OUR FEATURED MEMBER ARTICLE: Free Will: Luther vs Erasmus, by Amazing Rando

[Editor]

Free Will: Luther vs Erasmus

by Amazing Rando

Erasmus' humanism as the primary motivator behind his debate with Luther

Abstract: The great debate over the role of human free will in salvation between Martin Luther and Desiderius Erasmus was instigated primarily by Erasmus' humanistic concerns. Erasmus' upbringing was steeped in the classical literature of antiquity, in both the pagan philosophers and the early Christian Church Fathers, and this knowledge of those ancient sources led him, like Luther, to challenge the prevailing religious sentiments of the era. He was forced into the disputation with Luther reluctantly, and chose the topic of free will precisely because of its implications for the behavior of humankind. Even his theology was heavily influenced by his profound Christian humanism. As a result of all these factors, this debate that pitted the "prince of humanists" against the "king of the reformers" would not have taken place without the deep impact humanistic of thought on the age and the concerns it brought about in the 16th century church.

Martin Luther, the instigator and larger-than-life champion of the Protestant Reformation, faced a great deal of opposition to his teachings during his lifetime, from both Catholics and fellow Protestants. Yet no adversary was so daunting or presented a greater challenge than Gerrit Gerritzoon, better known by his Latin name of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam. In 1524, the two intellectual giants clashed in a conflict over the role played by human free will in the process of salvation.

Luther, speaking for most branches of the Protestant Reformation then extant, argued that salvation is entirely the work of the grace of God, and that human free will plays no part in the salvation of humankind; in fact, to Luther, free will as it is commonly spoken of does not even exist in any real sense. For his part, Erasmus remained a member of the official Catholic Church and represented its interests. More specifically however, Erasmus was a humanist whose theology led him to postulate that human free will did indeed play some very small, but crucial role in human salvation. Their debate was played out in writing in the form of dueling tracts, beginning in 1524, and was a culmination and result of the humanistic thought that had captivated Erasmus since his days as an Augustinian monk.

The date of Erasmus' birth is uncertain, though it must be pinpointed somewhere between 1466 and 1469 in Rotterdam. The circumstances of his birth are somewhat nebulous due to a certain amount of embarrassment on Erasmus' part, but it appears that he was the second illegitimate child of a physician's daughter named Margaret, and a young man named Girard. Girard was a Catholic priest, who was unable to marry his lover due to his vows of celibacy, despite his tryst with Margaret.

These circumstances haunted Erasmus for the rest of his life, and in his later writings, he undertook great pains to paint them in the most favorable light possible. His early years were marked by the classical education he received in Gouda from the Brethren of the Common Life, a "peaceful mystical brotherhood renowned for their simple piety," as well as one known for the high standards of education that their schools aspired to. Under their tutelage, Erasmus devoted his life to the study and translation of the Biblical texts. However, he also developed a passion for the extrabiblical learning of antiquity that the Brethren did not satisfy. Thus, the seeds of Erasmus' humanism, which was to become such a dominant influence in his later writings, developed at an early age.

It was this hunger for learning and study that eventually led Erasmus to join the Augustinian order. Although he appears to have done so somewhat against his will, the tranquility of the monastery, freedom to study, and plentiful resources in the library swayed Erasmus and satisfied his passion for learning for a time. In contrast to Luther, who joined the Augustinian order to save his soul, Erasmus took the vows in order to find a quiet place for study and learning. After seven years in the monastery, Erasmus' restless spirit prompted him to begin the first of the extensive travels that would characterize his life from then on.

He left the monastery at Steyn, and went to Paris, seeking learning in the great libraries and universities of the French capital; yet even this was disappointing, because the curriculums of the day were stifling, allowing no room for dissent on any but the most trivial matters. Consequently, Erasmus' reforming and inquisitive spirit found the prevailing winds of traditionalism stifling.

As a result of this disappointing experience, Erasmus then left Paris and made his way to England, where he encountered and was further influenced by the English humanists. He befriended Thomas More (who would later lose his head to Henry VIII's megalomania), and was delighted to learn of the existence of other humanists who valued the Greek language as much as he did.

