are sinful. God, because of his sovereignty, must work through us. But whatever we do will be sinful. God is not causing us to sin; he is manipulating our sin for his good and for our salvation. This does not mean God works sin in our lives, only that he controls our lives. To ask Him to stop controlling us so that we would stop sinning is like asking Him to stop reigning over the universe on account of our deficiencies.

Luther seems to have a true understanding of the subjects about which he writes. While one could easily call him unloving and uncharitable for his treatment of his opposition, it is hard to critique someone writing with a death sentence over their head. Luther loved truth, and he loved it so much he tried to slay any arguments brought against it. Had he treated what he viewed as heresy with ambivalence, it is possible those whom he loved would do the same. When a person's life is at stake in his writings, he is likely to speak more bluntly than Max Lucado.

Luther also possesses "theological savvy." He has a way of focusing on one theological principle while weaving others in and out for support. He is persuasive because he presents his views forcefully, and he has a command of both his text and his opponents.

Martin Luther's book The Bondage of the Will is an excellent treatment of a question that is just as relevant in the 21st century as it was at the time of its writing. While the title, the context, the author, and the message may not be immediately appealing to most of today's Christians, the book is not an abstract theological splitting of hairs. It addresses a question that is absolutely central to Christianity: What do individuals contribute to their own salvation? Are we truly saved by the grace of God alone, or is God dependent on our exercising our free-will to do our own part in our salvation?

Luther energetically affirms that the Scriptures clearly teach that man's "salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsels, efforts, will and works, and depends absolutely on the will, cousel, pleasure and work of Another - God alone." The reason that Luther's thesis is as vital today as it was 500 years ago is because human nature, in all places and in all times, is characterized by the tendency to assert its own autonomy from God. Unfortunately, this is as true of Christians as it is of non-Christians. In his book, Luther answers all of the objections brought by Erasmus, carefully considering each passage of Scripture that Erasmus uses, and showing the arbitrary character of his interpretation. He also considers the arguments that Erasmus makes from "human reason", and considers other texts of the Bible that clearly teach the bondage of the will. The tone of Luther's writing in many places may come as a shock to modern ears in the age of sensitivity, but we must not forget that he was answering a point where he knew that the very essence of the gospel was at stake.

Luther's writing, presented in the Packer/Johnston translation, is not difficult to read. I enjoyed the book very much, and even found myself laughing out loud at certain points. I think that all Christians will benefit immensely from reading and thinking about this book. If you are familiar with reformed theology, you will enjoy reading one of the masterpieces of the reformation. If you are unfamiliar with reformed theology, or if you disagree with reformed theology, I would urge you to read and to carefully think about what Luther says in this book, and whether we can with sincerity dismiss what Scripture says about this issue. Think honestly with yourself whether or not it is true that our natural tendency as sinful people is to want to assert our own self-sufficiency in salvation, and to think that we can't really be as bad as God says we are. If you think that things like the freedom or bondage of the will and other such theological doctrines are unimportant, that is exactly what Erasmus thought too, who said in his preface that he finds "little satisfaction in assertions" (doctrines) and "prefer[s] an undogmatic temper to any other". Luther answers this position, too, and shows that if we call ourselves Christians, we cannot ignore assertions that God makes in His Word, and that the doctrine of the bondage of the will is so far from being an abstract and inconsequential bit of theology, that it is actually part of the very foundation of Biblical Christian faith.

I wish I had known about this book when I was in high school. For much of my formative years I have struggled with seeing free will in the Bible, being taught about the "age of accountability" and told that it was very explicit in the pages of Scripture. It came down to a single decision: stand alone on the argument against free will or submit to the teaching of the church. Submit was what I thought was my only option.

Happy I was to find out more than a year ago that I was not alone: there are many people who agree that there is no free will in the face of God's omnipotence. Not only that, but it is not a new idea at all. Martin Luther does a masterful job in this classic of laying out the teaching of the Bible and its very staunch view of God's action in drawing us to himself as the only way to be reconciled to him.

The only difficulties that I have with the book are Luther's interpretation of the subjunctive mood and how he speaks almost exclusively in terms of justification and rarely, if not never, speaks about sanctification. Granted the latter difficulty presumes the former, but in terms of the life of the Christian, empowered by the Holy Spirit to do the good works that have God prepared for us to do (Eph. 2:10).

WITH A DOUBT

A little trip to grammar school: the subjunctive tense. Use of the subjunctive can signify many different things. It can express a wish as in "if only my husband had remembered Valentine's Day was yesterday." Obviously from this statement he forgot, but the speaker wishes that he had.

Secondly, the subjunctive could signify doubt. "If I had wings I would fly to Aruba." Not likely that a million dollars would show up out of no where, so here we could read a lot of doubt. Finally, the subjunctive could signify contingency: "if I had a million dollars I would buy a nice car." There could still be some doubt there, but buying the car is contingent on having the money to do so.

Luther reads the subjunctive mood (as it is termed in Greek and Hebrew) exclusively as expressing doubt. His contention is that any time Scripture uses the subjunctive mood it does so in order to tell us what we should do, but with no hope that we can do it for ourselves. I hesitate to disagree with him in the context of the book because, as stated above, he speaks almost exclusively about justification. I completely agree that without justification we are at the mercy of God's wrath. With the gift of salvation, being justified by Christ's sacrifice on the cross, we are made wholly new. Therefore, under the power of the Holy Spirit, we now can do the work that God has made for us to do, but only because he is doing the work through us.

THE BOUND WILL IS GOOD NEWS

I have never understood why people would want to argue against our wills being bound to Christ. Even being born again we are latched to Christ and he lives through us. Our lives are not our own!

The omnipotence and prescience of God cannot be thwarted, and our will cannot be free if God is God. His power is over all, in all, and through all which leaves no room for me to make my own decisions. Free will makes our God a pauper, begging for our acceptance and adoration. He owes nothing to us, but in his infinite freedom gave all for us who could never deserve it.

Where do you stand in terms of free will? What does your church teach? How do you handle passages like John 6:44 and Romans 10:20?

Happy Birthday to Martin Luther's friend, John Calvin.

I purchased The Bondage of the Will, translated by J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, copyright 1957, published by Revell, a divison of Baker Publishing Group, paperback. I could not find this exact edition on the store.

The Bondage of the Will is a wonderful book, but not everybody will enjoy it or have the patience to read all of it. There are better books today to learn how the human race is enslaved by sin, how we depend on the Holy Spirit to be born again and come to have saving faith. Luther uses a style that is not common or well-liked today. Most of the book is written in direct response to Desiderius Erasmus' Diatribe - its organization is framed by Erasmus' criticisms, not by pure attempt to teach Luther's reformed theology.

The "free will" that Erasmus and Luther argued about is "a power of the human will by which a man may apply himself to those things that lead to eternal salvation, or turn away from the same." P 137

Chapter II through VI deal with Erasmus' arguments. In the final chapter, VII, The Bible Doctrine of the Bondage of the Will, Luther leaves Erasmus behind (mostly) and uses a few verses from Paul and John to teach the biblical doctrine. For many readers, it is most profitable to skip the first six chapters and just read chapter VII.

The translation by J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston comes with a 61 page introduction, written by Packer and Johnston, that is easier to read and gives a nice overview of the life a and times of Erasmus and Luther. Towards the end of this introduction, they give an overview of Luther's book, with a generous number of quotes. This introduction is extremely helpful, and many will profit more from it than from the full text of Luther's writing.

Reading The Bondage of the Will was a chore for me. It has a pattern of a brief quote from the Diatribe, then Luther's vigorous argument against Erasmus' poor logic, or contradictions, or wrong conclusions, then a good statement by Luther on his belief regarding the point Erasmus was making. The quotes of the Diatribe are usually too brief for the reader to really grasp Erasmus' argument. Luther's words directed at Erasmus and the Diatribe are often unrestrained, uncompassionate, uncharitable, and repetitive. Often times Luther then develops his own view in a way that is more useful to a twenty-first century reader. Luther shows that he is in agreement with all of the other sixteenth century reformers on the need for one to be regenerated (born again) by the Holy Spirit before one can come to have saving faith, be able to love God, or please God.

