If the Discourse on Free Will Were Written in Utah 2015

The Protestant Reformation is largely accepted as beginning in 1517 when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses on the Wittenburg Castle Church doors. This was the beginning of public questioning of the Catholic church in Europe, which, at the time, was the all-powerful church in all of Europe. There was no legal alternative for religious worship and those who were viewed as going against it's teachings were labeled as a heretic and possibly burned at the stake. While the nailing of the 95 theses could be labeled as a spark, what came after was a forest fire. Notable people began discussing religion and religious views, which began many sects that are still around today. Never before had so much debate been had, nor such a willing audience listened.

I believe that it is this context, the Protestant Reformation, that makes the Discourse on Free Will such an important and interesting work of literature. Since it was a time of confusion, people were asking questions and searching for answers that made sense based on what they knew as well as on what they hoped was true. Additionally, the church was one of, if not the, most important realm of an individual's life. Their whole lives revolved around worship.

So, what if the Discourse on Free Will were written today? I don't think it would make hardly a drop in the ocean and I definitely do not think that people would be reading it in another 500 years. There is so much information, so many books and so many articles being written today that something like this would probably be lost on the web. Perhaps a few people would click on a link talking about whether or not predestination is real or if we have free choice, but ultimately, I believe the following would be small and ultimately forgotten. Additionally, today we see an increasing secularism in our lives. Even for avid church-goers, people tend to separate their religious life with the rest of their lives (BYU and the culture we live in is quite unique). Therefore, I think that the context of the Discourse on Free Will is ultimately what makes the piece so important and relevant not only in the 1500's, but today. 

From One Humanist to Another

As we were asked to write this week’s blog post on our response to Erasmus’ and Luther’s Discourse of Free Will, to be honest, my first initial response was, “I don’t get it.” I had a hard time following the two men’s points of view. But I did do some research and looked at some outsides commentary on the book that hopefully helped me understand the reading better.

Even if I didn’t fully understand what the two debaters were saying, I did try to pay attention to their rhetorical devices. Both seemed to have an excellent awareness of their audience and their opponent, and a good sense of decorum. Erasmus starts out his very first 

section by acknowledging that he is looked at as much more        

insignificant in comparison to Luther. He understands that his 

audience could be the general public and he recognizes their 

thoughts and feelings. Throughout his writing, Erasmus, also 

seems to write a lot of comparisons and analogies so that more 

people will understand what he is trying to say.

While they are both of the same day and age, Erasmus and Luther have different opinions of free will and different ways of examining the will of man. Erasmus is rejecting the Reformation’s version of man and explains that man is capable of doing good and this good can lead to his salvation. He talks a lot about grace and how man can receive different types of grace to be saved. He offers a lot of examples from history and the Bible, but as a humanist, he puts a lot of human reason and philosophy on his interpretation of the Bible. He also tries to acknowledge many different sides to his theories. But his human reasoning seems to weaken and muddle his position as he tries to argue this Christian doctrine, but doesn’t exactly take a strong enough stance.

Luther, on the other hand, becomes more sure of his position as he responds to Erasmus. And while he debates against Erasmus, he wants to bring him to an understanding of the truth, as well. Luther’s main source to his argument is solely the scriptures. He comes much more strictly from the Reformation philosophy and mindset, to where he believes the Spirit is what is necessary to interpret the scriptures and not as much human reasoning. Based on his interpretation and methods of arguing, Luther believes man is not capable of doing good, but that he is evil in nature and is brought down by sin, but is unaware of his own corruption. Man is not free to choose grace.

Both men do a good job of acknowledging who their audience and opponent is, but differ in their opinions of man’s sin and free will. They also have different ways of arguing this as Erasmus gives a more humanist thinking approach to scripture, and Luther sticks to a Protestant Reformation approach and goes off of scripture alone.