Discourse on Free Will:

by Erasmus, Martin Luther

Desiderius Eramsus (1466/9-1536) was the most renowned scholar of his age, a celebrated humanist and Classicist, and the first teacher of Greek at Cambridge. An influential figure in the Protestant Reformation, though without ever breaking from the Church himself, he satirised both human folly and the corruption of the Church. Martin Luther (1483-1546) was the founder of the German Reformation. His 95 Theses became a manifesto for reform of the Catholic Church and led to his being tried for heresy. He remained in Germany, Professor of Biblical Exegesis at the University of Wittenburg, until his death, publishing a large number of works, including three major treatises and a translation of the New Testament into German. Comprising Erasmus's "The Free Will" and Luther's "The Bondage of the Will", Discourse on Free Will is a landmark text in the history of Protestantism. Encapsulating the perspective on free will of two of the most important figures in the history of Christianity, it remains to this day a powerful, thought-provoking and timely work.

Genres: Philosophy, Theology, Religion, Nonfiction, Christianity, Classics, School

154 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1524

About the author

Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (28 October 1466 – 12 July 1536), known as Erasmus of Rotterdam, or simply Erasmus, was a Dutch Renaissance humanist, Catholic priest, social critic, teacher, and theologian.

Erasmus was a classical scholar and wrote in a pure Latin style. Among humanists he enjoyed the sobriquet "Prince of the Humanists", and has been called "the crowning glory of the Christian humanists". Using humanist techniques for working on texts, he prepared important new Latin and Greek editions of the New Testament, which raised questions that would be influential in the Protestant Reformation and Catholic Counter-Reformation. He also wrote On Free Will, The Praise of Folly, Handbook of a Christian Knight, On Civility in Children, Copia: Foundations of the Abundant Style, Julius Exclusus, and many other works.

Erasmus lived against the backdrop of the growing European religious Reformation, but while he was critical of the abuses within the Catholic Church and called for reform, he kept his distance from Luther and Melanchthon and continued to recognise the authority of the pope, emphasizing a middle way with a deep respect for traditional faith, piety and grace, rejecting Luther's emphasis on faith alone. Erasmus remained a member of the Roman Catholic Church all his life, remaining committed to reforming the Church and its clerics' abuses from within. He also held to the Catholic doctrine of free will, which some Reformers rejected in favor of the doctrine of predestination. His middle road approach disappointed and even angered scholars in both camps.

Erasmus died suddenly in Basel in 1536 while preparing to return to Brabant, and was buried in the Basel Minster, the former cathedral of the city. A bronze statue of him was erected in his city of birth in 1622, replacing an earlier work in stone.

Reviews

[Emerson Fortier · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is probably the worst translation of any work of philosophy/theology I've ever read, and I'll tell you why. It's not the translation (the English is impeccable). It's one tiny little footnote about halfway through Luther's bit on the free will. You'll find it on page 127. It reads "The Major portion of this chapter in Luther is a detailed exegetical analysis of many scriptural passages. These have been omitted here."

I was flabbergasted when I saw that. Who... in a translation which seeks to PRESENT SOMEONE ELSES ARGUMENT... OMITS THE MAJOR PORTION OF THEIR ARGUMENT!

In the introduction the book says that Luthers "Bondage" is 4 times longer than Erasmus's diatribe, but in this version its probably the other way around, and now we know why. I picked this up because I wanted to get down and dirty with the arguments these two make and judge for myself between them, but this just stunned me. I wasted all that time, reading this guys book, only to find out he actually cut out a huge chunk? Not just A huge chunk, but THE huge chunk. The piece where he actually makes the argument! Holy smokes. I don't even know what to say to that. It's not even subtle either. The whole book jumps, you can feel Luther building up to something, then the writing changes as if he's made some grand point. I was like "what? He didn't say anything." Then I saw the footnote. Absolutely ridiculous I would recommend that anyone buy any other translation than this one. it was clearly published with a budget in mind, and not an actually decent book.

Oh, and Catholics beware, the introduction makes it very clear that Ernst F. Winters sets these two as antagonist protagonist, with Erasmus as the quibbling sell out, and Luther the passionate man of God. I would be okay with that if he hadn't also removed the chest of Luther. It almost feels like a ploy. "You can't judge what you haven't read. Trust me, Luther's better."
No sir. I do not trust you. You took Lord of the rings, edited it so that any mention of the dark Lord and his atrocities was omitted and then said "See, isn't the fellowship just a ridiculous ploy?"