It was in Oxford that Erasmus first conceived of his plan to turn his humanistic studies toward the cause of reform in the church and to return to purity the religion of Christ. Among Erasmus' most significant accomplishments to this end was his production of a critical text of the Greek New Testament as well as critical editions of the writings of early church fathers.

Erasmus the humanist, ever interested in "extending the intimate union of with God to clergy and laity, princes and peasants, women and men alike," distrusted the elitism produced by the Vulgate, and sought to bring the best possible critical text of the New Testament to the service of all. It was his Greek New Testament that Luther was using at the time he made his great "rediscovery" of justification by faith. This humanistic concern would later be the instigator behind the disputation over free will between the two men.

When Luther first published his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517, he was only one of many throughout the church in Europe who realized that Western Christianity was in dire need of reform. Erasmus and the humanists had been challenging conventional orthodoxy for years before Luther appeared on the scene, so it was to these humanists, including Erasmus himself, that Luther turned when he realized his fledgling reform movement would require legitimacy.

On March 28, 1519, Luther first wrote to Erasmus, seeking his support for Luther's reform movement. While Luther was certainly not in agreement with all that Erasmus was trying to do, he hoped to enlist the humanist's backing by appealing to the revival of Greek, the return to Scripture, and the reemphasis on Augustinian teaching that were so prominent among the early reformers.

For his part, Erasmus was favorably disposed to Luther's reforms- "He sympathized with [Luther's] denunciation of indulgences and his courageous attack on abuses in the church." In addition, Luther's right-hand man and eventual successor, Phillip Melanchthon, was, and would remain, a respected friend of Erasmus', and many hoped that he would soften Luther's opinion of Erasmus. At the time, relations seemed so cordial between the two parties that Melanchthon wrote in a letter to Erasmus, "Martin Luther is your convinced admirer and would like your approval."

But Erasmus also had his reservations about Luther.

In a letter to Ulrich Zwingli, with whom Erasmus also had close ties, he hinted at the basis of his eventual attack on Luther's doctrine of predestination, noting that, "Luther puts forth certain enigmas that are absurd on the face of things: 'All the works of the saints are sins, needing the mercy of God to overlook them;' 'free choice is an empty name;' 'man is justified by faith alone, works have nothing to do with it.'" One can observe here the very same criticisms that Erasmus would later level against Luther's doctrine of free will Erasmus sincerely wanted to avoid direct confrontation with Luther, because he was sympathetic to Luther's reforming aims.

In response to Luther's initial letter from March 28, 1519, Erasmus responded that he wished to stay neutral in the conflict "so as to help the revival of learning." But this camaraderie was not to be. Erasmus found himself under increasing pressure from both the Lutherans, who wished to enlist his support, and the Catholic orthodox monks and theologians who desired to see the acclaimed humanist won to their side.

The latter were especially critical of him for his daring to challenge the prevalent ecclesiastical authority of the Vulgate with his critical edition of the Greek New Testament. Many of his opponents even suspected Erasmus of being fully in Luther's camp. A Dominican monk named Egmond sought to bracket Luther with Erasmus as "two men who both needed converting, after which they might both become warriors of the true faith," and many enemies of humanism were insisting that Erasmus was the originator of the Lutheran heresy.

Erasmus increasingly saw that he had little choice in the matter- he must inevitably choose sides. Being lumped together with a heretical reformer could be harmful to one's health! But at the same time, he also wished to make his sympathies for the Lutheran cause clear, even while distancing himself from Luther's theology. Most Reformation scholars would agree with Packer and Johnston's assessment that, "it is beyond all reasonable doubt that the Diatribe [as Erasmus' opening salvo came to be known] was produced as a result of the constant pressure brought to bear on Erasmus from both friends and enemies." It was at this point that Erasmus chose the topic of free will and salvation with which to engage Luther. He reviewed Luther's Assertions in defense of his Ninety-Five Theses carefully and fastened onto this statement of Luther's with which to take up the dispute:

I was wrong in saying that free choice before grace is a reality only in name. I should have said simply: "free choice is in reality a fiction, or a name without reality." For no one has it in his own power to think a good or bad thought, but everything (as Wyclif's article condemned at Constance rightly teaches) happens by absolute necessity.