The conclusion is only two pages, and could be see as mere sarcasm. But I believe it is genuine - it expresses admiration for Erasmus, because he was able to identify the most important issue, free will, to focus on. I believe it is sincere in hoping that Erasmus will understand and believe the truth about free will - something we all should hope for in others today.

I wanted to find a quote from the book that sums it up well, and the best I could find was "But the ungodly does not `come', even when he hears the word, unless the Father draws and teaches him inwardly; which He does by shedding abroad His Spirit. P 311.

I want to make it clear that I am really glad that I read this work. I want to know how the giants of history thought. In that context, I found this work most illuminating. I also do not wish to argue about another person's faith. It is too important and I am not qualified and lack sufficient wisdom.

I also found this to be a difficult read. I, like other reviewers, found this work hard to understand. I read another review that states that Martin Luther would briefly quote Erasmus and then indulge in a "diatribe". That was my sense also. There are these rather lengthy bloviations wherein Martin Luther both refuted and mocked Erasmus. Why mock Erasmus? If Erasmus has no free will, then he HAD to write his work. At times this felt, to me, like one of those "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" debates.

I was born and raised Roman Catholic. I too became disenchanted with the Roman Catholic Church. There is no doubt in my mind that some sort of reformation was necessary. My personal search for faith has often been painful. But I do not find this form of pedantry excessively helpful. In the end I feel I have evolved into a form Christian Gnosticism.

I feel that Martin Luther became more and more dogmatic as he aged. Maybe that is just a human tendancy. As far as I can tell Martin Luther evolved into a virulent Anti Semite as he aged. No one is perfect, but this makes me take some of this wisdom with a grain of salt. It is clear to me that some feel that absolute acceptance of every word of the Bible is mandatory for salvation. Martin Luther seems to feel as a distillation of his reading of scripture that there is no free will. Why did God give me an intellect? Why did God give me intellectual curiosity? At the risk of inadvertently misrepresenting the thoughts of Reza Aslan, some dogmatics make God sound like a mad scientist, rather than an infinite being capable of infinite kindness and infinite mercy. If Reza Aslan did not mean that, I do sort of do feel that way myself. Thank You.

This treatise by Martin Luther laid down in unmistakeable terms a clear line between the Reformers and Rome that has still not been resolved. And while modern readers may be taken aback by the overly polemical tone of Luther, this book nonetheless constitutes the most definitive Reformation era writing on the issue of free will.
Just as the debate between Augustine and Pelagius represented a dividing line that distinguished Christianity from non-Christianity, so this debate between Luther and Erasmus demonstrated just how close the Roman Catholic Church was (and is) to adopting the basic premises of Pelagianism that it had previously and rightly condemned. There is little doubt that Luther's heated passion about the need for reform in the Roman Catholic Church stemmed from the belief that the church was far flung on basic issues of doctrine, free will being one of the biggest.
As is described in the introduction to this book, it is clear that when Erasmus wrote his 'Diatribe' which precipitated this book-length response from Luther, he was writing as a person who was not particularly passionate about the issue and it showed in his writing. Erasmus was uncharacteristically careless in his Diatribe, and Luther makes him pay for it painfully in this book. Repeatedly citing Erasmus's contention/concession that the 'probable' correct view on the human will is that it can do no good, Luther proceeds to systematically dismantle the rest of Erasmus's treatise which contradicts that concession. Basically, Erasmus, like much of present day Arminianism, tried to have it both ways. Unable to deal with the many texts in Scripture describing the sinful state of humanity, they attempt to assert that while man is thoroughly sinful, he really isn't thoroughly sinful and has a free will that defies his sinful nature. It is this basic extrabiblical imperative of Erasmus that Luther destroys here. He eloquently demonstrates that one cannot have it both ways, and that the repeated plain teaching of Scripture militates against the free will imperatives that Erasmus forces onto the text. In particular, Luther is masterful in dealing with the exhortation commands in Scripture and demonstrating that such commands are not indicative of man's ability, but of God's holiness and man's obligation to that holiness - which should clearly lead man to fall at the mercy God's grace once it's clear that his ability cannot satisfy his obligation to God.
One can also get the basics of Luther's view on the law as well. The blueprint of the traditional Lutheran understanding of an antithetical relationship between law and grace can be seen in several places in Luther's book here. Also, it is quite ironic that in certain places in this book, Luther appears to strongly endorse what is known as 'double predestination', which the modern Lutheran church emphatically rejects.
While Luther's critique of the Diatribe is outstanding, the last chapter of this book, which summarizes Luther's own view on free will is perhaps the best part of the book. Here, he does outstanding exegesis on Romans 3 and 4, in addition to selected texts from John that have been the lynchpin of the non-Arminian Protestant position concerning free will and human ability. While I don't think the reader can consider Luther to be the final voice on this issue since the free will debate has evolved and become more nuanced since the writing of this book, it is nonetheless a riveting starting point to studying what the Reformers thought about this issue and to get to the origins of the free will debate.
Erasmus never recovered from the beating he took in this book. Luther was passionate about this issue, and it shows in his writing style and relentless engagement of the issue. While one could do without Luther's polemics, his passion should be a good object lesson for those in the church today who attempt to minimize or paper over critical doctrinal disagreements. To do so is to fundamentally betray the spirit of the Reformation that we draw our spiritual heritage from.

Luther wrote extensively about every possible issue facing the church, from theology proper to how to teach children to read so they can use the Bible. But of all his works, this one was the book he hoped would be read by subsequent generations. The message of the book really boils down to this - who saves whom. For Luther, salvation was all about what God did to save sinners who can not even prepare themselves to receive saving grace. In this work Luther is interacting with Erasmus, a Roman Catholic Humanist (in the good sense of that word) who also wanted reformation of the church. However, while Luther's reformation focused on the gospel and how a sinner is saved, Erasmus' view was more about moral improvement and abuses in the church. To the modern reader, Luther might sound harsh and mean spirited. However, he was writing in a tone that was part of that day. So don't get turned-off by the language and look to the argument. There is much for us to learn today by this great master of the past! Sola Fide!!

I believe that anyone who considers themselves a Protestant or is a member of any Protestant church that developed from the Reformation should read this book. This book is known as "the Reformation Manifesto" because it addresses what Luther considered the main disagreement that people of his belief had with the Catholic Church. He called the papacy, indulgences, and other issues such as those, mere trifles. When you read this book, and understand how critical the debate on "free will" vs. total grace is, then you understand why Luther could then say that the other, more dramatic, better-known issues that Reformers took with the Catholic Church were merely "trifles". Those disputes simply stem from the difference in belief that true Protestants have with the Catholic Church when it comes to works and salvation. I only wish our society wasn't so scared to speak as openly and passionately as Luther does here about this issue (and many others) among Christian denominations. Every Protestant should read this book to know what they are truly protesting. And obviously I encourage any other believer or non-believer to read it as well.

Luther's emphasis on the veracity of God's word and insistance upon interpreting and applying the text plainly is a breath of fresh air in this age of twisted "scholarly" understandings. Luther cuts down Erasmus' arguments for the freedom of Man's will in salvation with the two-edged sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. The power, sincerity, and passion of Luther's writing is matched only by the prophets, apostles and our Lord Himself.
No believer should be able to read this book and come away still believing in the total freedom of Man's will. Luther wisely handles the most difficult objections in the same manner as the apostle Paul, answering naysayers with the challenge "who are you to answer back to God?" (Romans 9:20).
The only downfall of the book is that Erasmus' arguments are so weak. Because of this, Luther spends much time refuting the foolish musings of reason and philosophy and therefore has less time to devote to the scripturally-based questions concerning this doctrine of the bondage of the will. Luther proves truly that "the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor. 1:18).

Aside from the Bible, I would have to say this book has had a greater affect on me than any other. Luther grabs my respect immediately. His passion and use of biblical passages are difficult to ignore, as he speaks with an authority unparalleled by modern writers. Not only is Luther interesting to read, but he speaks as one whose mind and body are saturated in the revealed word of God. Luther does not hide his submission to God, neither in his will nor in his mind. Luther speaks as one who as knowledge of the Bible and whose thoughts are constructed accordingly. Luther consciously brings his mind into obedience with God's revelation to man, and he openly admits the difficulties he has had in doing so. Yet he still submits.
One would be hard pressed to ignore this man's testimony. Luther was a voice that would not go away. His boldness and courage in the face of the church and all its power is evidence enough that Luther had a vision and a drive that could only have been fueled by God. Whether or not you agree with everything Luther says, you will find yourself compelled by the passion, conviction, and boldness of one very unique man.
Luther would want nothing more than to see God glorified in all things and for men to see how true, perfect, and complete the gift of salvation really is.

