Customer Reviews

Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation (Library of Christian Classics (Paperback Westminster))

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

If you want to understand Luther's Bondage of the Will, then you need to understand Erasmus' Freedom of the Will. This is a convenient way to get copies of both books.

Is our will really free or are we predestined? Where do we stand when it comes to our salvation? Can we contribute to the salvation of our souls? Erasmus and Luther argued over what they and their contemporaries thought was the characteristic difference between the evolving Catholic and Protestant positions concerning human nature, namely, the question of the freedom of the will. However, we shouldn't be limited by this ideas, their often heated discourse reveals, as much about their subjective modes of thinking and about the atmosphere of this turbulent period. But in the history of ideas this discourse gains an added significance. It shows some limitations of Christian Humanism and enlightens most of subsequent developments of modern thought. Neither one of them loses we all win! The introductions to the texts are, for themselves, worthy of this price. E Gordon Rupp and Philip S. Watson, offer and impartial analysis of the two men's positions, assuming an important familiarity with the circumstances of the conflict. A great buy.

Desiderius Erasmus (De Libero Arbitrio) and Martin Luther (De Servo Arbitrio), Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, Translated and Edited by E. Gordon Rupp, Philip S. Watson (Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1969)

Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, translated by J. I. Packer & O. R. Johnston (Grand Rapids, Fleming H. Revell, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 1959)

The exchange on the issue of free will between Erasmus and Luther may be one of the best known theological exchanges in the history of Christian literature. If for no other reason, it is memorable for being the impetus behind Luther's writing what he considered his best theological work. Both works were written in Latin, and both are peppered throughout with references to a wide range of both theological works and classical Greek and Latin authors. Both were linguists of the first order. Erasmus had St. Jerome as his hero, while Luther was especially devoted to the though of Jerome's contemporary, Augustine of Hippo.
Both works cited above contain very good translations of Luther's work, which is about four times longer than Erasmus' Diatribe. Both works also contain very good introductions by the editor / translators; however the Rupp/Watson volume is clearly superior in that it contains both works, with an introduction to both works. It also has superior footnotes and combined index to their introduction, Erasmus' work, and Luther's work.
In the first few years of Luther's career as a reformer, beginning in 1517, with the publication of the 95 Theses, most of Europe perceived Erasmus as an ally of Luther. Some, such as the papal legate, Jerome Aleander, thought Erasmus actually wrote Luther's works. In 1524, influential friends, got Erasmus to write a tract against Luther. Erasmus chose the issue of freedom of the will, as Luther posed the issue in his Heidelberg Disputation, Theological Theses Nr. 13 ` Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do, it commits a mortal sin'. Erasmus correctly affirms from the outset that this issue is difficult, and that even with all the `labor' expended to address the issue, that effort has born less fruit. This immediately alerts us to observe whether the great Erasmus can succeed where so many others have failed. He also immediately points out that his `diatribe' was solicited by two of Martin Luther's more dedicated enemies, Johann von Eck (1486 - 1543) and Andreas Carlstadt (1480 - 1541). With this, Erasmus quiets any surprise by saying that he has never been an adherent to Luther's doctrines. In these opening statements, Erasmus seems to be performing a graceful ballet of words around the disputants who are discussing things with literally deadly seriousness.
He also, very early on, simply says that I don't agree with Luther. `I think there to be a certain power of free choice.' He goes on to state the problem as:
`By free choice in this place we mean a power of the human will by which a man can apply himself to the things which lead to eternal salvation, or turn away from them'.
Before embarking on the argument over this issue, Erasmus suggests that this is not something which should be discussed in an open forum. He also gives credit to the findings in the traditions of the church, and the heritage of an `unwritten gospel', not unlike the authority the Jews give to their Mishnah, Talmud, and Midrashic writings.
Erasmus main argument against Luther's statement of the problem (Luther agrees with Erasmus' restatement) is his trotting out a large number of scriptural passages from both the Old and New Testaments which he says supports the notion that there is no sense to `sin' unless people have the free will to avoid committing sin. He also addresses in some detail a few passages which are commonly cited to argue against free will, and he claims to show how these passages don't make the case against free will.
In both Erasmus tract and in Luther's reply, it is truly amazing to see the extent to which they make personal attacks on one another's positions. About a quarter of the way through Luther's work, we stops addressing Erasmus and begins, in a consistently sneering tone, addressing the female Diatribe, a short title of Erasmus work. My Latin dictionary does not have diatribe, so I don't know if it is a masculine, feminine, or neuter noun, but Luther certainly has a lot of sport with the gender.
Luther, I believe, actually argues against two different senses of `free will', and seems to not let on that he is doing so. Early in the book, when he is countering Erasmus' scriptural examples, his sense of `free will' is that absolutely nothing that a person can do is free of sin, unless they have the faith of grace. In some sense, it totally sidesteps Erasmus' point that people have a choice in what they do. Luther tacitly agrees they have a choice, but states that everything they choose will be sinful, because everything they do will arise from their sinful nature borne of the flesh. On the other hand, I believe Luther is correct in saying that Erasmus has not make his case that one's behavior contributes to their salvation. He even goes so far as to say that Erasmus has stated the evidence for Luther's case.
After Luther dismisses Erasmus' scriptural arguments, with quite a few attacks on Erasmus' metaphorical interpretations of statements (plain reading of scripture is one of Luther's themes throughout his career), plus attacks on Erasmus' hero, Jerome, Luther seems to switch gears and provide evidence for the sense of `free will' which is denied by God's omniscience. St. Paul is famous for this argument, primarily in Romans and Ephesians. The argument is simplicity itself, which makes its absence in Luther's earlier discussion all the more evident. If there is an omniscient God, then He will know everything which will happen in the future, meaning that there is nothing that humans can do by their will to choose to differently than what God foreknows.
It is also convenient that Luther postpones elucidating this position until after he dispatches Erasmus' argument on discussing this issue openly. The inescapable consequence of this position, which Luther does not shirk, is that the image of God presented in the introduction to Job is entirely correct. God saves or damns people entirely based on his own reasons, which are a complete mystery to us. Our proper response is to praise his greatness as our LORD.
Just as Erasmus may not make his case, it is believed that Luther also did not effectively address Erasmus' points. One may leave the discussion feeling this was a tempest in a teapot, but it was not. In 1785, 260 years after Luther's work, Immanuel Kant opened his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals with the statement 'It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will.' From this, virtually straight out of Luther, Kant adduces his categorical imperative, one of the most durable criteria for judging moral statements.