Erasmus' choice of debate topics is critical for our understanding of his motivations, for as we shall see, it is an expression of his humanistic concerns and convictions that he chose to debate the role humans play in their own salvation.

Luther, for his part, welcomed this challenge to his doctrine of predestination. He was annoyed with how his opponents had hitherto only criticized the peripheries of his doctrine. In the last pages of his response to Erasmus, he writes of his gratitude for Erasmus' attacking what he considers the very evangelical core of his doctrine:

Moreover, I praise and commend you highly for this also, that unlike all the rest you alone have attacked the real issue, the essence of the matter in dispute, and have not wearied me with irrelevancies about the papacy, purgatory, indulgences, and such like trifles (for trifles they are rather than basic issues), with which almost everyone hitherto has gone hunting for me without success. You and you alone have seen the question on which everything hinges, and have aimed at the vital spot; for which I sincerely thank you, since I am only too glad to give as much attention to this subject as time and leisure permit.

Luther believed that Erasmus had finally criticized him on something truly important, whereas his former critics had only attacked him with "irrelevancies." Ironically however, Erasmus understood the subjects contingent with Luther's doctrine of free will to be more or less unimportant, and, as was noted earlier, entered into this debate rather against his will. He calls questions of free will and God's foreknowledge "hidden" and "superfluous," and goes on to suggest that the whole matter doesn't merit a great dispute. In this dislike of speculative dogmatism, we see the strong influence of humanism on Erasmus' thought. He classifies the doctrine of free will as among the adiaphora, or those doctrines that were, "independent of the moral purpose," which gives a strong indication of where Erasmus' priorities lie.

As a humanist, Erasmus' concerns were quite different that Luther's. He was more concerned with ethics and morality than with matters of doctrine. Scholars have traditionally considered Erasmus to be "primarily a moralist" with less concern for theology than Luther, who is known to have declared "I am not concerned with the life, but with doctrines." This is why the matters of free will and salvation were less important to Erasmus and why he approached this debate with Luther with less than keen enthusiasm.

Erasmus was, however, deeply concerned about the effects of doctrine upon the masses. Erasmus chose to debate Luther on the role of free will because it, more than any of Luther's other doctrines, would have the gravest consequences for humankind. Luther's conclusion is repeated numerous times throughout De Servo Arbitro, or On the Bondage of the Will, his response to Erasmus' Diatribe, so one reference shall suffice to make his meaning clear:

"From this, it follows irrefutably that everything we do, everything that happens, even if it seems to us to happen mutably and contingently, happens in fact nonetheless necessarily and immutably, if you have regard for the will of God. For the will of God is effectual and cannot be hindered, since it is the power of divine nature itself." This is classic double predestination. Luther begins with a high view of God's grace and power, and postulates that the human will is completely powerless in the face of God's salvation.

Though Erasmus plies many Scriptural criticisms of Luther's assertions (because those were the only criticisms Luther would take seriously or acknowledge ), the main force driving his opposition to Luther's argument for predeterminism is a humanistic concern over the results Luther's teaching will have on the common people. Erasmus took issue with the predestination of the reformers because of its fallout: "It was a great count of Erasmus against the Reformers that they had not only strengthened the good life, but that there had been a decline in moral behavior." The dangers of the Lutheran doctrine of predeterminism, as Erasmus understood them, were moral dangers:

"Suppose for a moment that it were true in a certain sense, as Augustine says somewhere, 'God works in us good and evil, and rewards his own good works in us, and punishes his evil works in us'; what a window to impiety would the public avowal of such an opinion open to countless mortals! .... What weakling will be able to bear the endless and wearisome warfare against his flesh? What evildoer will take pains to correct his life? Who will be able to bring himself to love God with all his heart when He created hell seething with eternal torments in order to punish his own misdeeds in his victims as though he took delight in human torments? For that is how most people will interpret them."

