Team Erasmus

This is a great edition to have the two essential texts on the question of free choice in one and the same volume with a good introduction. Even though Luther points out that he is no learned man in comparison to Erasmus it is obvious that both are well read and are making a huge amount of references to both classical and patristic literature and thinkers and then the Bible of course. It seems to me that in terms of biblical interpretation Luther might have the stronger case her, but I am not sure about all the points he makes. I think Erasmus still has a point in that there seems to be free will assumed by the biblical authors. Luther does mention, what I think is Erasmus' strongest argument, that if no free will, or capacity to do otherwise, it is difficult to see how we can be responsible for our actions. This Luther postpones to the eschaton and very summarily. I would like to see him treating this a little more in depth to be really convinced of his argument.

Doesn't get much better than Luther. Foundational for my own thinking about God's sovereignty and its relation to free will. I remember reading Erasmus and thinking that he had some pretty decent points, and then Luther just blows him out of the water. An essential historical work.

Erasmus and Luther: The Battle over Free Will edited by Clarence H. Miller, translated by Clarence H. Miller and Peter Macardle. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2012.

Summary: This work is a compilation of the argument between Erasmus and Luther over the place of free will and grace in salvation, excluding most of the supporting exegesis but giving the gist of the argument.

How free is the human will? This is a theological and philosophical discussion that has been ongoing for at least two millenia. In our present context the question arises in light of research findings in evolutionary biology and neuroscience. More narrowly, this has been a point of contention within Christian theology from the disputes between Augustine and the Pelagians (fourth century) to more present-day discussions between Calvinists and Arminians. The argument between Luther and Erasmus at the beginning of the Reformation comes a bit over midway in this history and helps us understand some of the theological fault lines between the churches of the Reformation and the Roman Catholic Church that are still under discussion to the present day.

The "battle" is really a disputation in a formal sense that was initiated somewhat reluctantly by Erasmus who was actually sympathetic to many of Luther's contentions for reform but felt that Luther's Augustinian embrace of sovereign grace alone with no place for human will in salvation to be extreme. His initial discourse with Luther was a somewhat moderated appeal that sought to thread a path between grace alone and some allowance for the place of human will assisted by grace. Luther's reply, which we know as The Bondage of the Will argues forcefully, and at times acerbically, that when it comes to our salvation "free" will is a non-existent entity. Erasmus responded with a two part reply, known under the title of The Shield-Bearer Defending in which he more forcefully defends the place of human will in salvation.

The arguments are lengthy, detailed and at points repetitious and thus the group I read this work with were glad for a compilation rather than the full versions of both works. In the introductory material, the editor outlines the works, showing in bold print the sections included in the compilation. This edition is well-annotated, providing background material for allusions and helpful connections back to opposing arguments when these are referred to.

As I mentioned, this debate helped delineate some of the fault lines between Catholic and Reformation churches:

The question of the perspicacity of scripture--how easy or difficult is it for the individual reader to understand scripture?

How important is the tradition of how the church has read scripture versus the priority of the individual reader, particularly Luther?

Assumptions about "fallen" human nature. Are we utterly incapable of doing anything to contribute to our salvation or is there some "spark" of goodness which may be assisted by grace?

Related to this, is our salvation to be attributed exclusively to the sovereign grace of God or is there some place for the human will in seeking and believing?

We concluded that the arguments did not resolve these questions for us. In our reading group were those leaning toward Luther and those toward Erasmus, although most of us were troubled on the one hand by Luther's exclusive emphasis on sovereign grace, and on the other by Erasmus's language of "meriting" grace and his implication that justification is a process, confusing justification and sanctification. We wondered if the word "free" might be a sticking point and a discussion of human agency might have been more helpful. We recognized that we are dealing with things that are either paradoxical (apparently contradictory) or antinomies (two contrary things that are both true). We saw the challenge of attempting to reconcile as abstractions ("free will" vs. "grace") realities lived out in the existential life of faith where we experience both our "chosenness" and our "choosing" under the grace of God.

Hence, if one is looking for a "pat" answer to this discussion, this work will either simply confirm your pre-understanding or not help. But if you wish to understand the discussion, listening to these two great figures will prove illuminating and perhaps help you think more deeply about some of the fundamental questions in Christian theology.

The works themselves are crucial to understanding theological debates in Western Christianity. The edition is well-done. I heartily applaud the choice to include Erasmus' later works, which are often left out the debate. There is some abridgment, which I normally dislike, but it was done judiciously.

Luther can be a bit wordy, but, as Douglas Wilson put it, "Bits of Erasmus fly everywhere."

Luther admitted he thought this was his best work and I am inclined to agree. In this response to Erasmus of Rotterdam he presents a compelling case for the exhaustive sovereignty of God over all of creation and particularly in electing and predestining those whom he saves, he also shows how this does not conflict with the idea that man is held responsible for his sin, addressing the same question Paul does in Romans 9, "How can [God] still blame us, if no one resists his will?" Luther's writing is sharp and especially entertaining at points where he chides his opponent. It is well worth a thorough read. Also, I recommend getting this edition over the "Bondage of the Will" standalone and read Erasmus first since this is Luther's response to him and you can admire the slick and ascerbic wit of Erasmus to get a feeling for what kind of rhetorical opposition Luther was up against.

Classic book that helps the reader understand the very real debates over what the Bible teaches on Free-will. While the writing style of the period can offer a challenge, the format of response and counter-response of Luther and Erasmus gives the reader interesting insight to the early development of our modern theology.

Can't really rate it, didn't read it out of interest but simply for an assignment. Basically, it's an interesting debate if you're interested in history or the ins and outs of the Reformation more specifically... however, the format is painfully dreary. Line-by-line hairsplitting what was said by the opponent, not to mention that they seem to have widely different ends in mind so it doesn't come across so much as a dialogue, more like a zealot (Luther) polemicizing to someone who'd really like to say "please stop talking to me".

On a personal note, I vehemently disagreed with Luther and that really made it hard to enjoy the latter part of this book.

Fanstastically interesting, and one of the most important controveries in church history, to say nothing of being personally impactful (that is, if you believe in an all powerful God, where does that belief leave your power of making decisions-- in simple terms, is there room for both you and God in a logically sound universe?). Even more, if possible, than the actual subject matter (assuming that most adults have thought through the issue a little bit in the past), the disputants themselves are interesting: one would have liked to be able to see both Luther and Erasmus in action, as it were. Erasmus takes a moderate, sensisble stance filled with gentleness and good humor, whereupon Luther starts doing the equivalent of smashing things with a stick. While Luther comes away having made the most logical sense, Erasmus stays within the bounds of common sense, and while neither is above making unfriendly personal remarks about the other, both seem ultimately concerned about the health of souls, the Christian church as a whole, and one another's salvation. It's a powerful, enjoyable read.

Thoughtfully and well done translations of the differences between Luther and Erasmus on this point.

J. Robert Ewbank author "John Wesley, Natural Man, and the 'Isms'"

An essential. As Luther himself says in his opening response, this book touches on the central issue of the Reformation.