You may hear the term "self-rightouesness" passed around, but have you ever thought of it? Generally it is used to someone that thinks themselves more rightouess than others. To really understand this term, we must look at the opposite: The Righteousness of God.
Now, we all know that God is absolutly righteouss. But, what about believer's in His Son? How can one hope to be righteouss when God has told us that all our "rightouess deeds" are as dirty rags? Is all hope lost?
No! All hope is not lost! The true rightouessness bestowed upon man comes by faith ("The righteouss man shall live by faith") - faith in the resurrection of Christ Jesus (our justification to righeousness) - given to those that believe in Jesus by God, the Father.
Luther goes to great lengths in this book to explain that we, ourselves, are utterly powerless and that only God has the power ("for thine is the Power, ...") to save us. Our salvation and hope rests solely in Him and not ourselves.
This book is a wonderful read for all those seeking more on this topic from someone who has "gone through the mill".

Wow. I first heard of this book mentioned by R. C. Sproul shortly after I read his tome, Classical Apologetics. (Sproul, Gerstner, Lindsley, Zondervan, 1984) which changed my life forever.
God blessed Luther with a find discriminating mind, and while Erasmus was no fool, he was no theologian either. The book is one sided. Luther takes each one of the (corrupted) conventional wisdoms of the Church (at least as Erasmus saw them) and turns it on it's head; how far had mother church come from the days of Augustine, the errors in logic and reason so destructive by the time Luther came on the scene. Luther dispatches the arguments with flourish, and I began to relish each upheaval as I, who had been incorrectly taught over the years, finally found my way. When Luther explains that "free will" is in fact an oxymoron (that is, that will cannot be free), I finally understood the true meaning of Grace - and Calvin's TULIP model. It is a disturbing concept - that we are completely powerless - but one that can not be rationally attacked. With Luther's book to guide you, you can dispatch that argument today as quickly as he did 500 years ago.
I would highly recommend this book to anyone, but especially to students of church history and those not yet converted to a Reformed faith.

I am a simple man, so I will keep this one simple.

If you love Theology and are seriously interested in understanding depravity and Calvanism, get this book. If not --- Do not bother!

The old English is hard to follow at times but you can still follow it fairly easily. It is quite long and harder to read because of the old English. I would suggest this to pastors, teachers, and Theology nerds.

One of the best books ever written. Translators (Packer & Johnston) did justice by Luther. First read this in the year 2000. Am re-reading now. Luther's arguments are exceptional, his intellect and style keen and entertaining. He found and understood most of the pieces of the puzzle but not all; however, what he did get right, he won hands-down. I highly recommend this book even though it's not an easy read. Four books/films to read/see: "Bondage of the Will", the Bible (of course, the especially Bullinger's Companion bible), C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" and Dostoyevsky's "Grand Inquisitor" (the version on youtube with John Gielgud). These four are absolute essential food for the Christian mind. Ann Fremantle's slender commentary on "Grand Inquisitor" is also exceptional and well worth the read.

I’ve only read 10 pages so far but have found multiple typos and errors. I don’t think anyone edited this book. The layout on the page also is very close together and makes it hard to read. I like to put notes in the margin but there is only a very small margin. This translation is an open source translation from 1823 and the language is a bit archaic. I don’t mind this but a more modern translation may help some readers. I suggest you pay a little more and get a better edition.

I have viewed a few dissenting voices in some of the reviews of the this work. It amazed me to see how many yearn to defend this mythical beast called "free-will". I too was onced bitten by this monster and wallowed in it's lairs of Arminianism and Pelagianism. However, the Lord, in all of His Divine Grace and Wisdom pulled me out kicking and screaming. How arrogant I was to believe that I was anything and now I rejoice and praise with Nebuchadneezer (Daniel 4:34-36). I have to rejoice in my Liberty in my slavery. Yet, as I mentioned before, this wasn't always so.
Oh, how I hated and despised those of the reformed view and ignorantly so! How I loved to sing Amazing Grace and Rock of Ages and despised the Theology of those who wrote it. How I despised the Doctrine of Predestination and yet, never realized that this is the very Doctrine that inspired those like the Puritans and Pilgrims to begin building this great Nation. No, I loved my "free-will". When I was being abused as a child, I cried, "free-will!", when I was homeless, I cried, "free-will"! When I sat behind bars in 30x30 ft cage, I cried "free-will"! When I got sick, I cried, "free-will"! Yet, when I realized that it took the selfless sacrifice of Christ to remove my sin, I had to ask, why couldn't I have just used my "free-will"? At this point I started to notice things, scary things, and the Spirit took this BLINDED sinner who believed he had a "free-will" and began to open his eyes. I saw that nobody could tell me at what point I obtained this "free-will". I realized that as a infant, it took the will of the parent to sustain me. Place an infant in field all by himself and he dies. Why? He has no will to sutain his life. Just like an infant in Christ,maybe? Then, someone suggested that you obtained it when you reached the age of 12 (age of accountability). Of course, when I pointed out that infants less than 12 were judged and killed for thier wickedness in the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah and of course the Amalekite infants (1 Sam 15:1-3), I received a blank stare. When I pointed out that a male child was cast out of the covenant for not being circusmied, I asked, why the child and not the parents? Again, blank. I have recieved many blank stares to many questions regarding Salvation and "free-will" over the past decade.
After that,I moved onto creation, the scriptures teach that God created all things and I believe it true. If I believed that God created all things, then time is His creation. If time (part of ALL things)is made up of past, present and future. Then, where does my "free-will" fit into the scheme of time? This has provoked alot of head scratching in numerous discussions. Nobody I have met in the realm of Orthodox Christianity has came up with a non-contradictive answer to that one.
I then moved onto the question of Salvation. Well, I won't labor you with the questions I found there. All I can say is that the rest of you can enjoy being the "Free-willer" in Christ and I'll happily remain a slave. By the way, did anyone ever notice Christ never asked Paul to become a Christian? Come to think of it, Christ never asked any of his Apostle or offered them Salvation. Huh? By the way can anyone show me an example of a "sinners prayer"? I thought the Lord's ears were closed to the unrighteous?!
Know what I've been thinking about lately? Did you ever wonder why the Lord spoke in Parables? You Armenian and Pelagian types may want to cover your eyes:
Mark 4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12. That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
I now ask. Why didn't he want them to percieve or understand or better yet, be converted and thier sins forgiven? HMMMMMM? Why did he chose those around him and not the others to reveal the meanings of the parables? It sure puts Romans 9 in perspective, doesn't it?
Hard to imagine, that the Lord used Bondage of the Will to get the old mental Hampsters in me to start turning the old thought wheels!
Well, goodbye for now. I have to get back to some free-will experiments I have been working on like becoming totally free of all Federal, State, local and natural laws or flapping my arms and flying or head-butting an oncoming Semi-Truck (I'll let you know how this one works out) and there's the oldie but a goodie, trying to catch a fart with my hands and painting it red!
(Here's a little free-will news update (3-14-04). I recently had a young man rob me at gunpoint. As he pressed the gun in my face, a little part of me actaully wondered, where is my "free-will" at this point.What is so free about a will when the options are do or die? Since then, I have meditated even further upon the subject. I stand even more convinced of the selfish attitude that drives people to defend this concept of "free-will". How can they defend an attribute that not even God himself can claim! For the scriptures teach that not even God can do anything contrary to his greatest attribute,HIS HOLINESS! So, if God's decisions are regulated by His own Holiness, how much more are we regulated by our sinfulness? Remember Paul,
Romans 7:18 For I know that in me (that is in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil I would not, that I do.
Paul then goes on to refer to himself as a wretched man and then asks who would deliver him "from the body of this death." The answer is obvious to those who think like Paul, Luther and Calvin, the answer is Christ ALONE!
Think about it! Because the next person with a gun in his face could be you, at that point there will be no debate! If my will had been truly free, I would have never CHOSEN this experience! A divine once stated, "on the deathbed, there are very few free-willers!" Death is inevitable and many will scream "free-will" right into the dirt!
One more thing, if you really believe in this "free-will" myth and you are Christian. Try never sinning again! Go ahead! Try it! READ THIS BOOK!!!!!! )
Soli Deo Gloria!
Nikki

Happy Birthday to Martin Luther's friend, John Calvin.

