The discourse between Erasmus and Martin Luther on free will
is a fascinating discussion. Both men
used some strong language and rhetoric to argue with each other, and it was
awesome to see an in depth discussion about something that is so important to
those of us who are Christians today, since the debate over free will isn't entirely settled among all Christian faiths.
While remaining respectful of each other, it was a
thought-provoking debate. Luther clearly
starts his arguing from the belief that everything comes about because of God’s
grace, or whatever God wills to happen.
For example, Luther states “But tell me this: was anyone of them made a saint, did anyone
of them receive the Spirit or work miracles in the name of the free will, or by
the power of the free will, or to confirm the free will? Far from it, you will say, but in the name
and by the power of Jesus Christ were all those things done, and for the
confirmation of the doctrine of Christ …”
Before Luther stated this, Erasmus had said “But you fail to define the
limits within which we should think of the will as acting and as being acted
upon.” Erasmus clearly was attacking Luther
by pointing out that Luther would speak of free will as being free and as being
acted upon, but then state that free will is a lie. Erasmus’ view was obviously the belief in
free will.
I believe that Erasmus was much more convincing than
Luther. Luther seemed to come off as if
to say that Erasmus was ridiculous because he wasn’t going along with what was
clearly the truth, but then Luther didn’t seem to have any real evidence to
back himself up. Also, coming from an
LDS perspective, I agree with Erasmus, so I’m sure I have a bias J.
I feel like the renaissance called for an increase in human ability in several aspects that included the arts, speaking, thinking, and argument. As each renaissance man pushed the limit of what could be achieved in each of these categories, we realized that there was a real difference between good and bad art, speech, and even argument. I think that you noticed the latter.
ReplyDeleteThat LDS perspective is actually a part of rhetoric. You were an audience for those particular essays when you were reading them, and your perspective factors into how you respond to their arguments. When Luther and Erasmus were writing, they each had different audiences in mind, and that's part of the reason why their arguments seemed different.
ReplyDelete