While I do not completely agree with either of the two views advanced by Erasmus and Luther, this book gives a glimpse into the thinking of these two amazing men. I would disagree with the previous reviewer's opinion that Luther was the winner in this debate. I thought that Luther's beliefs were somewhat rediculous. He claimed that we have no free-will, and are controlled either by God or by Satan. He also claimed that we have no option as to which we will be controlled by. He then proceeded to say that it is our own fault if we are controlled by Satan. Also, he makes the claim that we could sin only because we were tempted. This is a faulty claim. If one can fall only if tempted, how then did the Tempter fall? Who tempted him?

This book also gave an interesting look at the personalities of both men. Erasmus seemed to me to be apologetic for writing something against Luther. He even said that he was sorry if he had misinterpreted what Luther had said. Luther, on the other hand, was (in my opinion) extremely harsh toward Erasmus, called him names, and said his work was worthless.

In conclusion, this is a not a book I would reccomend if you want to make a decision about what to believe about free will (there are much better books for that), but it is an excellent book if you want to see the beliefs of two men who are giants in both the history of Christianity and of the whole western world.

The work of Luther andErasmus was well done by the translators. It was an interesting controversy, but unfortunately Erasmus did not do as good a job on this particular piece as he probably could have done.

Luther as always was wordy.

But, it was a good positioning of the two men and an area of thought that is very interesting to me.

The translator for Luther, Philip S. Watson, was my Master's professor at Garrett.

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

I shall preface this review by stating that, in my opinion, Luther wins this debate. Erasmus makes some very good points, but Luther's "Bondage of the Will" contained within this volume is, perhaps, the clearest and most humble presentation of the election of God and its relation to human will that I have ever come across -- to the extent that it rivals John Calvin's "Institutes" itself! I found the arguments convincing and clear, and I found Luther's dedication and submission to the authority of Scripture inspiring.

When you start to read book of such caliber you think you will finally understand the greatness of a great Luther. And here is coming a shocker. You can incur from his writing that he is very angry spiteful man indeed. I am not even talking about theology-cause you know how it is with theology nowdays. Everyone is a theologian, everyone put scripture out of context to serve his or her own profit (hopefully spiritual not monetary). And Luther wasn't exception in this case either (his theology maybe to your liking if you are protestant, if not, better to read the Church Fathers). His denial of free will is just shocking, you can see that this idea is something that was later on developed by Calvin, but it was started by Luther. But again his style of writing is just so damning so unchristianlike that you may think that he is simply mad man. As for Erasmus, I tend to agree with his view much more-the reason, I have read some Church Father. Again if you never read theologians of ancient Christianity you may like what Luther say, if you will read them, you may see Luther differently.

