Erasmus' On Free Will: Conceptual Perspectives From History and Spirituality (original) (raw)

Erasmus versus Luther: A Contemporary Analysis of the Debate on Free Will

Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie, 2020

Summary In this article, we will use contemporary analytic tools to make sense of the main arguments in the classic debate on free will between Erasmus of Rotterdam and the Reformer Martin Luther. Instead of offering another exegesis of these texts, we put forward an analysis that links this historical debate with contemporary discussions on free will and grace in philosophical theology. We argue that the debate was ultimately about how three theological core claims are related to one another: the Anti-Pelagian Constraint (humans are incapable of willing any good, in order to come to faith), the Responsibility Principle (humans are morally responsible in the eyes of God) and human free will. Erasmus attacks Luther by arguing that the Responsibility Principle cannot be maintained without free will, while Luther responds by arguing that Erasmus must reject free will, because it is in conflict with the Anti-Pelagian Constraint. Luther is then left with the dilemma of justifying the Res...

The Manifesto of the Reformation: Luther vs. Erasmus on Free Will

Churchman 123.3, 2009

This article examines “one of the most famous exchanges in western intellectual history”, the clash between Martin Luther and Desiderius Erasmus over the issue of free will. The debate between these two titans reveals not only the reasons behind humanism’s repudiation of the Reformation, but also exposes the heartbeat of the Reformation itself, since Luther’s contribution is the nearest to a systematic statement of his principles that he ever made. But did he do so in a godly way…?

Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation

1969

Translated by E. Gordon Rupp In 1524 and 1525, seven years after Martin Luther began the Reformation, Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536) and Luther held a "debate" in print entitled On Free Will and Salvation. Erasmus initiated this exchange in the form of an open letter in early 1524, and Luther replied in 1525. Erasmus, despite his own criticisms of the excesses and corruption of many Roman Catholic clergymen, felt that the Church was absolutely necessary. Humanity required guidance to avoid sin, Erasmus reasoned, and the best guidance was the accumulated wisdom of the ages, as embodied in the teachings of the Church. For Erasmus, any reform of the Church had to begin by examining its role in shaping individual morality. He felt this depended on the individual Christian's acceptance of free will (the notion that humans are free to choose their actions without divine coercion or predestination). In On the Freedom of the Will, Erasmus argues that the Bible can be obscure, ambiguous, and seemingly contradictory on the question of free will, but that on the whole the Bible and Church tradition favor free will. Luther, conversely, felt that the nature of each individual was largely predetermined in the mind and plan of God, and that the Church was only a teacher or guide, not a true molder of man's nature. In his response of 1525, The Bondage of the Will, Luther does more than argue for predestination. He also strongly asserts the clarity and sufficiency of the Bible (without commentary or church doctrine) on this issue and on all other essential points of faith. On the Freedom of the Will: A Diatribe or Discourse by Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam Erasmus Acknowledges His Limitations and States His Point of View In the Name of Jesus. Among the difficulties, of which not a few crop up in Holy Scripture, there is hardly a more tangled labyrinth than that of "free choice," for it is a subject that has long exercised the minds of philosophers, and also of theologians old and new, in a striking degree, though in my opinion and more labor than fruit. More recently, however, it has been revived by Carlstadt and Eck, in a fairly moderate debate, and now it has been more violently stirred up by Martin Luther, who has put out an Assertion about "free choice" and although he has already been answered by more than one writer, it seemed good to my friends that I should try my hand and see whether, as a result of our little set-to, the truth might be made more plain. Here I know there will be those who will forthwith stop their ears, crying out, "The rivers run backward"-dare Erasmus attack Luther, like the fly the elephant? To appease them, if I may be allowed to ask for a little quiet, I need say no more by way of preface than what is the fact, that I have never sworn allegiance to the words of Luther. So that it should not seem unbecoming to anybody if at any point I differ publicly from him, as a man surely may differ from another man, nor should it seem a criminal offense to call in question any doctrine of his, still less it one engages in a temperate disputation with him for the purpose of eliciting truth. Certainly I do not consider Luther himself would be indignant if anybody should find occasion to differ from him, since he permits himself to call in question the decrees, not only of all the doctors of the Church, but of all the schools, councils, and popes; and since he acknowledges this plainly and openly, it ought not to be counted by his friends as cheating if I take a leaf out of his book. Furthermore, just in case anyone should mistake this for a regular gladiatorial combat, I shall confine my controversy strictly to this one doctrine, with no other object than to make the truth more plain by throwing together Scriptural texts and arguments, a method of investigation that has always been considered most proper for scholars. So let us pursue the matter without recrimination, because this is more fitting for Christian men, and because in this way the truth, which is so often lost amid too much wrangling, may be more surely perceived. To be sure, I know that I was not built for wrestling matches: there is surely nobody less practiced in this kind of thing than I, who have always had an inner temperamental horror of fighting, and who have always preferred to sport in the wider plains of the Muses rather than to brandish a sword in a hand-to-hand fight. His Dislike of Assertions And, in fact, so far am I from delighting in "assertions" that I would readily take refuge in the opinion of the Skeptics, wherever this is allowed by the inviolable authority of the Holy Scriptures and by the decrees of the Church, to which I everywhere willingly submit my personal feelings, whether I grasp what it prescribes or not. Moreover, I prefer this disposition of mine to that with which I see some people endowed who are so uncontrollably attached to their own opinion that they cannot bear anything which dissents from it; but they twist whatever they read in the Scriptures into an assertion of an opinion which they have embraced once for all. They are like young men who love a girl so immoderately that they imagine they see their beloved wherever they turn, or, a much better example, like two combatants who, in the heat of a quarrel, turn whatever is at hand into a missile, whether it be a jug or a dish. I ask you, what sort of sincere judgment can there be when people behave in this way? Who will learn anything fruitful from this sort of discussion-beyond the fact that each leaves the encounter bespattered with the other's filth? There will always be many such, whom the apostle Peter describes as "ignorant and unstable who twist the Scriptures to their own destruction." As far as I am concerned, I admit that many different views about free choice have been handed down from the ancients about which I have, as yet, no fixed conviction, except that I think there to be a certain power of free choice. For I have read the Assertion of Martin Luther, and read it without prejudice, except that I have assumed a certain favor toward him, as an investigator may toward an arraigned prisoner. And yet, although he expounds his case in all its aspects with great ingenuity and fervor of spirit, I must say, quite frankly, that he has not persuaded me. If anybody ascribes this to my slowness or inexperience, I shall not quarrel with him, provided they allow us slower ones the privilege of learning by meeting those who have received the gift of God in fuller measure, especially since Luther attributes very little importance to scholarship, and most of all to the Spirit, who is wont to instill into the more humble what he denies to the wise. So much for those who shout so loudly that Luther has more learning in his little finger than Erasmus in his whole body, a view that I shall certainly not attempt to refute here. I simply ask from such, however ill-disposed they may be, that if I grant to Luther in this Disputation that he be not weighed down by the prejudgments of doctors, councils, universities, popes, and of the emperor, they will not damage my cause by mere snap judgments. For even though I believe myself to have mastered Luther's argument, yet I might well be mistaken, and for that reason I play the debater, not the judge; the inquirer, not the dogmatist: ready to learn from anyone if anything truer or more scholarly can be brought. Yet I would willingly persuade the man in the street that in this kind of discussion it is better not to enforce contentions which may the sooner harm Christian concord than advance true religion. The Obscurity of Scripture For there are some secret places in the Holy Scriptures into which God has not wished us to penetrate more deeply and, if we try to do so, then the deeper we go, the darker and darker it becomes, by which means we are led to acknowledge the unsearchable majesty of the divine wisdom, and the weakness of the human mind. It is like the cavern near Corycos of which Pomponius Mela tells, which begins by attracting the drawing the visitor to itself by its pleasing aspect, and then as one goes deeper, a certain horror and majesty of the divine presence that inhabits the place makes one draw back. So when we come to such a place, my view is that the wiser and more reverent course is to cry with St. Paul: "O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!" and with Isaiah: "Who has heard the Spirit of the Lord, or what counselor has instructed him?" rather than to define what passes the measure of the human mind. Many things are reserved for that time when we shall no longer see through a glass darkly or in a riddle, but in which we shall contemplate the glory of the Lord when his face shall be revealed. Therefore, in my judgment on this matter of free choice, having learned what is needful to know about this, if we are in the path of true religion, let us go on swiftly to better things, forgetful of the things which are behind, or if we are entangled in sins, let us strive with all our might and have recourse to the remedy of penitence that by all means we may entreat the mercy of the Lord without which no human will or endeavor is effective; and what is evil in us, let us impute to ourselves, and what is good, let us ascribe wholly to divine benevolence, to which we owe salvation, and that no harm can come to us from a God who is by nature just, even if some things happen that seem to us amiss, for none ought to despair of the pardon of a God who is by nature most merciful. This, I say, was in my judgment sufficient for Christian godliness, nor should we through irreverent inquisitiveness rush

