Update:
I re-read/skimmed this for my students, and the debates meant a lot more to me, this time around.

Luther's rhetoric, though still as entertaining as ever, had its tragic side, especially when looking at Erasmus' initial forray, which was perfectly reasonable, though wrong. I do strongly agree with what Luther says, especially in the light of the New Perspective on Paul; the arguments have not substantially changed. There are some truly beautiful parts in Luther's little polemic.

Review:
This debate is one of the best in history and it took place between two distinct historical personalities: Desiderius Erasmus, Catholic satirist and Martin Luther, Protestant leader.

Both debaters have distinct styles: Erasmus is cool and pointed, Luther impassioned and enraged. Not only are they an enthralling debate to watch, they also state both sides of the 'free will/predestination' debate at their strongest points.

As a grim Calvinist, it is my duty to side with Luther. If only we had men more willing to break a few bones nowadays.

Tyndale once says that he refrains from expounding a textual gloss "for tediousness": one wishes that both Luther and Erasmus might have learned a lesson from the man, not primarily in their scripture interpretation, but in their controversial style. Line by line answering of the other party gets to be pretty old pretty quickly, especially when one of the respondents is as prolix and sticks to the point as little as Martin Luther. This text skips whole sections, which are both important and enjoyable, of Erasmus's original Discussion, which is a defense of free will and then Luther's famous "Bondage of the Will," which is his response. It instead gives the full text of both Erasmus's "Shield Bearer" texts, which bear the shield to defend his Discussion. These are less interesting and, to my mind, don't show Erasmus at his best. He is kind of huffy and pouty that Luther wouldn't discuss matters in an academic fashion, and it doesn't add much (except tediousness) to the issue. If you can get the older "Library of Christian Classics" translation, that's a a more satisfying read.

Das ddd

If this edition would have included the texts in full, it would have been an easy five stars for me. It's fireworks from the beginning to the very end: Erasmus's scholarly, learned, optimistic christian humanism (or humanist christianity, if you will) versus Luther's confident, gloomy, deeply pessimistic (at least as far as human capability is concerned) alternative. An amazing illustration of how intepretations can vary. This is a clash between great minds that is perhaps only equalled by debates such as those between Chomsky and Foucault, Popper and Adorno, and Hegel and Schopenhauer (although this one was rather one-sided). A marvellous polemic.

Also: team Erasmus without a doubt.

I only read Erasmus' On the Freedom of the Will so my rating only reflects his work. I have a different edition of Luther's On the Bondage of the Will that I want to read. I have no complaints about the translation, but I prefer a different book format. I wasn't able to find Erasmus' work anywhere else.

A conveniently paired publication. I ship Team Erasmus real hard, so I would give his work a four and Luther's snotty rebuttal a two. Erasmus, working in a Catholic tradition despite his critiques of many church practices of his own day, produces a sincere attempt to synthesize a bible full of varying accounts of free will (or the absence thereof). My distaste for Luther's response stems less from the theology itself - though I confess to finding it rather knuckle-headed compared with the historical approach of Erasmus - but because it is riddled with ad hominem attacks that make it incredibly frustrating to read.

Most readers are going to take this up for the excerpts from Freedom of the Will by Erasmus and Bondage of the Will by Luther. And that's an important point to remember with this volume: it consists of excerpts from the back and forth texts on this question that Erasmus and Luther fired back and forth in 1520s. While the selections convey the heart of the matter, some passages are missing that might have been included to make the issue clearer. For instance, the fraught exchange about God hardening the heart of pharaoh has always seemed to me to be one of the set pieces that sharply delineated each man's position and it is unfortunate that it is among the deleted passages in the two texts. To the editors' enormous credit, they list all of the sections in all of the texts, indicating which ones are in the volume and which didn't make the cut. The annotation is light but on point: there's nothing that one desperately longs for that is missing, and all the important colleagues, texts, ancient fathers and biblical passages are helpfully identified and, where necessary, glossed. The debate in the first two texts is much as one remembers: Erasmus trying to chart out points of disagreement with as little heat as possible, Luther responding with sharp arguments and even sharper abuse. The passages from Hyperaspistes (The Shield-Bearer), Erasmus' exasperated, exhaustive and exhausting gloves-off response cover neither man with glory. It's like reading a lengthy, point-by-point attack on a querulous adversary on an internet board. Both men are diminished by the effort. And yet one wonders what else Erasmus could have done? Fortunately the editors included his lengthy conclusion where Erasmus turned from direct confrontation of Luther's many outrageous rhetorical gestures to an eloquent restatement of what he would like to see allowed for free will. It's a nice grace note after more than 100 pages of high-level name-calling. One of the rare occasions where the editing deserves an extra star, but I can't bring myself to do it because the exchange, at a pretty early point, becomes so utterly unedifying.

Challenging but profitable book. Erasmus wants to suggest that there may be some small role for the human will, assisted by grace, in achieving salvation. Luther responds strongly, vehemently even, against this view. Read this book to better understand the heart of the Reformation, as Luther argues against Erasmus' view to exalt free grace and to make such grace available to all sinners.

Free will is definitely an interesting topic, but Luther's poor writing structure makes this a tough read to get through, and it's not his fault! This book feels slightly out of context since it is a collection of written refutes from two different authors from two different countries from two different times. However, if you're interested in interpretations of what the Bible has to say on free will, definitely read a few sections from this collection!

A classic argument classically argued.

More than fantastic!

First read this at Milligan College in a 16th century Reformation class. Of the six students, I was the only one, along with the professor, in agreement with Luther. Great semester of conversations.

Read this again about ten years later with a friend. As enjoyable a reread, if not more so.

Reading Erasmus’ challenge first was not a waste, but a perfect setup.

Luther's response after the first round seems disingenuous and maybe a tad bawdy, as one would write after a few beers, attempting to win an argument through force of argument. From what I recall of the exchange (having read the book some years ago), Luther simply ignores Erasmus' biblical passages quoted in question of some of Luther's doctrinal positions.
Always there is the search for the one basic bit that captures the heart of the exchange, and for this particular dialogue it is Erasmus' plea that discussions between learned men ought to remain between them and their peers rather than being allowed to be bled out by and into the public domain where it would only be used to cement further divisions and discord.