Talk:On the Bondage of the Will

Untitled

We could merge Luther’s View of The Holy Ghost (God) as a Rhetorician in Bondage of the Will with this article. drboisclair 21:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title of the page be the Latin title, with a redirect from the English? This is what has been done for Erasmus's De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio. I know this is English Wikipedia, but the book was written in Latin for scholarly purposes by a German-speaking man. In any case, I don't think that "Bondage of the Will" is a very good translation. James2c19v (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

IIRC the Wikipedia guidelines are to prefer the name used in the language of the Wiki over foreign names, unless the foreign name is used. So I think the Erasmus entry is the wrong one: but I don't see it is important enough to try to change it. In any case, the Latin names for the books are usually shorthanded even when quoted in latin (e.g. 'de copia' or 'de libero arbitrio') and the English often just translates the shortened name.

"(On) The Bondage of the Will" is the customary title in English, and it serves no purpose to invent a new one, and spread confusion. For the Erasmus book, there are two customary names "(On) The Freedom of the Will" or "On Free Will", unfortunately.

Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 13:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The article

This article would seriously need more information to be written in it as the book was one of Luther's major works. Historically, it ultimately separated Lutheranism from the other movements against the Catholic church. Theologically it is certainly one of the best Lutheran works on the subject matter. Unfortunately, my English skills as I am a Finn are not good enough for the job.--62.113.188.111 (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It really only mentions one aspect of the book. It ignores Luther's comments on assertion-making, that Erasmus could not actually be a Christian if he believes free will, or on Erasmus' argument that hundreds of passages of Scripture affirm free choice, or Erasmus' questioning how Luther can regard Scripture as clear when he has an interpretation that no-one in history except Wycliff had ever proposed, or Luther's surprising announcement that it is evil for people to try to be good! (The article on On Free Will is no better, yet, too.)

Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

English Translations section: Are there any prior to the 1950s?

The English Translations section lists three, from the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. I've been looking for earlier translations (and preferably the first English translation) but can't find any prior to these, not on Google Books, nor from other sources. If you know of an earlier such translation, please consider adding it to that section. Thanks! Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

There is one notable one: Henry Cole published his translation in 1823, which was revised and reprinted in 1931. This should be available in the Internet Archive or Christian Ethereal Classics.-Drboisclair (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Arguments of Erasmus

I have been tidying up the pages on Erasmus and On the Freedom of the Will.

I have adjusted the language of "Arguments of Erasmus": the previous wording (in particular the "merely") gave the idea that Erasmus was "semi-Pelagian" (i.e., that we make a choice on our own first, then God gives grace) which is back-to-front for the "synergism" he was actually promoting (i.e., that grace comes first, then we make the mere-est mustard-seed assent to what we were commanded, then grace takes over again: all we can do is not resist and get with the program, which is "not nothing".) See his famous analogy of the father and the child with apple: it is very clear.

(That some people conflate synergism and semi-Pelagianism, or that some theologians argue that the two are ultimately the same, is not the point here: the point is that we cannot say "Erasmus clearly says grace comes first, therefore he is a synergism-ist, therefore he is a semi-Pelagian, therefore we can write on the Wiki that he thought grace does not come first." IYSWIM)

(Please note that many commentaries on what Erasmus believed do not seem to have actually read him, or to have read enough of his other works to understand his mode of expression. Contrast with Luther, who had read Erasmus a lot: he got most of his 95 thesis from points Erasmus had previously made, he translated his German bible using Erasmus' Greek/Latin edition, he quoted adages from Erasmus' bestseller of Adages, and he at least knew of Erasmus' translations of Lucian - which he mentions in a slur. In fact, Luther and Erasmus had earlier had an agreement not to write against each other, in the earlier years when their points of agreement outnumbered their differences.)

Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)