In all fairness I may be wrong about the last bit, but it certainly feels that way, and I'm not going to hold punches against a man who was too soft in the head to realize that anyone reading Luther might actually want to see what he has to say about Scripture, not just read the hilariously violent rhetoric and logical fallacies he deployed against those he considered his opponents. 0 respect, even if you can read German.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Poor. Great. Depending on who was writing.

[David Pate · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first thing I'd like to say is that I have had trouble finding a copy where Luther's argument isn't abbreviated to the severity it seems plagues most versions. This I find frustrating as apparently I need to learn Latin, Greek, and German if I want to see the entire text.

As is usual, Erasmus states his position with much elegance which makes me want to side with him because I appreciate a well thought out presentation. That said, however, it is not possible to side with him because in doing so, in the same instance be opposite as sometimes his definitions are pack-luster and he sways from side to side. While I can, for the same of community, appreciate taking a moderate position, there still has to be form wherein Erasmus left his argument at time so ambiguous, the reader doesn't know what he believes. He does a good job at being thorough but a poor job at being consistent.

Luther on the other hand (if you can call it that, seeing as Erasmus acted as putty in both hands), had a simpler tact. Attack. While I can't approve of his out right rudeness of his letter, he does articulate his point much more clearly than his opponent. He was able to take a confusing discussion and put it in simple words defining the discourse itself. Where Erasmus is ambiguous, Luther is precise. He narrows the one time foggy view points to this: faith is to grace as free will is to good works. While Erasmus put forth several gems of thought in his thesis, Luther drove the nail into the coffin for me on the overall conundrum.

[Illiterate · Rating 1 out of 5]

A dull theological debate, full of Biblical exegesis, about salvation not free will.

[no.stache.nietzsche · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very cool edition! Feels like walking out of a epic 16th century comment section flame war xD

[Seth Hale]

Honestly pretty underwhelmed with Luther’s response. He used maybe 2 Scripture references. The rest was all philosophical pondering. Feel like Erasmus won this one.

[Njpb · Rating 4 out of 5]

It would seem this fellow Luther is somewhat not very good at having a conversation

[Tom Willis · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is the (apparently) abbreviated dialogue between Catholic Erasmus and Reformer Luther on the existence of freedom of the human will as disclosed in the scriptures. A note on this edition - there are quite a few typos. One humorously misquoting a passage from Isaiah saying "all flesh is grace" as opposed to "grass" (Is. 40.6). Luther's obstinacy is made plain in his reply to Erasmus' even-handed and amiable dismissal of the Lutheran idea of will. I personally find Luther's interpretation of humanity's role in salvation completely unpalatable and useless to the life of the Christian. One can easily imagine, from this book, a red-faced Luther huffing and puffing against popery and ecclesial hierarchy as an Erasmus - who actually agrees with Luther in practical (not theological) matters - tries to approach without re-awaking the German's wrath. However, Luther was far too hotheaded and zealous to realize that he had at least one ally within the walls of Rome.

[Rachael · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you're interested in the Reformation and how theological concepts developed during this time this is an accessible way to read some of the primary sources of the major players over a bone of contention fought over to this day.

[Katsuro · Rating 5 out of 5]

A delightful little collection of dialogues. Highly recommended.

[Jeremy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although Luther's response was four times longer than Erasmus's Diatribe, the excerpts from Luther in this edition comprise about a fourth of the book. Luther's tone is not rhetorically persuasive, but he really does respond logically to Erasmus's points. A few major typos (e.g., fustification by faith).

