Luther considers free will (when defined as an ability in spiritual
matters or as a power independent of God) a mere word without anything
corresponding to it in reality (_figmentum in rebus seu titulus sine
re_, E.v.a. 5, 230), because natural will has powers only in matters
temporal and subject to reason, but none in spiritual things, and
because of itself and independently of God's omnipotence it has no power
whatever. We read: "Now it follows that free will is a title altogether
divine and cannot belong to any other being, save only divine majesty,
for He, as the Psalmist sings [Ps. 115, 3], can do and does all that He
wills in heaven and in earth. Now, when this title is ascribed to men,
it is so ascribed with no more right than if also divinity itself were
ascribed to them,--a sacrilege than which there is none greater.
Accordingly it was the duty of theologians to abstain from this word
when they intended to speak of human power, and to reserve it
exclusively for God, thereupon also to remove it from the mouth and
discourse of men, claiming it as a sacred and venerable title for their
God. And if they would at all ascribe some power to man, they should
have taught that it be called by some other name than 'free will,'
especially since we all know and see that the common people are
miserably deceived and led astray by this term, for by it they hear and
conceive something very far different from what theologians mean and
discuss. 'Free will' is too magnificent, extensive, and comprehensive a
term; by it common people understand (as also the import and nature of
the word require) a power which can freely turn to either side, and
neither yields nor is subject to any one," (E. 158; St. L. 1720.)
If the term "free will" be retained, it should, according to Luther, be
conceived of as a power, not in divine things, but only in matters
subject to human reason. We read: "So, then, according to Erasmus, free
will is the power of the will which is able of itself to will and not to
will the Word and work of God, whereby it is led to things which exceed
both its comprehension and perception. For if it is able to will and not
to will, it is able also to love and to hate. If it is able to love and
to hate, it is able also, in some small degree, to keep the Law and to
believe the Gospel. For if you will or do not will, a certain thing, it
is impossible that by that will you should not be able to do something
of the work, even though, when hindered by another, you cannot complete
it." (E. 191; St. L. 1759.) "If, then, we are not willing to abandon
this term altogether, which would be the safest and most pious course to
follow, let us at least teach men to use it in good faith (_bona fide_)
only in the sense that free will be conceded to man, with respect to
such matters only as are not superior, but inferior to himself, _i.e._,
man is to know that, with regard to his means and possessions, he has
the right of using, of doing, and of forbearing to do according to his
free will; although also even this is directed by the free will of God
alone whithersoever it pleases Him. But with respect to God, or in
things pertaining to salvation or damnation, he has no free will, but is
the captive, subject, and servant, either of the will of God or of the
will of Satan." (E. 160; St. L. 1722.) "Perhaps you might properly
attribute some will (_aliquod arbitrium_) to man, but to attribute free
will to him in divine things is too much, since in the judgment of all
who hear it the term 'free will' is properly applied to that which can
do and does with respect to God whatsoever it pleases, without being
hindered by any law or authority. You would not call a slave free who
acts under the authority of his master. With how much less propriety do
we call men or angels truly free, who, to say nothing of sin and death,
live under the most complete authority of God, unable to subsist for a
moment by their own power." (E. 189; St. L. 1756.)
Lost liberty, says Luther, is no liberty, just as lost health is no
health. We read: "When it has been conceded and settled that free will,
having lost its freedom, is compelled to serve sin, and has no power to
will anything good, I can conceive nothing else from these expressions
than that free will is an empty word, with the substance lost. My
grammar calls a lost liberty no liberty. But to attribute the title of
liberty to that which has no liberty is to attribute an empty name. If
here I go astray, let who can correct me; if my words are obscure and
ambiguous, let who can make them plain and definite. I cannot call
health that is lost health. If I should ascribe it to a sick man, I
believe to have ascribed to him nothing but an empty name. But away with
monstrous words! For who can tolerate that abuse of speech by which we
affirm that man has free will, and in the same breath assert that he,
having lost his liberty, is compelled to serve sin, and can will nothing
good? It conflicts with common sense, and utterly destroys the use of
speech. The _Diatribe_ is rather to be accused of blurting out its words
as if it were asleep, and giving no heed to those of others. It does not
consider, I say, what it means, and what it all includes, if I declare:
Man has lost his liberty, is compelled to serve sin, and has no power to
will anything good." (E. 200; St. L. 1769.)
Satan causes his captives to believe themselves free and happy. Luther:
"The Scriptures set before us a man who is not only bound, wretched,
captive, sick, dead, but who (through the operation of Satan, his
prince) adds this plague of blindness to his other plagues, that he
believes himself to be free, happy, unfettered, strong, healthy, alive.
For Satan knows that, if man were to realize his own misery, he would
not be able to retain any one in his kingdom, because God could not but
at once pity and help him who recognizes his misery and cries for
relief. For throughout all Scripture He is extolled and greatly praised
for being nigh unto the contrite in heart, as also Christ testifies,
Isaiah 61, 1. 2, that He has been sent to preach the Gospel to the poor
and to heal the broken-hearted. Accordingly, it is Satan's business to
keep his grip on men, lest they recognize their misery, but rather take
it for granted that they are able to do everything that is said." (E.
213; St. L. 1785.)