The Protestant Reformation brought major religious conflict to Europe and had two voices that came to dominate its arenas of debate and apologetics. These two voices argued at the heart of the conflict. Desiderius
Erasmus and Martin Luther made irreplaceable arguments surrounding free will during the development
of, what would become, Christian humanism. We will examine the effectiveness
of the rhetoric within their written arguments to one another, and it is worth noting
(for context) that Erasmus centers his argument on moral philosophy while Luther centers himself within theological dogma.
Luther led a far-reaching
theological movement against the authoritarian Catholic Church. His rhetoric,
within his argument “On the Bondage of
the Will,” takes a stance that is, in many respects, congruent with a
Platonist’s (e.g. Luther says that Erasmus “attribute[s] more to free will than
the Sophists hitherto did”). These introductory remarks—where Luther equates Erasmus
to “the Sophists”—serves as a type of proof
which is used to both discredit Erasmus as being the ultimate relativist (one
who will say anything to win an argument and cares little for the “Truth”) and
to position himself as one who believes in, and professes to have obtained, absolute
“Truth.” In Luther’s mind, he is the man that escaped “Plato’s cave.” 
Erasmus, the man given the title “Prince
of the Humanists,” remained open-minded while presented his arguments. Erasmus
repeatedly addresses the logic behind open-mindedness—a
critical concept within Humanism—while sharing his philosophical views. Erasmus does this not only to emphasize its importance, but, by discussing open-mindedness
with his audience, he simultaneously invites the quality within us. Erasmus’ presents Christianity as a discernible morality and, in my opinion, employs a more persuasive use of rhetoric than Luther does.
Where Erasmus presents scriptural proof of God's varied emotional responses to mankind's choices to validate his philosophies of free will, Luther presents his personal scriptural
interpretations using those interpretations to speak for God. Luther presents these
interpretations as incontrovertibly true which, coincidentally, is in complete harmony with
the authoritarian practices within the Catholic Church. This was
they very type of hegemonic manipulation he was seeking to reform. Luther—the veritable
voice of religious reformation as a response to authoritarian repression—seems guilty, within his arguments, of the same thing he spent so much effort to condemn.
I think it is interesting the see Erasmus and Martin Luther dispute each other, because it really emphasizes the reemergence of rhetoric into the world after the renaissance. As you pointed out, Luther goes out of his way to discredit the ethos of Erasmus, calling him a "sophist" to sway others to his side.
ReplyDelete