I purchased The Bondage of the Will, translated by J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, copyright 1957, published by Revell, a divison of Baker Publishing Group, paperback. I could not find this exact edition on the store.

The Bondage of the Will is a wonderful book, but not everybody will enjoy it or have the patience to read all of it. There are better books today to learn how the human race is enslaved by sin, how we depend on the Holy Spirit to be born again and come to have saving faith. Luther uses a style that is not common or well-liked today. Most of the book is written in direct response to Desiderius Erasmus' Diatribe - its organization is framed by Erasmus' criticisms, not by pure attempt to teach Luther's reformed theology.

The "free will" that Erasmus and Luther argued about is "a power of the human will by which a man may apply himself to those things that lead to eternal salvation, or turn away from the same." P 137

Chapter II through VI deal with Erasmus' arguments. In the final chapter, VII, The Bible Doctrine of the Bondage of the Will, Luther leaves Erasmus behind (mostly) and uses a few verses from Paul and John to teach the biblical doctrine. For many readers, it is most profitable to skip the first six chapters and just read chapter VII.

The translation by J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston comes with a 61 page introduction, written by Packer and Johnston, that is easier to read and gives a nice overview of the life a and times of Erasmus and Luther. Towards the end of this introduction, they give an overview of Luther's book, with a generous number of quotes. This introduction is extremely helpful, and many will profit more from it than from the full text of Luther's writing.

Reading The Bondage of the Will was a chore for me. It has a pattern of a brief quote from the Diatribe, then Luther's vigorous argument against Erasmus' poor logic, or contradictions, or wrong conclusions, then a good statement by Luther on his belief regarding the point Erasmus was making. The quotes of the Diatribe are usually too brief for the reader to really grasp Erasmus' argument. Luther's words directed at Erasmus and the Diatribe are often unrestrained, uncompassionate, uncharitable, and repetitive. Often times Luther then develops his own view in a way that is more useful to a twenty-first century reader. Luther shows that he is in agreement with all of the other sixteenth century reformers on the need for one to be regenerated (born again) by the Holy Spirit before one can come to have saving faith, be able to love God, or please God.

The conclusion is only two pages, and could be see as mere sarcasm. But I believe it is genuine - it expresses admiration for Erasmus, because he was able to identify the most important issue, free will, to focus on. I believe it is sincere in hoping that Erasmus will understand and believe the truth about free will - something we all should hope for in others today.

I wanted to find a quote from the book that sums it up well, and the best I could find was "But the ungodly does not `come', even when he hears the word, unless the Father draws and teaches him inwardly; which He does by shedding abroad His Spirit. P 311.

Desiderius Erasmus (De Libero Arbitrio) and Martin Luther (De Servo Arbitrio), Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, Translated and Edited by E. Gordon Rupp, Philip S. Watson (Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1969)

Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, translated by J. I. Packer & O. R. Johnston (Grand Rapids, Fleming H. Revell, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 1959)

The exchange on the issue of free will between Erasmus and Luther may be one of the best known theological exchanges in the history of Christian literature. If for no other reason, it is memorable for being the impetus behind Luther's writing what he considered his best theological work. Both works were written in Latin, and both are peppered throughout with references to a wide range of both theological works and classical Greek and Latin authors. Both were linguists of the first order. Erasmus had St. Jerome as his hero, while Luther was especially devoted to the though of Jerome's contemporary, Augustine of Hippo.
Both works cited above contain very good translations of Luther's work, which is about four times longer than Erasmus' Diatribe. Both works also contain very good introductions by the editor / translators; however the Rupp/Watson volume is clearly superior in that it contains both works, with an introduction to both works. It also has superior footnotes and combined index to their introduction, Erasmus' work, and Luther's work.
In the first few years of Luther's career as a reformer, beginning in 1517, with the publication of the 95 Theses, most of Europe perceived Erasmus as an ally of Luther. Some, such as the papal legate, Jerome Aleander, thought Erasmus actually wrote Luther's works. In 1524, influential friends, got Erasmus to write a tract against Luther. Erasmus chose the issue of freedom of the will, as Luther posed the issue in his Heidelberg Disputation, Theological Theses Nr. 13 ` Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do, it commits a mortal sin'. Erasmus correctly affirms from the outset that this issue is difficult, and that even with all the `labor' expended to address the issue, that effort has born less fruit. This immediately alerts us to observe whether the great Erasmus can succeed where so many others have failed. He also immediately points out that his `diatribe' was solicited by two of Martin Luther's more dedicated enemies, Johann von Eck (1486 - 1543) and Andreas Carlstadt (1480 - 1541). With this, Erasmus quiets any surprise by saying that he has never been an adherent to Luther's doctrines. In these opening statements, Erasmus seems to be performing a graceful ballet of words around the disputants who are discussing things with literally deadly seriousness.
He also, very early on, simply says that I don't agree with Luther. `I think there to be a certain power of free choice.' He goes on to state the problem as:
`By free choice in this place we mean a power of the human will by which a man can apply himself to the things which lead to eternal salvation, or turn away from them'.
Before embarking on the argument over this issue, Erasmus suggests that this is not something which should be discussed in an open forum. He also gives credit to the findings in the traditions of the church, and the heritage of an `unwritten gospel', not unlike the authority the Jews give to their Mishnah, Talmud, and Midrashic writings.
Erasmus main argument against Luther's statement of the problem (Luther agrees with Erasmus' restatement) is his trotting out a large number of scriptural passages from both the Old and New Testaments which he says supports the notion that there is no sense to `sin' unless people have the free will to avoid committing sin. He also addresses in some detail a few passages which are commonly cited to argue against free will, and he claims to show how these passages don't make the case against free will.
In both Erasmus tract and in Luther's reply, it is truly amazing to see the extent to which they make personal attacks on one another's positions. About a quarter of the way through Luther's work, we stops addressing Erasmus and begins, in a consistently sneering tone, addressing the female Diatribe, a short title of Erasmus work. My Latin dictionary does not have diatribe, so I don't know if it is a masculine, feminine, or neuter noun, but Luther certainly has a lot of sport with the gender.
Luther, I believe, actually argues against two different senses of `free will', and seems to not let on that he is doing so. Early in the book, when he is countering Erasmus' scriptural examples, his sense of `free will' is that absolutely nothing that a person can do is free of sin, unless they have the faith of grace. In some sense, it totally sidesteps Erasmus' point that people have a choice in what they do. Luther tacitly agrees they have a choice, but states that everything they choose will be sinful, because everything they do will arise from their sinful nature borne of the flesh. On the other hand, I believe Luther is correct in saying that Erasmus has not make his case that one's behavior contributes to their salvation. He even goes so far as to say that Erasmus has stated the evidence for Luther's case.
After Luther dismisses Erasmus' scriptural arguments, with quite a few attacks on Erasmus' metaphorical interpretations of statements (plain reading of scripture is one of Luther's themes throughout his career), plus attacks on Erasmus' hero, Jerome, Luther seems to switch gears and provide evidence for the sense of `free will' which is denied by God's omniscience. St. Paul is famous for this argument, primarily in Romans and Ephesians. The argument is simplicity itself, which makes its absence in Luther's earlier discussion all the more evident. If there is an omniscient God, then He will know everything which will happen in the future, meaning that there is nothing that humans can do by their will to choose to differently than what God foreknows.
It is also convenient that Luther postpones elucidating this position until after he dispatches Erasmus' argument on discussing this issue openly. The inescapable consequence of this position, which Luther does not shirk, is that the image of God presented in the introduction to Job is entirely correct. God saves or damns people entirely based on his own reasons, which are a complete mystery to us. Our proper response is to praise his greatness as our LORD.
Just as Erasmus may not make his case, it is believed that Luther also did not effectively address Erasmus' points. One may leave the discussion feeling this was a tempest in a teapot, but it was not. In 1785, 260 years after Luther's work, Immanuel Kant opened his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals with the statement 'It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will.' From this, virtually straight out of Luther, Kant adduces his categorical imperative, one of the most durable criteria for judging moral statements.

