Erasmus and Luther blossomed out of the Renaissance with evidence of the class theme: What a Piece of Work is Man: Humanism and Rhetoric.They attempted to argue/persuade each other and others in their time and beyond how free will takes role in one’s life.
Erasmus believed that all human beings possessed free will,
and that the idea of predestination was not in sync with the teachings of the
Bible. He believed the principles of the gospel depended on the existence of
free will, and that grace only helped one to come to a knowledge of God.
"The essence of Christianity which you (Erasmus)
describe -- is without Christ, without the Spirit, and chillier than ice
---" – Martin Luther
Luther responded that we are unable to bring ourselves to
God alone; that sin disables us to do so. Therefore, there is no free will for
humanity because any free will they might have is taken over by the influence
of sin. He argued that people do not choose between good or evil, because they
are naturally dominated by evil, and salvation is the product of God changing a
person's heart. He held that arguing otherwise was insulting God, and would not
make one Christian.
Looking at the two points of views, I can understand where
each one is coming from. Erasmus tends to rely more on humanist principles, and
Luther tends to rely more on Christian faith. These principles together create
a bond called Christian Humanism. We do have free agency, which was a gift from
God. We also have the gift of repentance, which we can use if we do choose sin
and decide to change. We do need to choose good, but we can’t do it alone
because everyone chooses evil at some point in their lives, and we need that
extra help called the Atonement. Tying back to theme, this interaction and communication between the two is a great example of how rhetoric and humanism was used during the reformation.
Great conclusion here. Although I didn't elaborate as much as you did, I concluded the same thing for myself in the conclusion of my own post. If I can though I might be a little critical of your paragraph about Erasmus. I really liked the way Erasmus built his argument for the rhetoric and cleverness of it, rather than it's contents (more detail in my post on what was powerful). You say that Erasmus discounts Grace as being part of salvation, and more of a tool to find God. Although this could be true (I was focued mostly on the rhetoric rather than the content of the reading) I felt that this isn't what Erasmus argued and that his audience wouldn't have taken well to this. Erasmus uses the obscurity of the scriptures to show that both free-will and Grace are/could be necessary for salvation. That is the beauty of his argument. He doesn't have to explicitly state what is truth because the scriptures don't either. "God's ways are higher than mans" is kind of the doctrinal backing of Erasmus's argument.
ReplyDeleteIt's very interesting the different angles and things we can take from the reading. I sided more with Luther, although as stated, I takeaway good from both sides. I think the part about Erasmus was probably more how Luther saw him, rather than how he really was. But also maybe this is how I interpreted it. Thanks for your insight and comment!
DeleteWow, your post really helps me see how both seem to have parts of the truth. I think that free will does exist, but of course that God's grace is an important aspect as well that can't be ignored, since without it we can't make it back to live with God again. It seems like they have two halves that just need to be combined to make the whole.
ReplyDelete