For if, Erasmus supposed, it were true and publicly proclaimed that everything happened according to God's divine will, and that human beings had no real choice regarding their own salvation and acceptance or rejection of divine grace, then the baser minds among the commoners would exploit this teaching to do whatever they wished. They would use predestination as an excuse to sin and to gratify their every urge and whim, "For after all," they would say, "it doesn't matter what I say or do, God has already determined what I will do!" As Gordon Rupp puts it, "For Erasmus, the question at hand exposed Luther's fatalism and antinomianism, with their disastrous effects upon the behavior of the masses."

Furthermore as Erasmus pointed out, another paradox inherent in Luther's teaching is that by denying the reality of free choice, Luther is making Christ out to be a capricious monster. As he says of the Lutheran party near the close of his Diatribe, "Having cut the throat of free choice, they teach that man is now led by the Spirit of Christ, whose nature will not suffer any association with sin. And yet these same people assert that even when he has received grace, a man does nothing but sin." If humans are indeed completely powerless and are wholly subject to God's will and whims, then this leads logically to the conclusion that Christ causes us to sin, a conclusion that is in direct opposition to the biblical witness to the fact that, "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5).

This was unacceptable to Erasmus. Thus, he concludes, while, "Pelagius has no doubt attributed too much to free choice, and Scotus quite enough, but Luther first mutilated it by cutting off its right arm; then not content with this he thoroughly cut the throat of free choice and dispatched it. I prefer the view of those who do attribute much to free choice, but most to grace." This last sentence states his "preference" as plainly as is found anywhere else in Diatribe.

It has often been noticed that Erasmus' Diatribe presents a mixed message. On the one hand as we have seen, Erasmus seems indifferent to the issues at hand, in part because he had been forced into his debate with Luther relatively against his will, and because he believed matters of doctrine were of secondary importance to matters of morality. On the other however, he is vehemently opposed to Luther's soteriology of determinism because of the moral consequences that would result if his ides were followed to their logical conclusions.

This paradox has been duly noted by Reformation scholars, who have frequently remarked that Erasmus' Diatribe "is clear in what it opposes, less so in what it affirms." Luther himself would later note this Erasmian enigma, saying, "Erasmus is an eel. Only Christ can grab him." That Erasmus' own views are difficult to ascertain is a direct result of his humanism and his distaste for dogmatism, which would play an important part in the genre and mode of his Diatribe against Luther.

Erasmus' first contribution to the debate in 1524 deliberately sought a path of moderation, both in form and in content. The very title of his work, Diatribe on the Freedom of the Will, makes this clear. The word "diatribe" had for the Classical and Reformation era scholars a much different meaning than it has acquired today. To most people living in the 21st century, a diatribe is, as The American Heritage Dictionary defines it, "a bitter and abusive attack" with a meaning essentially on par with the word "rant." However Erasmus and his contemporaries used the term "diatribe" in its classical Greek meaning. Boyle notes that, "while it could signify a discourse, ethical treatise, or lecture, an occasion for dwelling on a subject as in Aristotelian rhetoric, specifically, a d?at??ß? was a classical mode of philosophical disputation, one with a tradition of literary adaptation. It was this precise meaning that Erasmus indicated with the Greek title."

The diatribe in its classical form, was a method of discourse that sought, rather than to argue dogmatically for a given point of view, to utilize the Socratic method in reaching the most probably conclusion. It sought to argue both sides of the question and propose the most probable answer to the question. "The diatribe, in sum, was an inductive, not a deductive exercise. It was maieutic." Erasmus' 1524 Diatribe did all these things and more. It sought the middle road and undertook to examine both the Scriptural passages that seem to support free choice and those that seemed opposed to it before finally weighing in on what seemed, in the opinion of the author, to be the "most probable" solution to the question. Erasmus calls Diatribe an indagatio, "a rare Ciceronian noun meaning 'investigation'" which sums up his approach in this debate.