Of all the many, "heavy" books I've read over my academic and career life, this book still stands out from them all. It is ponderous, profound, deeply careful in reasoning, analysis, and citation, and well worthwhile of all the effort devoted to comprehend it. It is the master in refuting the self-contradictory notions of pelagianism and semi-pelagianism, because -- apart from Scripture itself -- it is the finest and last word on the completely corrupting effect of original sin.

After working your way through this treatise, you may want to read something light for a breather; but you will forever be glad and rewarded that you undertook the task. Finest book I've ever read.

This is the classic text refuting the false notion that human beings have free will. I won't go into the argument in this review, because I do believe humans have free choice, which is different than free will. Our choices are bounded by our humanity and environment.
This book takes some work to get through before you get to his argument about the will being in bondage. Much of this is a refutation of the work of Erasmus, who argued along with Pelagius that humans do have free will. No one could dispute like Luther! Some of his words sound rather uncivil to us, but are definitely the man and his times.
If you are looking for a more accessible book on this topic for modern north American readers, check out "Willing to Believe" by R. C. Sproul. For a more thoughtful reading on the topic than Luther, John Calvin in his "Institutes of the Christian Religion" writes about this topic.
This review is of the kindle version.

this is the doctrine which, said luther, all else turns. This was luther's finest diatribe (he said he thought more clearly in a state of anger). luther fought tooth and nail with rome's representative, disiderus erasmus. These two historical giants go toe to toe and Scripture to Scripture, as luther maintained that free will "was a fiction without a name." The bondage of the will is the cornerstone of reformation theology and should be read by all christians who wonder why luther and calvin fought so hard for it.

There are few books which written over 400 years ago are still applicable today; Martin Luther's masterpiece, The Boncage of the Will, is one of those books. Anyone desiring to know more about the root of dissent between Luther and the Catholic Church must read this book.
In his treatise Luther systematically demolishes Erasmus' arguments in favor of free-will. Luther brilliantly illustrates why the will is in total and complete bondage and enslavement to sin, and why free-will is a completely meaningless term. Luther argues that the only thing the will is free to do is to sin and rebel against God.
Luther shows that salvation is totally dependent on the grace of God and His sovereign Will. To say that even a small part of the human will can prepare itself to receive God's grace is an utterly ludricous sentiment. Erasmus believes that a human being by a very small effort can earn God's grace. Luther totally destroys this view and shows that to espouse such a view makes one worse than the Pelagians, who held that it took numerous great works to earn God's grace.
This book is as applicable today as it was when Luther first wrote this book. When so many Protestant Churches hold to a soteriological view more akin to that of Erasmus, it is absolutely vital that the truth of the Reformation be brought back into the spotlight. Read this book to gain a greater understanding of the major area of disagreement among the Reformers and the Catholic Church of the time, and also to understand that our salvation is not predicated on any meritorious work that we accomplish, but simply on the grace of God.

In this masterpiece, Luther does not merely explicate those Scriptures teaching unconditional election, but he also makes the crucial distinction between God's hidden will, which we are forbidden to pry into, and his will to save all, revealed to us in the proclamation of the good news of Christ's death for the sins of the world.

Luther struck at the root of the uncertainty of Erasmus concerning election: the latter scholar saw Scripture as unclear, with some passages favoring election and others favoring free will. In fact, a section on Scripture's perspicuity undermines Calvinists' appeals to the book for support. For in it, Luther put the Reformed "heretics" in the same category as the Arians and the likes of Erasmus: each of the three groups respectively read figures of speech into Scripture instead of believing what it said about the Real Presence, the full deity of Christ, or the total depravity of man. (My "Comment" clarifies this.)

Having read Sproul, Graham, Lewis, and others, I think that Luther has yet to be succeeded as the greatest post-first century theologian, with Edwards as a close second. He quickly dismantles the same arguments used over and over again by libertarian advocates without relying solely on scripture. You'd think that they would get a clue that their (to be honest) arrogance would be obliterated by God's holiness in how He says this life is gonna be. But it's sad that works (no matter how good they are) have to be written to show our foolishness (I've been in that boat before).

A must have resource for the serious student of theology on the topic of free will and predestination - two of the most perplexing questions of the Christian faith. This is a collection of responses from Martin Luther to objections raised to his views on the topic. The objections that were raised then are raised now and will be to the end of time. Read Luther's response and search the scriptures yourself to find the truth.

"The Bondage of the Will" is one of Luther's most famous works, Next to his Small Catechism, which is the more important of the two, in that Luther's Small Catechism, is a confessional document for Lutheran's and is also a positive presentation of Luther's theology free from the polemics of the Bondage of the Will. However, The Bondage of the Will is well worth reading for an understanding of Luther's theology.
"The Bondage of the Will" is also perhaps one of the most abused of Luther's writings. Calvinists like to think it makes their argument for them, which I suspect is the reason J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston made this edition available. A good corrective to the Calvinist interpretation would be Uuras Saarnivaara's "Luther Discovers the Gospel." Luther Discovers The Gospel - New Light Upon Luther's Way From Medieval Catholicism To Evangelical Faith
It may come as a surprise but often even Lutheran pastors are guilty of not reading the work. We don't subscribe as Lutheran's to every jot and tittle he ever wrote, is the mantra. True enough, yet reading the Bondage of the Will is well worth anyone's time, especially a pastors, and might could be read every year or so, especially when living in the Arminian backwater that is America.
Luther does indeed argue against the freedom of the will, and for election /predestination in the Bondage of the Will. However, he also emphasizes both a universal damnation and a Universal Atonement. He argues for a distinction between the God preached, or revealed, and the God hidden, and the means of Grace in bringing about election.
In the end, the book might be harder on the position of Arminius shared by Erasmus, but it does not make the case for 5 point Calvinism or even double predestination that you often hear Calvinists saying it does.
The preached or revealed God, Luther argues, is God as he wishes to be known, and in the end the only God that can be known. The hidden God is beyond the grasp of man, we really cannot know him in this manner, but he tends to be the God we speculate about trying to use logic to resolve paradoxes and mysteries that will in the end not be resolved. Rather than speculating, Luther would have one look to the cross where God reveals himself in the salvation of man. It is here that God wishes to be known.
We thank J.I packer and O.R. Johnston for translating the complete book and making it available to the general public. Often you only find excerpts from the book. It is a very readable translation of the original. It perhaps could have used a better topical index.

'De Servo Arbitrio'' is the epic battle between the Dutch Desiderius Erasmus and Martin Luther. In this book the great reformer replies to Desiderius' ''On Free Will'' and goes pretty hard on it. I'm gonna have to be honest and say that I didn't get much about it; I'm definitely gonna have to read it again.
I really enjoyed the way Luther delivers his points and how passionate the man was about the truth. Sola Fides, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura!

This book is a "must-read" for the growing Christian. It lays out the basis of our salvation and our faith in Christ.
However, it is probably not a book to read while lying by the pool. You must spend extra time reading it in ordert to comprehend the author's (and translator's) meaning. It's the type of book that's easy to get frustrated with and simply put down.

If you only have the time and/or inclination to read one book on Reformation theology, this is the book to choose. Luther hits the major topics through his discussion of a key issue and manages to speak derisively about his opponents at the same time. This is no dry theology text--not at all. Luther's prose drips with subtle sarcasm and wit--and he expounds his topic simultaneously.

This classic refutation of what is alternately called "Arminianism" or "Pelagianism" is as powerful today as when Martin Luther wrote it almost 500 years ago. Written in response to the self defeating arguments of the "learned" D. Erasmus of Rotterdam, this book treats the extensive and amorphous arguments of those who claim Christian salvation is the result of human choice, or freedom within self-willpower to do good and choose righteousness over evil. Luther systematically disassembles and unmasks Erasmus' reasoning to show it bare to the world for what it is; a heap of condradictions and rhetorical spin. Seasoned with a type of humor and force of personality unique to Luther, The Bondage of the Will invincibly forces the reader to think logically on the subject. I would highly recommend this work to anyone sincerely searching for an understanding of this difficult and often ill-treated subject.

although i disagree with some of his theology, i applaud the man. he may have misunderstood man's relation to God- the compatibility of man's limited free will and God's absolute sovereignty. however, in doing so, he merely sought to establish the sovereignty of God against the prevailing and disturbing trends of the church. luther's bondage to God and His word alone against the church's excesses is laudable. his palpable wit and his love for God always provide pleasurable reading. martin luther was clearly a doer, a man of integrity with a strong correlation of thought, word, and deed.

