Erasmus vs Luther; Discourse on Free Will Essay

The Erasmus-Luther Discourse on Free Will begins with the fulmination concerning unacquainted(p) provideing, create verbally by Erasmus. Luther then refutes Erasmus Diatribe with The Bondage of the Will. The interrogation being debated is whether gentle earthly concerns gentle kind-hearted is in control of his own will, or whether everything is preordained by theology, then leaving firearm without free will. Their diverging philosophies sacrifice been see as being the staple fiber difference between Catholic and Protestant positions regarding free will. This debate offers two very conflicting views, although both philosophies were basic principles in their respective religions. Erasmus builds his argument without a solid foundation desire building a house without a foundation, it laughingstock easily crumble. Thus, Luther convincingly attacks Erasmus Diatribe.Erasmus holds that man is left with the choice of doing either costly or evil. It is mans choice and therefore , free will exists. In the opinion of Erasmus, the license of the will in Holy Scriptures is as follows if on the road to piety, wiz should continue eagerly to improve if one has become involved in sin, one should make every effort to extricate oneself, and to solicit the grace of the Lord. Two conclusions concerning Erasmus beliefs sight be drawn from this asseveratement first basely that man can himself find repentance and secondly that God is infallible, meaning that a person engages in evil acts with his own will. The definition of free will given by Erasmus is the power of the human will whereby man can apply to or turn away from that which leads unto dateless salvation.While addressing the takings of Adam and Eve, Erasmus states, In man, will was so good and so free that even without additional grace it could have remained in a state of innocence, though not without divine service of grace could it attain the blessedness of eternal life, as the Lord Jesus promised his people. Erasmus, therefore, believes eternal salvation is attainable with the help and mercy of God, yet Erasmus also believes that Adam and Eve caused man to have original sin. Erasmus goes on to write, In those without extraordinary grace the reason is darkened, moreover not extinguished. Probably the same occurs to the power of the will it is not all in all extinct but unproductive of virtuous deeds. In short Erasmus believed that man has free will and therefore is punished or rewarded according to the choices hemakes. He backs his argument with many quotes from the scripture but so does Luther, thus the argument shifts, and the sense of scripture is the debate.Luther, who wrote The Bondage of the Will to refute what Erasmus had written in the Diatribe, disagrees stating that man does not have freedom of the will. In the first few pages, Luther proclaims The Holy Scripture is no skeptic, and what He has written into our wagon are no doubts or opinions, but assertions more ce rtain and more firm that all human experience in life itself. Furthermore, he goes on to say The essence of Christianity which you (Erasmus) describeis without Christ, without the Spirit, and chillier than ice Luther immediately implies that Erasmus has not been saved. Luther abhors those who claim to be self- menders, once again contradicting Erasmus. You say Who will reform his life? I answer Nobody No man can God has no time for you self-reformers, for they are all hypocrites. The elect who veneration God will be reformed by the Holy Spirit. maybe the quote that best exemplifies Luthers position is as follows Thus the human will is like the beast of burden. If God rides it, it wills and goes whence God wills as the Psalm says, I was a beast of burden before thee (Psalm 7222) If Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan wills. Nor may it choose to which rider it will run, nor which it will seek. But the riders themselves contend who shall have and hold it. This philosophy conten ds that both good and evil are worked by a higher being. Both authors in this work make reference to Judas and his betrayal of Christ. Both parties acknowledge the foreordination of God, but Luther proclaims that God willed it. Thus the Protestant faith grew on the principles of predestination and the absolute belief that the scriptures are to be interpreted literally.At no point does Luther ever stray from the central point of his refutation, proving Erasmus wrong by presenting the conclusive evidence needed. Erasmus, on the other hand, never really plants his feet in this argument. Erasmus covers his tracks by changing the terms of the debate throughout his work. For example, Erasmus fails to define the limits at bottom which the reader should think that the will is being acted upon. One can not conclude thatErasmus does not fully believe what he states in his Diatribe, but he admittedly discloses I have always preferred playacting the freer field of the muses, than fighting i ronclad in close combat. Erasmus proclaims that their debate is in the sense of scripture, yet how can one who defends free will cubby the interpretation of the reader? Luther is ofttimes more direct in move out his arguments and criticizes Erasmus for stating a bare definition without explaining its parts.The debate has very much become a personal matter by the time Luthers discourse commences. There is no mutual agreement whatsoever, thus it is clean to see why the views of Catholics and Protestants were so divergent. Erasmus is clearly trying to convince his readers, nearly particularly Luther, that free will does indeed exist. Luther continues to stay his course and states that God wills all. Everything is preordained, evil included. Of the assertions, Luther simply states one must delight in assertions to be a Christian at all While Erasmus seems leery to persuade a firm stance in his debate, he is changing the deal of the debate, which clearly is an attempt to prevent L uther from pinning him down in Luthers The Bondage of the Will. After thoroughly refuting everything Erasmus has stated, Luther proclaims that Erasmus has asserted nothing but do comparisons. Whether there be complete merit in either mans philosophy, Luther has quite convincingly made Erasmus position appear flawed.