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.  

The Road Less Traveled

    "...Pleading for the light is what opened this dispensation. It is what keeps it going, and it is what will keep you going." So spoke Elder Jeffrey R. Holland in a 1999 BYU Devotional entitled, "Cast Not Away Therefore Your Confidence". In it, he addresses the issue of coming unto God with our questions with faith that they will be answered, although opposition may rage. I couldn't help but think of this in relation to the reading of the treatises of Desiderio Erasmus and Martin Luther. There opposing views gave much for men of the 16th century to think about, and in many ways, the debate still rages. While I honor the study, pondering and forethought that must have gone into Luther's impassioned writing citing corruption within the Roman Catholic Church, and his subsequent call for reformation therein, I was disappointed at his seeming lack of understanding on the subject of free will. This was tempered, however, by further reasoning on my part that inspiration and revelation come line upon line, and are generally suited to the time period in which they occur. There must always be trailblazers in every dispensation, and one builds upon another, until the light can be fully developed and new understanding dawns.
    In that light, I was intrigued with the depth of understanding which Erasmus exhibited in his thoughtful view and treatment of sacred scripture. His consideration of it in the light of reason--a faculty with which I believe man is endowed for divine purpose--was likely ahead of most of the thinking of his time, and doubtless provoked much continued thought and debate; perhaps the reason it was granted in the first place. Both men played an integral role in promoting the thought and inquiry that fanned the flames of the Protestant Reformation, as the Roman Catholic Church began to lose its ability to dictate, the publication of treatises sparked debate among classes, and Christian Humanism celebrated man's individual rights, freedom and will.
    For my part, I am grateful for those who sought enlightenment and were brave enough to take the road less traveled. I am the beneficiary, though generations removed, of their questions, study and pondering. I have walked in solitude down the path which runs through the Sacred Grove, and pondered the path of the feet of a young boy who sought answers to his quest, first by study, and then by faith. I am grateful to know that I, too, can pose questions and seek answers, resting in the knowledge that He hears me.