Because this book is several hundred years old I won't be a critic of the material. It is a classic and something everyone should read who wants to have a greater respect for where the church has been and how far it has come. That being said, I think there could have been a better way to organize the original material to make it more accessable in ebook format. I lost my place once and almost never found my way back to where I had been. This was the most difficult to navigate ebook I have bought.

Luther comprehensivly destroys every argument in favor of the existence of free will. There is no argument he has not anticipated and demonstrated to be false. He bases his discussion firmly in the Bible, and uses logic to derive his message. I am wary of this, being ever mindful that reason and logic are opposed to faith, are of the fleshly world instead of the spiritual, and are therefore Satan's tools. It is a difficult lesson to absorb, that our salvation is wholly at God's pleasure - as is our damnation. This poses the subsequent, inevitable question of "why then was Mankind created at all?" Luther addresses this point by stating that it cannot be addressed; that God has not chosen to reveal it. He misses his own line of argument here, the point of his entire treatise - we are are because it pleases God for us to be here! For this oversight only do I not give this book 5 stars.
There is a second point that he makes in this book that is almost overlooked, but needs to be proclaimed loudly throughout the world. When I am wrestling with Scriptural texts, discussing them, debating them and trying to understand their import in today's world, I take great comfort in Luther's point that Scripture is not complex; the Scriptures are simple, and clear. It is only mankind who makes it difficult. Being made conscious that I have not been wrestling with the Scriptures, but am wrestling with myself, is instantly relieving and refreshing. Perhaps with that guidance the ecumenical movements could accomplish their missions.

Before reading Luther's Bondage of the Will, I genuinely believed in, and defended the notion of, human free will. After reading his book, I asked myself where on earth I had gotten such an absurd idea.

Luther systematically demolishes any notion of human freedom using both scripture and plain logic, and what's more, he's totally hillarious.

I decided to also investigate what other theologians had to say on the subject, so I purchased (among other books), Norm Geisler's Chosen but Free. I was stunned to find that virtually all of Geisler's arguments in favor of human freedom had already been wholly obliterated 500 years earlier by the Father of the Reformation.

This book literally transformed the way I think, and I have never had a higher view of God than I do now, thanks to God's work through it's author.

a very good read indeed. and a lot of truth. but Luther (and Calvin later) went coo coo for cocoa puffs on many of the points. Bondage of the Will is a theological invention and a very insiduous heresy. not known or taught in Scripture. just drawn recklessly from by certain weak inferences from Scripture. confusing "man's nature" with "man's will" too much.

"Bondage Of The Will" by Martin Luther (the Bible corrector and slicer. he didn't like the books of James, Hebrews, and Revelation very much, so he'd rather they be cut out, like Juhadi's pen knife. and he unlawfully added the word "alone" to Romans "by faith", where "alone" is found in NO Greek New Testament in the book of Romans, in the history of manuscript evidence.

ok. well Hyper-Calvinists love and swear by Luther's book on supposed "bondage of the will. in favor of a non-Scriptural heresy. what about Paul's words "when I WISH OR WILL to do right, what is bad is present"??? obviously there was difference between the "will" and the "inner nature".

and 'vessels of wrath' and Luther's shallow reading of Romans 9. Pharaoh was made that way AFTER he was showing hardened resistance to God and His people. not before Genesis 1:1 in some philosophical "eternal decree". by the way, you're disagreeing with most Methodists and even many Baptists, who reject hyper-Calvinism and "eternal decrees" and "irresistible grace" and "unconditional election". that's a non-Scriptural heresy taught by Calvin. based on his misunderstandings of Ephesians 1:4 etc.

we may grant that a man is "dead in trespasses and sins" and dead spiritually. and needs to be "regenerated". But to say that this is true that therefore man has no free will is non-Scriptural blasphemy contrary to the Word of God, no matter WHO professes to believe it. the teaching that "depravity" extends to all of the WILL, and therefore is "total" is what is called a Bible-rejecting un-Scriptural Satanic heresy. ther term "freewill" is a Bible term. the expression "unconditional election" and "irresistible grace" and "sovereign grace" are nowhere to be found in the Word of God. nor their precise notions. the word "freewill" is found in Ezra 7:13. Ezra 7:16. we find offerings "willingly offered" too. by people in the "Old Testament" who were not even "born again" or "chosen in Christ". and they were all "dead in trespasses and sins". yet they were still responsible for pleasing God and acting of their own free will, and they had a free will. the doctrine of "total depravity" in the Calvinistic "includes the will" sense is not to be countenanced by the serious student of the Word of God. John 3:36 says "the wrath of God abideth upon" the one who has not believed on the Son of God. Meaning that God's wrath is not there ONCE a person truly believes and obeys the Son of God. so if a person is "pre-elected before Genesis 1:1" then why was God's wrath "residing" on him before that? that's not a way to treat the "elect." Do you think that the Lord would pour out His wrath on an unsaved man when the unsaved man could do nothing about his condition?

One question that Calvin and hyper-Calvinists (and even fans of Luther's books) could never really face and discuss and still can't is how an unsaved man can be responsible for something he is unable to do and be held accountable for something he could not have done if he had tried. Calvin's "god" was not playing with a full deck. his theological docrinal "god".

Calvin confused "foreknowledge" with a hyper-predistination. God predistines CLASSES of individuals, not necessarily every single peron or every single person's acts. that would make God the biggest rapist in the universe. cuz He then created humans to rape and pillage and murder and steal. as "eternal decrees".

the Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9). Did Peter or the Holy Spirit lie?

Now to Pharaoh and "vessels of destruction".

Romans 9:17,18. to show my power in the earth. did you ever read Exodus to see what that was actually about and how it applied and at what point??? John Calvin didn't. He just took for granted that God hardened the nonelect and saved the elect and that was the end of it. rather stupid way to do exegesis. God had foreknowledge that Egypt would not let the Israelites go. Exodus 3. read it. election is based on FOREKNOWLEDGE. not some arbitrary thing on God's part.

What is the context of Romans 9:21?? Hath not the potter power over the clay? there is no "clay" before Genesis 1:1. what is the context? THE VESSEL IS ALREADY THERE. God saw that Pharaoh ALREADY hardened his heart, and God allowed it, and thereby continued in that sense "hardening it" for a purpose.

22: Vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. what fitted them for destruction??? well the "wrath" of God abides on those who ultimately don't believe in Christ. it's based on a person's own selfish will and choices. not some eternal "decree of reprobation."

I am not a Calvinist. which is the equivalent of saying that I'm not ready for the looney bin.

In Calvin's and even in Luther's system, the ones who are elected to damnation couldn't be saved and couldn't believe even if they wanted to. and not one drop of Christ's blood was shed for that person. according to Calvin. no "straw dummy" is being built. that's what he taught. I have his books.

Romans 9:16, "So then it is not of him that willeth..." willeth what?? Calvin never found out what the what was. "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy...I will have compassion...." but that's not referring to an unsaved sinner receiving Christ. and by free will. as I said, "freewill" is a Bible term and idea. (Ezra 7:13; 7:15; 7:16; Exodus 35:21; 35:5; and 35:29)

and in the "Old Testament" none of them was born again or "in Christ" and yet they still could choose right or wrong, in that dispensation.

