Those who preach that man must "make a decision for Christ" invariably defend their teaching on the basis that man has "free will." Luther recognized this concept as a dangerous one. In his book, Bondage of the Will, Luther argues against such free will. In order to understand exactly what Luther was arguing against, one must understand how exactly free will is defined. Erasmus, whom Luther wrote Bondage of the Will to refute, defined free-will as "a power of the human will by which man may apply himself to those things which lead to eternal salvation, or turn away from the same" (Packer & Johnston, 48). It is this that Luther denies. While Erasmus leaned more towards the Semi-Pelagianism of Rome than he did towards what later would become the decision theology of Arminianism, it can be seen that both had one fundamental error in common. Both asserted that man indeed had free will, thus putting some of the responsibility for eternal salvation on man himself. Therefore, much of the arguments directed against Erasmus apply equally to those who teach decision theology. Both the Semi-Pelagianism of Erasmus and the decision theology of Arminius and his modern-day devotees deny man’s total inability to save himself and the sovereignty of Divine grace in salvation. Luther defended the pure teaching of Scripture; namely that man through sin has ceased to good. As Paul said in Romans, "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one" (Ro 3:10-12). Furthermore, man has no power to please God. He is unable to do anything but continue in sin. Therefore, man can, of himself, contribute nothing to his salvation. The salvation of man is wholly the work of God and to him belongs all the glory, praise and honor. The teaching of those who espouse decision theology deny the truth of Scripture and burden man with a load he is totally incapable of carrying.

Luther rightly claims that those who teach that man has free-will misunderstand the importance of knowing that God necessitates all things, that is that the things God wills are immutable. What God wills must take place. Luther says, "To lack this knowledge is really to be ignorant of God—and salvation is notoriously incompatible with such ignorance" (Packer & Johnston, 83). To not know, or not trust that God’s will is immutable and necessary endangers one’s faith. Again as Luther asked, "For if one hesitates to believe, or are too proud to acknowledge, that God foreknows and wills all things, not contingently, but necessarily and immutably, how can you believe, trust, and rely on His promises" (Packer & Johnston, 83-84). Luther further defends this point when he says, "Not only should be sure that God wills, and will execute His will, necessarily and immutably; we should glory in the fact as Paul does in Rom. 3 –‘Let God be true, but every man a liar’" (Packer & Johnston, 84). Luther sums up the danger of not knowing that God necessitates all things this way:

If, then, we are taught and believe that we ought to be ingorant

of the necessary foreknowledge of God and the necessity of

events, Christian faith is utterly destroyed, and the promises of

God and the whole gospel fall to the ground completely; for the

Christian’s chief and only comfort in every adversity lies in

knowing that God does not lie, but brings all things to pass

immutably, and that His will cannot be resisted, altered or

impeded. (Packer & Johnston, 84).

Assigning the term free-will to man, elevates man to being equal with God. Luther said, "It follows, therefore, that free-will is obviously a term applicable only to the Divine Majesty; for only He can do, and does (as the Psalmist sings) whatever he wills in heaven and on earth (Ps. 135:6). If free will is ascribed to men, it is ascribed with no more propriety than divinity itself would be—and no blasphemy could exceed that" (Packer & Johnston, 105). He further states that the term free-will is misleading when we apply it to mankind for "free-will without God’s grace is not free at all, but is the permanent prisoner and bondslave of evil" (Packer & Johnston, 104).

Luther does an excellent job of exposing the flaw of those who claim man has free will and yet claim that man cannot will good without grace. This is exactly the position of those who teach decision theology. They claim that God bestows on man prevenient grace and that man can choose to accept or reject this grace. "But if there were enough good in man to apply itself to good then man would have no need of grace" (Packer & Johnston, 145).

To prove their doctrine of free-will those who teach decision theology often cite Deuteronomy 30: 19, "This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live." They with Erasmus claim that these words would be inappropriate if man’s will were not free for good. In response Luther says, "The words quoted are imperative, and tell us merely what ought to be done. Moses does not say: ‘you have the power and strength to choose’, but, ‘choose’, ‘keep’, ‘do’; he is conveying commandments to perform, not describing man’s ability" (Packer & Johnston, 145). If one was to examine this argument and accept that man indeed has a choice to choose good or evil then Christ’s work would be in vain.

Another argument, often expounded today for man having free-will, is that if man does not have free-will then a righteous God could not condemn him for not choosing to believe in him. They quote such passages as 1 Ti 2:3-4, "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." Luther’s argument against Erasmus using the words of Ezekiel, where God said, "I desire not the death of a sinner" (Ez 18:23), applies here too. Luther once again points out that this is the "sweetest voice of the gospel" (Packer & Johnston, 145). This is intended to provide consolation to sinners who are feeling godly sorrow over their sins. Luther argued:

If those Divine promises did not stand firm, to raise up

consciences tormented with a sense of sin and terrified

by fear of death and judgment, what place would there

be for pardon or for hope? What sinner would not sink

in despair? But as ‘free-will’ is not proved by any of

the other words of mercy or promise or comfort, so

neither is it proved by this: I desire not the death of a

sinner", etc. (Packer & Johnston, 167).

As Luther points out those who use these verses to justify free-will turn the gospel into law. They restate the 1 Timothy passage to read that God wants all men to stop sinning and be saved. "Nothing, therefore could be quoted in support of free-will’ less appropriately than this passage of Ezekiel; indeed it makes most strongly against ‘free-will’" (Packer & Johnston, 168). The same could be said of those who attempt to use the passage from Paul’s first letter to Timothy.

As to the question of why some are saved and others are condemned, Luther rightly says:

As to why some are touched by the law and others not,

so that some receive and others scorn the offer of grace,

that is another question which Ezekiel does not here discuss.

He speaks of the published offer of God’s mercy, not of the

dreadful hidden will of God, Who according to His own

counsel, ordains such persons as He wills to receive and

partake of the mercy preached and offered. This will is

not to be inquired into, but to be reverently adored, as by

far the most awesome secret of the Divine Majesty. (Packer