Was Martin Luther a Humanist? An Examination of the Free Will Debate

For almost 500 years scholars have been asking “Was Martin Luther a Humanist?” The common answer is “no” because, “It is not an obvious step to turn to Luther as a Christian Humanist. He was renowned or notorious – depending on one’s interpretation – for his debate on the freedom of the will with Erasmus of Rotterdam. ” Therefore, to answer this question one must turn to this infamous debate which seems to clearly decry Luther’s Christian Humanism. However, as in many things, there must be settled an issue of semantics and definitions. Who were these two men? Why this debate? And what is Humanism? Once these questions have been answered, an overview of the Humanist statements within the debate on Free Will published by both Martin Luther and Desiderius Erasmus will be made to determine an answer. Once it is determined if Martin Luther was a Humanist or not, the next logical step is to ask whether or not those who followed Luther, the Lutherans, are humanist. The journey to truth is a long and winding path, but must begin with a first step, and so it begins.

Erasmus’s way of interpreting the Bible and his influence on Luther

I will argue in this paper that the Christian humanistic perspective of Erasmus had a considerable effect on the way the Bible was read by Luther. In exploring and developing these tasks my approach to writing this paper will be basically historical, including some of the theological perspectives of the main characters (Erasmus and Luther). As a result of that this paper will try to combine a short narrative about Erasmus’s life and work, a brief analysis of Erasmus’ works, along with an analysis of the possible influence he had on Luther one of the main reformers at that time.

Marlowe and Christian Free Will 1999-2000

In his piece about the subject Erasmus asserts that there is most certainly a human will. He also believes that there is a sense of reliance on divine grace. What he does not follow is the idea that Man acts out of necessity. This is to say that that Man is free to act even though there is the need for divine grace. He sites many biblical instances where it is clear that man does have a choice in how to live. Erasmsus also tries to reconcile divine grace with this notion of free will (Erasmus 54-59). Using passages from Scripture, Erasmus develops his support for Free will in the face of God's own will. His idea of free will is concerned with the concept that Man does indeed have a will and can assert it. He has trouble when he tries to make a claim that it is possible for Man to choose or act in order to gain salvation. The main argument he was up against makes the claim that Man can do nothing on his own when it comes to obtaining salvation. Focusing in on the basic concept of free will we can see that Erasmus supports Man's will. He believed that "from the time of the Apostles down to the present day, no writer has yet emerged who has totally taken away the power of freedom of choice." (Erasmus, 43) However he does acknowledge that there have been a few writers who have disputed Man's freedom, but that they are not supported by Scripture. His main defense against those who eliminate free will is the difference in interpretation of the Holy Scripture. He goes into deep detail about how these interpretations have been manipulated by many. He also tries to make a claim that if we take Scripture at its' face value then we can argue successfully in favour of Man's freedom. Erasmus believes that he has just as much right to interpret the Scripture as any other scholar. He says that he has the desire to learn the truth and then goes on to assert what he believes to be the truth. Using the Holy Scripture he defends his belief that man has free will. Citing Ecclesasticus, Ch. 15 (14-17) he shows that there is clear support for free will. "God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel." This passage goes on to claim that God has set forth what is right and wrong before Man, and has given him the choice to act. (Erasmus, 47) He goes on to site many references from the Old and New Testament in support of free will.

Twenty-fifth Annual Margaret Mann Phillips Lecture: Erasmus and the Philosophers

Erasmus Of Rotterdam Society Yearbook, 2012

Despite a lack of formal philosophical training and an antipathy to medieval scholasticism, Erasmus possessed not only a certain familiarity with Thomas Aquinas, but also close knowledge of Plato and Aristotle. Erasmus’ interest in some Platonic motifs is well known. But the most consistent philosophical theme in Erasmus’ writings from his earliest to his latest was that of the Epicurean goal of peace of mind, ataraxia. Erasmus, in fact, combined Christianity with a nuanced Epicurean morality. This Epicureanism, when combined in turn with a commitment to the consensus Ecclesiae as well as with an allergy to dogmatic formulations and an appreciation of the Greek Fathers, ultimately rendered Erasmus alien to Luther and Protestantism though they agreed on much.