Romans 9:16, "So then it is not of him that willeth...." THAT WILLETH WHAT?? a man cannot by act of will make God have mercy on him or make God have compassion on him. that's what that is specifically saying. that's not saying "well man has no free will in anything." If you want mercy from the Almighty and compassion you are going to have to come HIS way, not your own way. that's fairly clear from the text, if a man could read it all carefully. in other words, you can't make up in your own mind how to be saved or right with God, but it's HIS way. it can't be like "ok, I am determined by my own act of will that God will have mercy on me." it can't be done that way. it is of God. But Calvin and hyper-Calvinists for some oddball reason believe that that verse denies the free will of man in receiving Christ, when that specific thing was not even under discussion those verses.

someone might say "Well at Calvary the Lord has mercy on a man and a man receives compassion, at Calvary." Sure, well that's the point isn't it. The point is that, if you want God to have mercy and compassion upon you, you can't just will His mercy upon you, on a whim; you have to obey God's will. And the Scriptures say that God has determined that He will have mercy and compassion on no man but a man who ultimately receives His and Messiah, as his Saviour and King.

anyway, I wrote enough on this topic for now. Luther's book had some merits, but more errors and distortions than anything truly valid. though most of the reviewers on this ting rave. lol. but I only mentioned "JWs are not Calvinists" before, IN PASSING. I am not angry with you. I just disagree with you and your hyper-Calvinism. and with your mis-application of Scripture, and mis-contextualization of things.

Late in his life, Luther commented that of all he had written, there were only two works which did not need revision: his children's catechism and his Bondage of the Will. This is Luther at his best, systematically debunking the great Erasmus' arguments for the freedom of the human will. It is a must read for those struggling with the sovereignty of God and the freedom of the will. The introduction by Packer and Johnson alone is worth the price of the book.

This is one of the best and most important books ever written. In this book Luther explodes the myth of human freedom, and shows from scripture that our wills our bound to our fallen nature until our hearts are changed by God's work in our lives.
This book is important and Informative both as a theological work, and as a part of the history of the Reformation.

"De servo arbitrio" is the original title of this Martin Luther's masterpiece. In it, the Reformer explains his theology concerning the limits of man's will before God, differing it from those which preached the full free will or the absence of any possibility of free will. It is a key book for all those who are interested in studying the matters referred to free will and predestination.

Luther considered this, de servio arbitrio one of his greatest works but as another reviewer suggests, it is certainly not the last word on the issue of predestination. Still, as a great lover of Luther's writings, this work is elegant and easy to read with its common touch, although not containing as much of Luther's earthy wit as other pieces. A good place to start when trying to understand the relationship of foreknowledge and freewill but not the last word.

This book contained some good arguments for the bondage of the will, but Luther clothed these arguments in such poisonous, sarcastic invective for Erasmus that it turned me off to Luther's way of thinking. This wouldn't have disturbed me so much had I thought Luther was right, but in my view he's a little off the mark. His treatment of the gospel inferences that point to some kind of *personal* responsibility or liability in faith wasn't very strenuous. This is a good book, worth the read for perspective and insight, but at the same time I would not, unlike some orthodox Lutherans, put this book on a similar par with the Bible.

Today the most of the luterans are free will belivers and are ecumenical with Rome(like in the ecumenical declaration of justification), this book destruct this fragile thinking, you will be back to the born of luteran mind, and discover that lutero is with calvino on the bondage of will, and have another gift : the translator is Dr.J.I Packer, this make a trustworthy translation. You will didn't regret.

As always, Luther's viewpoints are well-thought-out, and although his attacks on Erasmus are very forceful, the ideas he was defending are of the utmost importance. I definitely reccomend this book to anyone interested in Reformed doctrine.

Just a heads up: This translation is one of (atleast) 2 different translations of Martin Luther's work. Both Translations (this one and the one by Packer & Johnston) somehow are sharing the same reviews. I haven't read either myself, but lot of people are saying that this one was hurried, and not done thoroughly or clearly, and the Packer & Johnston is better, and unbiased (not by a Lutheran)....

Having read this book before, I can say confidently that it is a great read and should be in every theological library. That said, this edition of it is horrible. The pages are about 10 x 6 inches and the text is in about an 8 point font. There are so many lines of words packed onto a single page it makes it difficult to go from the right side of the page to the left and pick up the right line.

This is an excellent translation of a masterpiece. I am very impressed by the readability of this translation of such an important classic. I highly recommend this work to all Christians, but this particular translation was well done.

As always, Luther's viewpoints are well-thought-out, and although his attacks on Erasmus are very forceful, the ideas he was defending are of the utmost importance. I definitely reccomend this book to anyone interested in Reformed doctrine.

Just a heads up: This translation is one of (atleast) 2 different translations of Martin Luther's work. Both Translations (this one and the one by Packer & Johnston) somehow are sharing the same reviews. I haven't read either myself, but lot of people are saying that this one was hurried, and not done thoroughly or clearly, and the Packer & Johnston is better, and unbiased (not by a Lutheran)....

Having read this book before, I can say confidently that it is a great read and should be in every theological library. That said, this edition of it is horrible. The pages are about 10 x 6 inches and the text is in about an 8 point font. There are so many lines of words packed onto a single page it makes it difficult to go from the right side of the page to the left and pick up the right line.

This is an excellent translation of a masterpiece. I am very impressed by the readability of this translation of such an important classic. I highly recommend this work to all Christians, but this particular translation was well done.

The authors have done a commendable job of bringing the debate between two of the Reformation's prime leaders into the modern forum. I appreciate the easily-read type-setting and general formatting of this book.

Isa 63:17 O LORD, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine inheritance.

One of my unchurched friends and staunch atheists insists that life is about answering questions before you die. The Bondage of The Will is the answer to all of Erasmus' and his life's questions. And it is not like a box of chocolates.

1) There is predestination.
2) There is begging the question.
3) There is being predestined to beg the question.

This is an absolutely great book which will help you submit your will to the will of Christ. Often, in the me-me-me culture of America, we try to exert our will over that of the explicitly stated will of Christ as found in the Bible. We need to change as a nation and submit to the will of Christ as a nation.

Many reviewers here have given this book rave reviews, believing Luther annihilated Erasmus in this controversy. What is not widely known is that Erasmus wrote a massive two-volume rejoinder titled "Hyperaspistes" (in Erasmus' Works, volumes 76 and 77)

Later note: here is the link to a book that includes discussion of Erasmus' rejoinders:

http://www.the store.com/Erasmus-Luther-Battle-Hackett-Classics/dp/160384547X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1428439779&sr=1-1&keywords=erasmus+and+luther

Both volumes are available on the store.

Being raised a Protestant I was taught to admire Luther for bringing us out of the darkness of Catholicism in the Middle Ages. But reading this book has made me wonder whether he was right at all. His "response" to Erasmus' claim about the scriptures not being as clear as Luther made them to be(Erasmus basically said "how can they be totally clear if people have been debating this topic for so long") was simply to say that the scriptures are clear and that Erasmus was blinded by sin for not believing it so. In addition, Luther's treatment for Matthew 23 (Jesus weeping over Jerusalem and saying how he longed to gather them) is in the same style of argumentation. Instead of reading the plain meaning (i.e. Jesus wanting to gather them to himself and be their messiah) Luther goes on a tangent saying that we should stand in awe of a God who weeps over the people He dooms to destruction! If that isn't forcing one's theology on the text without consideration to what the Bible is actually saying, I don't know what is! Moreover, Luther is condesending and spiteful throughout the text. His absolutely venomous language is a big turn off in my opinion. If his position magnifies grace so much, why doesn't he practice it?