Erasmus' humanism led him to choose the diatribe as his vehicle of inquiry into Luther's doctrines. He sums up his approach succinctly in the preface of Diatribe, saying "And, in fact, so far am I from delighting in "assertions" [as Luther had done in defense of his Ninety-Five Theses] that I would readily take refuge in the opinion of the Skeptics" wherever the authority of the Scriptures and the Church allowed. By this, he meant that given the choice, he would rather not make dogmatic assertions about matters on which the scriptures are insufficiently clear, preferring instead the road of the classical Skeptics and leaving such matters into the realm of "mysteries" of the faith. This humanistic approach is clearly seen throughout Erasmus' essay.

After weighing the evidence both for and against Luther's Assertion and pronouncing what, in his judgment, is the most likely resolution to the dispute, he writes in his closing remarks, "I have completed my discourse, now let others pass judgment." This characteristic humility and moderation is the one of the hallmarks of Erasmus' work. Even Luther notes Erasmus' "cleverness in treating the subject with such remarkable and consistent moderation as to make it impossible for me to be angry with [him]."

The effect of Erasmus' humanism and civility is heightened when contrasted with the bombast of Luther's On the Bondage of the Will. In evaluating Erasmus' work in disputing his doctrine of predestination, Luther is far from charitable:

Indeed, you say so much less, and attribute so much more to free choice than the Sophists have hitherto done... that it really seemed superfluous to answer the arguments you use. They have been refuted so often by me, and beaten down and completely pulverized in Phillip Melanchthon's Commonplaces- an unanswerable little book which in my judgment deserves not only to be immortalized but even canonized. Compared with it, your book struck me as so cheap and paltry that I felt profoundly sorry for you, defiling as you were your elegant and ingenious style with such trash, and quite disgusted at the utterly unworthy manner that was being conveyed in such rich ornaments of eloquence...

Similarly, the deep contrast between the two men's approaches can also be seen in the end of Luther's book. Recalling the humble closing lines Erasmus' work, "I have completed my discourse, now let others pass judgment," Luther writes, I for my part in this book, have not discoursed but have asserted and do assert and am unwilling to submit the matter to anyone's judgment, but advise everyone to yield assent." This is the very antithesis of Erasmus' humanism.

The clash between Erasmus of Rotterdam and Martin Luther over the role of free will in human salvation was precipitated, wrought, and impacted on all of its many levels by humanism. Erasmus' reform movement was a direct result of his humanistic upbringing and training, which led him into the great dispute of 1524-1525 with Luther. His choice of debate topics was made by his concern over the impact upon Christian morality that would be brought about by the promulgation of Luther's strict determinism. For Luther, humanism and free choice had no place in a theology of God's grace. Erasmus, on the other hand, who shared the logical position of humanism, that freedom entails responsibility, argued that unless we are free from the controls that eliminate our ability to choose freely, a just God cannot hold us responsible for our actions. Otherwise, God is merely punishing and rewarding his own deeds. More than a quarrel between two different doctrinal perspectives, this dispute was a trial of the very merits of humanism itself in the face of Scripture.

---

Works Consulted:

Boyle, Marjorie O'Rourke. Rhetoric and Reform: Erasmus' Civil Dispute with Luther. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1983.)

Boyle's work challenges the traditional interpretation of the free will debate as a doctrinal dispute. She proposes that it was actually over a deeper epistemological problem of the nature of truth, pitting Erasmus' Skepticism against Luther's Stoicism.

Boyle, Marjorie O'Rourke. "Erasmus and the "Modern" Question: Was He Semi-Pelagian?" (Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 75, 1984,) 59-77.

In this article by noted Erasmian scholar, Boyle, Erasmus' Diatribe is explored for its' literary attributes as well as its content. Erasmus' personal beliefs are explored and compared with the accusations of semi-Pelagianism that were hurled against him.

Erasmus, Desiderius. "Diatribe on the Freedom of the Will." ( From Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation,) 35-97. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969.

This primary source is Erasmus' 1525 written response to Luther's Assertio in which uses the ancient genre of the diatribe to inquire as to the truth of Luther's argument.

George, Timothy. Theology of the Reformers. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1988.)

[i]George's work includes a reflection on the theological and cultural background of the Reformation. Included in the work is a brief but useful discussion of Humanism and of Erasmus' role in that reform movement.[i/]

Jones, Rosemary Devonshire. Erasmus and Luther. (London: Oxford University Press, 1968.)