Luther and Erasmus causes one to pause and consider their views on Free Will and Salvation.

This book, LUTHER AND ERASMUS: FREE WILL AND SALVATION, contains some great summaries of the arguments involved. Originally, Erasmus, author of IN PRAISE OF FOLLY (1509) and a great scholar who edited a Greek New Testament in 1516, pictures his philosophical self as the perfect opponent of tyrannical godliness in DIATRIBE ON FREE WILL (1524). Luther was offended, not so much that he was named by Erasmus as a particular kind of fool for God, but that Luther's interpretation of the Bible on this question, ON THE BONDAGE OF THE WILL (1525), based on absolute interpretations which depend on the kind of faith proclaimed by Paul, because "the power or endeavor of free choice is something different from faith in Jesus Christ. But Paul denies that anything outside this faith is righteous in the sight of God; and if it is not righteous in the sight of God, it must necessarily be sin. . . . With men, of course, it is certainly a fact that there are middle and neutral cases, where men neither owe one another anything nor do anything for one another. But an ungodly man sins against God whether he eats or drinks or whatever he does, because he perpetually misuses God's creatures in his impiety and ingratitude, and never for a moment gives glory to God from his heart." (p. 308).

In the history of religion, Martin Luther might be remembered mainly for his opposition to the established church of his time and place. Having been subject to many vows as a monk, he openly rejected certain restrictions that the religious organizations of his day had imposed on those who wished to lead worship or serve communion, and his marriage was a scandal that was altogether typical of the kind of disagreements in that time which survive in some form in the present day. One question of faith that I still find meaningful, in FREE WILL AND SALVATION, is the Bible's comparison of life with military service, as assumed in the first verse of chapter 7 of the book of Job, which Luther uses to explain a similar passage in Isaiah. " `The life of man is a warfare upon earth,' that is there is a set time for it. I prefer to take it simply, in the ordinary grammatical sense of `warfare,' so that Isaiah is understood to be speaking of the toilsome course of the people under the law, as if they were engaged in military service." (p. 267).

As old Europe attempts to secularize itself into an economic empire with minuscule military forces, it seems oddly historical that a few fundamentally religious political movements are being tied to such warfare as exists in our times, a modern age in which terrorism excites the forces of civilization so much that no government or political spokesman that harbors such killers is safe. LUTHER AND ERASMUS: FREE WILL AND SALVATION does not attempt to solve this problem. If anything, this book is just a book that shows how knowledge in the form of books can trap scholars by allowing them to do what the best scholars have always been best at, exhibiting the meaning of states of mind that others usually flee, far beyond the realm of what Job 7:1 in THE JERUSALEM BIBLE asks, "Is not man's life on earth nothing more than pressed service, his time no better than hired drudgery?"

Happenstance, at the end of World War II, picked on Hiroshima, for the purpose of a ten-minute speech, to be a military base, instead of a city, for the announcement of the use of an atomic bomb on August 6, 1945. Most people's lives, the way they live, are more like the city, now, but there is a geopolitical interpretation of world power that allows anyplace to be the Hiroshima of the moment, if the rest of the world wants to see it that way. Luther blames the devil, in FREE WILL AND SALVATION, whenever a man thinks he is choosing to do something on his own, and considering Hiroshima a military base instead of a city in 1945 is the kind of thinking that ought to be considered worthy of the devil, even if Harry Truman was willing to adopt it for ten minutes so he would not seem too far out of step with his military advisers. But the outcry, after dropping a couple atomic bombs within a week back then, started to make it obvious that not everybody was inclined to accept the incineration of cities so lightly. I might even be leaving out something terrible about the nature of the judgment of God, which is the primary topic of this book, because Luther seems so much closer to the nature of Hiroshima than we are, survivors though some of us might be. What makes LUTHER AND ERASMUS: FREE WILL AND SALVATION such heavy reading now is because it makes no attempt to lighten up to match the spiritually and economically commercial nature of our society, which usually considers itself thoroughly artistic or comical, especially in the manner in which people all get along by going along. Half of this book doubts that the world could ever be considered so normal. After a general index (which includes some latin phrases, though the tough latin phrases, like *praeter casam,* are explained in an "Appendix: On the Adagia of Erasmus") of several pages, the Biblical References take most of four pages. Anyone who wondered why Luther thought Christians should be reading the Bible, instead of being spoon fed lessons by officials, should get a load of this. Praeter casam to you, too.

This was a gift. She loved it. It is a rather expensive book, so I hope she wasn't lying.