After already learning that Luther opposed the early Anabaptists call to the Church to return to the Sermon on the Mount, and that he supported persecution of the same Anabaptists & of the Jews- whom he hated immensely- I found out that this great paragon of the Reformation also supported a determinism not unlike that of Manichaeism. I've read an abridged version of this treatise as part of a larger collection of Luther's works. I have "no choice", you might say, but to side with the Bible: Duet: 30:19 " I call Heaven and Earth to witness against you today: I place before you Life and Death, Blessing and Curse. Choose life so that you and your children will live."
In other words...the bible itself uses the language of "choice" and I will CONTINUE to use it also!
Folks, the only perfect, "irrefutable" theology ever written is still the Bible. OR you believe in a different God than I do!
At the same time, not believing in "free will" is no sign of Godliness, as there are plenty of godless philosophers out there who are going to hell and don't believe in it either! Conversely, John Wesley & Jacob Arminius did teach the will was in bondage and had to be enabled by grace for us to believe. (Please read "The Transforming Power of Grace" by Thomas Oden for the straight story on this!)
I'm amazed at the 5-star reviews on this monstrosity of Forensic Christendom! One person says those who disagree are "Catholic" in their view of this controversy. In fact, what we call the "Arminian" view is simply what was believed by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, and most of the church fathers BEFORE the rise of Roman Catholicism, the Pelagian/Augustinian controversy, etc. What happened to the church after Augustine? We sold our birthright as peacemakers for a mass of pottage and as a result endured centuries of untold persecution, war, and hatred among Christians. And when the Reformation finally came about, was the results finally a return for Christians to the Acts 2 model of spirit-driven love, peaceable living and sharing with the least of these? No. It was more bloodshed, more persecution, more "lording it over others" in violation of Matt 20:25-28; 23:1-12. Ask any South African who remembers Apartheid what the wonderful fruits of Calvinism were for them!
(Incidentally, if you doubt what I say about the pacifism of the early church read "Christian Attitudes Towards War & Peace" by Roland H. Bainton- a Lutheran historian!)
Bottom line: what Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc. taught was less "Christianity" then "Christendom", and their views reflect the broad acceptance of the Christ/Caesar dichotomy that had infested the Church. It is out of this background that their views on the Sovereignty of God were formed. That speaks for itself.
(Although it should be noted- and I have done so elsewhere- that the Catholic Church has argued that Augustine was misrepresented by Calvin. I think they may be right. See my review of Horton's "Putting Amazing Back Into Grace" on this website for my reference in support of this.)
But anyone who wishes to know how God operates in his sovereignty & salvation, look at the Old Testament. God delivers Israel from bondage by his grace, not of their own merits. And yet- obedience was demanded. The people who bit the dust when the earth opened and swallowed them found out just how "sovereign" God is! (But I thought it was "once saved always saved!") At the same time, there were those not originally children of Abraham- Egyptians in fact, who were standing next to Jews when the Sinai covenant was given. And later on we read that Ruth- a Moabite- was part of Christ's lineage- even though Deut 23:3 plainly states that a Moabite will never enter the assembly. So one can be delivered by God and yet still disobey and be swallowed up in the bowels of the earth. Paradoxically, one can be apart form the "chosen" and enter in. That's TRUE sovereign grace, and all of it is brilliantly explained by Paul in Romans 11:17-32, which I believe he wrote to stem Calvinistic interpretations of Romans 8-9.
Incidentally- isn't it quite odd that followers of the Magisterial Reformation think their doctrine is such a boon to those struggling to get away from legalism? And yet, look at the "legalism" or "lording it over others" of the Dutch Reformed in South Africa- or the Puritans in America- or Calvin in Geneva. Matt 7:15-21 comes to mind here. The pundits of Reformed tradition need not parade about as if they are the ones who have a corner on "Grace" -if they do not practice it! This is where the oft-repeated Calvinist saw falls down- the notion that only seeing salvation in the hyper deterministic sense as they do is a guarantee of fostering true Christian humility. Humility has not been seen in the oppression of South African blacks, or the persecution of Quakers & Native Americans of New England Puritanism. But if lack of humility is a concern, we would advise you with James: "Draw near to God and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you men of double mind" (Jas 4:8) At the same time, Jesus himself obliterated the dichotomy between humility and personal responsibility, giving no ground on either truth (Lk 17:7-10).
I have a suggestion: since Calvinists and other Determinists harp on creeds and councils...as if they are anything compared to the Bible...let's get together and hold a council to declare Bonhoeffer the new head of the Lutheran church and give Martin Luther's mantle of greatness to that great African-American leader with almost the same name. Either of them were certainly more Biblical, as demonstrated by their fruits of love for the poor and oppressed, and by what their respective posterity has brought about.
By the way, with the voluminous references to the poor and suffering throughout the Bible, why weren't these things resonating in Luther & Calvin's theology? Where is God's heart for social justice in the Magisterial Reformation? What would their teachings look like if it had reflected these things?
As far as Mr. Luther and his arguments goes...I oppose his views on Predestination for the same reason I oppose him on communion, infant baptism (did you know he said "the Catholic Church has true baptism"?), the Jews, and a host of other issues. And part of his thesis stands refuted- that anyone who disagrees with him is not a true Christian- by the unfolding of history itself. Not only from the issue of humility as just mentioned, but God has poured out his Spirit among Methodists, Quakers, Mennonites Pentecostals, even Roman Catholics, so that each of these groups may say with Christ and to Luther: "Anyone not against us is for us" (Mk9:40) and with Paul: "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls" (Ro 14:4)
I take these stands not because I possess the intellectual acumen to overthrow the arguments of Luther and others like him- (do you have the wherewithal to oppose Karl Barth?) but because my estimation of the Scriptures and the Spirit of God behind them compels me to disagree. More recently, thanks to the work of Sanders, Dunn, Wright & a host of others, we now know that Luther was wrong in his equation of Paul's struggle with the law with his own struggle with Catholicism. More than enough for me to kick Calvinist theology to the curb.

We've always heard great things about those "radicals" of the 16th century that began the movement known as the "Reformation". Wasn't that where the Catholic church got told to shove it, and we all got the rights to read our Bibles for ourselves, go to church wherever we please and not have to have a mediator to confess our sins to? Well, not quite. Seems as if a certain belief known as "determinism", wherein God has already chosen who goes to heaven & who goes to hell, tended to permeate the minds of this "Reformation's" most well-known thinkers.
To talk to today's' followers of that doctrine, you'd never know the Reformation was ever about our personal conscience or direct relationship with God. These modern-day zealot's wish to run anyone out of the church, or brand them as not "evangelical" if we disagree with them even the slightest regarding predestination & free-will. Why don't they just sent up an alternate "Pope" who can enforce their doctrines & get rid of the dissenters & get it over with?
Actually, that's sort of what Luther & Calvin did. A certain group of those who believed in following Christ, known as "Anabaptists" (later known as Mennonites), tended to object to the fact that even though we had broken away from the church, there was still the same communion, infant baptism & church/state footsy being played as before. They rose up & provided an alternate body for those who believed Christ was the only foundation (I Cor. 3:11)- as opposed to Pauline justification, which was Luther's foundation. Luther & Calvin tried to crush this movement, which was what the Reformation SHOULD have been about. They failed. We're still here.
To be fair to Luther, he would have stood closer to today's Arminians than most hardcore Calvinists. His legacy rejects "double-predestination" and even those closer to him on election & depravity believe a Christian can lose his/her salvation. That was, by the way what Luther believed- that a Christian would be lost if one ever stopped trusting in the grace of God for salvation & started trusting themselves- that's a limited "conditional security", but it is conditional nonetheless. And yet, many would deride those in the "Arminian" camp for being at least as realistic about this as Luther.
Isn't it interesting...between those two groups (Lutheran & Reformed) which one's posterity overal committed the WORST inhuman crimes against humanity in history? The one with the stiffer view on determinism! Coincidence?
Find out the truth by reading some alternate histories of the Reformation. Look for books on Anabaptist & Mennonites by Cornelius Dyck. Look for books by Carl Bangs on Arminianism. Look for the book "Luther: The Christian Between God and Death" by Richard Marius, & Harry J. McSorely's rebuttal of "Bondage of the Will" entitled "Luther Right or Wrong?" Get Thomas Oden's "Transforming Power of Grace" for the history of some things R.C. Sproul doesn't WANT you to know about. Get informed, and resist the current attempt to roll back the freedoms we gained in the Reformation by making us knuckle under to their teachings on determinism. "On Christ the Solid Rock we stand...all other ground is sinking sand."

the idea that man does not have free will is probably the biggest heresy in history of christianty. More over Luther writes the only sinner is God. And that is logic if we let Martin Luther to annihilate our free will. Than Hitler , Stalin ... are innocent . Let me ask you some - why Jesus Christe died on the cross ? - if God is responsible for any evil (orginal sin ) in this world .

p.s. I recommend not translated works of Luther , especialy English versions , but orginal ones. There is similar situation with Talmud , which many Americans excites usually in English translation that often are not translated properly for obvious reasons..... In German version you can get know such revelations ( for example ) as the First Son of God is Devil . I'm not kidding. I'm pretty sure that many protestant educated ministers have never read all Luther's works , not to mention about a critical complete edition of all writings of Martin Luther and his verbal statements, in Latin and German.

i don't have a review, I just want to say Luther was a heretic! because of him there are about 30,000 different sects of christianity. Jesus founded one church in the year 33 the Catholic Church . The world was Catholic until the reformation. Jesus said, Upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it! One church not 30,000!