The Bondage of the Will

Section 11: Objection to the term "necessity" admitted: absurdity of the distinction between necessity of a consequence and of a consquent

By Martin Luther

I could have wished indeed, that another and a better word had been introduced into our disputation than this usual one, 'Necessity' — which is not rightly applied to the will of either God or man. It has too harsh and incongruous a meaning for this occasion. It suggests to the mind the notion of something like compulsion, and what is at least the opposite of willingness. Our question, meanwhile, implies no such thing. For both the will of God and of man, does what it does, whether good or bad, without compulsion, by means of mere good pleasure or desire, as with perfect freedom. The will of God, nevertheless, is immutable and infallible, and governs our mutable will — as Boethius sings, 'and standing fixed, mov'st all the rest' — and our will, wicked in the extreme, can do nothing good of itself. Let the understanding of my reader, then, supply what the word 'necessity' does not express. Apprehend by it, what you might choose to call the immutability of God's will, and the impotency of our evil will: what some have called 'a necessity of immutability' — though not very grammatically or theologically.

The Sophists, who had laboured this point for years, have at length been mastered, and are compelled to admit that all events are necessary; but it is by the necessity of a consequence, as they put it, and not by the necessity of a consequent.

Thus they have eluded the violence of this question, but it is by much more illuding themselves. I will take the trouble of showing you what a mere nothing this distinction of theirs is. By necessity of a consequence (to speak as these thick-headed people do) they mean that, if God wills a thing, the thing itself must be. But it is not necessary that the very thing which is, should be. For only God exists necessarily; all other things may cease to be, if God pleases. Thus, they say that the act of God is necessary if he wills a thing, but the very thing produced is not necessary. Now what do they get by this play on words? Why, I suppose this: the thing produced is not necessary; that is, it does not have a necessary existence. This is no more than saying that the thing produced is not God himself. Still, the truth remains, that every event is necessary if it is a necessary act of God, or a necessary consequence. However, it may not exist necessarily, now that it is effected; that is, it may not be God, or may not have a necessary existence. For, if I am made of necessity, then it is of little moment to me that my being or making is mutable. Still, I — this contingent and mutable thing, who am not the necessary God — am made. So that their foolery (that all events are necessary through a necessity of the consequence, but not through a necessity of the consequent) has no more in it than this: all events are necessary, it is true; but though necessary, they are not God himself. Now what need was there to tell us this, as if there was any danger of our asserting that the things made are God, or have a divine and necessary nature?

So sure and stedfast is the invincible aphorism, 'All things are brought to pass by the unchangeable will of God;' — what they call 'necessity of a consequence.' Nor is there any obscurity or ambiguity here. He says in Isaiah "My counsel shall stand" and my will shall be brought to pass. (Isa. 46.10) Is there any schoolboy who does not understand what is meant by these words 'counsel,' 'will,' 'brought to pass,' 'stand'?