This biography of the two men delves into their background as well as reveals the historical circumstances behind the famous dispute over free will.

Klann, Richard. "Human Claims to Freedom and God's Judgment." (Concordia Theological Quarterly #54, October 1990,) 241-263.

This article (written from a strongly pro-Lutheran perspective) does a fine job of cutting to the very core of the dispute between Erasmus and Luther. It also provides an overview of humanism as well as an analysis of Luther and Erasmus' positions.

Luther, Martin. "On the Bondage of the Will." (From Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation,) 101-334. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969.)

Luther's classic exposition written in response to Erasmus' work attacks Erasmus' arguments for free will while laying out his own biblical arguments against it. It is almost three times as long as the work to which it responded.


Packer, J.I. and O.R. Johnston. "Historical and Theological Introduction." (From Martin Luther on The Bondage of the Will,) 13-61. (Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1957.)

This text serves as another helpful background resource for both historical and biographical information on both men and for setting this debate in its context.

Rupp, E. Gordon. "The Erasmian Enigma."( From Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969.) 1-12.

Rupp's classic defense of Erasmus attempts to cut through the layers of legendary and scholarly accretion to discover what Erasmus really believed. He concludes his essay with the statement that, "the idea that men can be saved without divine assistance would have been abhorrent to him" (12).

Tracy, James D. "Two Erasmuses, Two Luthers: Erasmus' Strategy in Defense of De Libero Artribio." (Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 78, 1987,) 37-60.

Tracy explores the motivations for the two great Christian thinkers behind entering their dispute. Of particular value to this paper is his exploration of Erasmus' private correspondences that shed light on why he chose to debate this particular topic.

Watson, Phillip S. "The Lutheran Riposte." (From Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969.) 12-28.

This introduction is an examination of the techniques Luther utilized in critiquing Erasmus' work. Its use for our present purposes lies in the exposition of Luther's analysis of Erasmus' scriptural arguments.

---

Moderated By: Editor

Notice - The featuring of a particular article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statementor be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.

And, the "Letters" forum is more closely moderated than other Fora, please behave accordingly.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Amazing Rando]

"Christian Tradition II" was the name of the course I wrote it for, not the name of the paper. It was a course on church history from the Protestant Reformation to the present.

Anyway, hope you enjoy.

[Xavier]

"Christian Tradition II" was the name of the course I wrote it for, not the name of the paper. It was a course on church history from the Protestant Reformation to the present.

Anyway, hope you enjoy.

Did you seriously need an abstract? It wasn't *that* long.

[Amazing Rando]

Did you seriously need an abstract? It wasn't *that* long.

An abstract was required by the professor. The paper is 12 doublespaced pages in Word.

[Xavier]

An abstract was required by the professor. The paper is 12 doublespaced pages in Word.

Hrmn... TWeb decieves...

[Amazing Rando]

If anyone wants a copy in its original form, feel free to give me your email addy and I'll send it right over.

[Gideon Brown]

Works Consulted:

How come I'm not in the list?

[Xavier]

An abstract was required by the professor. The paper is 12 doublespaced pages in Word.

Well for a really substantive comment:

I need to read more Erasmus

[C. D. Ward]

AR, I'm completely in awe. An excellent paper!

I hope you got a good grade.

Are you planning on writing any more in this "series"? An examination on the influence classical humanism had on the differing development of Catholic & Protestant churches post-reformation might be interesting as well.

[Amazing Rando]

AR, I'm completely in awe. An excellent paper!

I hope you got a good grade.

Are you planning on writing any more in this "series"? An examination on the influence classical humanism had on the differing development of Catholic & Protestant churches post-reformation might be interesting as well.

It sure would. Even an examination of humanism's impact on Reformed vs. Lutheran doctrinal development would be interesting, because Calvin and Zwingli were both demonstrably in Erasmus' debt on ethical issues.

What struck me in writing this paper was the fact that Erasmus was genuinely concerned about how Christians live out their faith, how they conduct themselves, and how they're perceived by outsiders. Luther on the other hand, while not quite living up to Erasmus' charges of antinomianism, was far less concerned with ethics and conduct than he was with doctrinal correctness. He fought vehemently for orthodoxy while seemingly disregarding orthopraxy.

