Obscurity vs Certainty: Erasmus & Martin Luther on Free-Will

           With topics of religion it is my personal opinion that the delivery and invention of one’s argument is often far more important than the truths or content therein. Erasmus & Martin Luther both take very different angles when making their arguments on free-will.

Erasmus

            Erasmus’s mode of argumentation, not even to mention his actual view on what he is arguing, is that of reason before scripture or doctrine. Erasmus uses his own to reason and logic to rationalize his arguments. Instead of scriptural references, he uses powerful analogies, such as the boy who can’t reach an apple without his father’s help, to really drive home his ideas… but he wouldn't let the untrained audience know that. There were loads of scriptures throughout Erasmus arguments, but their inclusion was primarily a tool used to balance Erasmus arguments of “man meriting salvation” and “God’s grace”. Martin Luther would later argue “Erasmus speaks out of both sides of his mouth”, which I think is a valid observation, although I feel that Erasmus did it quite effectively. Erasmus further used the scriptures for their uncertainty rather than to back up doctrinal truths. This uncertainty of the scriptures is another effective invention by Erasmus in building his two sided argument on the existence of free-will and God’s grace.

A key scripture argued/used by both Erasmus & Luther

Luther

            Because Martin Luther’s Bondage of The Will is in direct response to Erasmus’s argument his approach is quite different in many ways. Martin Luther focused wholly on divine truths back by the scriptures, counter arguing Erasmus use of scriptures. Luther focused on what he believed to be the certainty of scriptures, which he argued that if any verse seemed obscure it was due to the weakness of the reader, not the Word itself. He continues to use the scriptures as a foundation of certainty to back up his arguments and attack Erasmus’s. This method of Luther’s was clear when he said that Erasmus argues “like a man drunk or asleep” blurting out things here and there.

So who won the debate?

            As a Mormon I was able to see a little of truth in both arguments. Interestingly I felt more apt to side with Erasmus because of his rhetorical style, using both the scriptures and reason to back the duality of his argument. For Christian humanists & people of the reformation however might have sided more with Martin Luther as his argument was a little more “happy” or easier on the ears than Erasmus’s.