But perhaps I just liked Erasmus better and I'm biased.

Erasmus never broke with the Catholic Church, as Luther did, but he did ruffle Catholic feathers by his (in my opinion) genuine Christian discipleship and concern for the faith as a whole. His most notable accomplishment in this vein was his production of the first critical edition of the Greek New Testament. Before his endeavor, most everyone was still relying on the same manuscripts as Jerome had 1000 years prior, without regard to manuscripts' reliability. You could say Erasmus was the father of modern textual criticism.

[Calvinist4Him]

But perhaps I just liked Erasmus better and I'm biased.

Even so, I think you're ready for the next step...."Freedom of the Will" by Jonathan Edwards.

[Spiritus Naturae]

"Christian Tradition II" was the name of the course I wrote it for, not the name of the paper. It was a course on church history from the Protestant Reformation to the present.

Anyway, hope you enjoy.

Nicely written and well thought out. Two thumbs up!

Yes, one can disagree with a conclusion yet still appreciate the argument presented.

[George Blaisdell]

AR, that was a really helpful and enlightening article. Thank-you... Reading Luther's rebuttals, and their coarseness, and their demeaningness, and their general assaultiveness gives me a greater appreciation for those on T-Web who are fond of that venue, for they are but in Luther's wake...

What struck me in writing this paper was the fact that Erasmus was genuinely concerned about how Christians live out their faith, how they conduct themselves, and how they're perceived by outsiders.

Men of genuine piety and discipleship, who have genuine love and caring for their fellows, and who judge no one, are concerned for the quality of the lives in Christ that they encounter...

Luther on the other hand, while not quite living up to Erasmus' charges of antinomianism, was far less concerned with ethics and conduct than he was with doctrinal correctness. He fought vehemently for orthodoxy while seemingly disregarding orthopraxy.

And therein lies the rub - For from the Orthodox point of view, there is no such thing as theory divorced from praxis, theology apart from faithfulness... And likewise, the witness is the person speaking, not the argument. It was not the overwhelmingly logicalness of Christ's words that brought us the Faith, but Christ Himself...

Now this does not mean that anyone is always right just because pious, but you can learn a lot more from a pious believer who never says a word than you can from a Bible believer who never shuts up...

In the great councils, it was only the pious that were allowed to attend and contribute. A harsh and abrasive Luther arguing for his "Theology" against all comers would not have standing - He would have been cast out...

Not because he was wrong [or right!], but because he was so undiscipled, being so obviously lacking in the humility of Christian discipleship... [I was very gladdened to hear that in his later years he finally calmed down somewhat and had a reasonably normal end to his days...]

But perhaps I just liked Erasmus better and I'm biased.

Actions speak louder than words. [Ask any kid!] Having some loudmouth despiser harranguing against anything you say that disagrees with him is utterly and totally worldly... The one thing that so stands out in the Pauline epistles is his profound love for those to whom he writes as he corrects them, and his suffering for their sakes...

Erasmus never broke with... his (in my opinion) genuine Christian discipleship and concern for the faith as a whole.

It would be interesting to see what his entire argument against Luther was. He seemed to water it down considerably for the sake of caring for Luther and his role in the Reformation, because he focused on "what people who believed it would think and do," rather than on its fundamental anti-salvational features...

One must understand free-will in terms of what happened in the Garden of Eden, of how the fall transpired, and of the wondrous economy of God to not destroy the human race entirely, but to let it live, though dead, in Adam's transgression, in a world that gives to each of us the opportunity to become good of to turn to evil in it...

And Luther's claim that only evil can proceed out of the human heart, both before and after regeneration, is a very evil doctrine...

In his defense, he did know his own heart at the time... And his issues were apparently huge... And God did finally ease and mellow him in his old age...

Arsenios

[Kevin Wayne]

Even so, I think you're ready for the next step...."Freedom of the Will" by Jonathan Edwards.

Sure, just a soon as you read the Catholic scholar Harry McSorely's crtitique of Luther.