Preface
vii: Erasmus (E) and Luther (L) positioned as a famous pair, such as Milton/Hobbes, Blake/Paine, and Orwell/Berlin—the exception being that E and L directly engaged with each other
viii: a primary objection to Luther's view of grace is that it provides a license to sin

Introduction
1: L thought that his work on the will along with his catechism were his best works; "E laid the egg that L hatched"; E's friends prompted him to respond
2: brief biography of E
3: brief biography of L
4: Henry VIII's response earned him the title "Defender of the Faith"; details of the responses (L's Assertions [in response to Exsurge Domine] in 1520, E in 1524, L in 1525, E in 1526 and 1527)
5: for E, Christianity is morality?; L: unbelievers can only sin [four states of man]

Erasmus: The Free Will
Ch. 1: Preface: Man and Truth
12–13: E signals his openness (and his aversion to assertions)
14: E acknowledges that all human goodness comes from God; issue of whether or not God's fore-knowledge is contingent (upon human action)
14–16: man's limited capacity to know
16/19: L cites Wycliffe (see 22 and 51)
17: E does a lot of throat-clearing and admits that his preface was a little long-winded.
19n3: E is responding to L's Assertio (1520), which was written in response to Leo X's papal bull (Exsurge Domine)

Ch. 2: Introduction: Objective Criterion for Truth
24: E complains about paradoxes (see 94, 96, 98)
26: Scripture seems to support both sides of the issue; definition of free will: "By freedom of the will we understand in this connection the power of the human will whereby man can apply to or turn away from that which leads unto eternal salvation."

Ch. 3: Old Testament Proofs Supporting the Free Will
30: in Eden our wills were free to obey God and remain in Paradise, although we would have needed special grace to attain eternal life (E: even if Scripture doesn't say this, Church Fathers do)
30–31: some confusing statements on the will's bondage and the subsequent restoration of freedom (and a seeming support of Pelagius); the mind (nous) and will are obscured/darkened/wounded/corrupted, but not extinguished/extinct
33: E separates himself from Pelagius by saying that "we owe salvation solely to God without whose grace the will of man could not be effectively free to achieve good" [sounds like L]
34: E opposes Augustine and the Reformers, who say that even "good" works by unbelievers are hated by God [see Is. 64:6 and Rom. 8:8]; reference to prevenient grace
35-36: four varieties of grace: natural, extraordinary/exciting/operative, efficient/cooperative/promoting, and sanctifying/ultimate/final
36: (distorted) non-Pelagian views of Thomas, Carlstadt, and Luther (E sees this as a progression toward determinism)
37–39: E claims that God would not command impossible things [cf. Matt. 5:48; Matt. 22:37–39; 1 Thess. 5:16–18 —> Jesus called Lazarus to come forth, yet God did all the work (John 11:43–44).]—the command seems meaningless if we are powerless to obey; E talks more about necessity in this chapter and the next
42n2: E is not Pelagian, but L is tempted to call him one
42n11: condign and congruent merit; prevenient grace

Ch. 4: New Testament Proofs Supporting the Free Will
45: the Matt. 23:37 example of Christ's desire to gather the children of Jerusalem, a hen gathers her chicks (58: see, people do resist God's will)
46–47: as E says in Ch. 3, commands seem superfluous if we can't obey them, not to mention the arbitrariness of rewards and punishments (see 51, 61, 64)
46: "faith itself is a work and the free will participates to a considerable measure in it by turning to or away from faith" (cf. 50)
49: E's language of earning rewards seems dangerous
50: E imagines a scenario in which someone is made holy against his will [this would/could never happen—when God calls someone, he comes willingly]; "the will to do good works is in itself a good work" (cf. 46)
51: L quote from Assertio: "everything takes place by absolute necessity" (no free will)
52: again, E's language of trusting in our own works seems dangerous (cf. p. 49)

Ch. 5: Apparent Proofs against the Free Will
E deals with Paraoh's hardness, God's choice of Jacob over Esau, and some passages from Isaiah
54: in discussing Pharaoh's hardness, E uses images such as the same rain producing fruit in well-tended land and thorns/thistles in neglected land, and the same sun making wax soft and clay hard
57: a master may choose to allow a wicked servant to act wickedly
58: "not every necessity excludes the freedom of the will"
59: "God is the cause of the evil of the human will only insofar as he leaves the will to itself and does not turn it aside by grace"
59–60: E doesn't think that Gen. 25 (Jacob and Esau) is about salvation [but Rom. 9 is!]; E's explanation is that God is "dampening the arrogance" of presumptuous people who think that they have achieved success in their own strength (see 61–63, 77, 79, 80, 85, 96)
60, 62, 65: E warns about too literal of an interpretation (eclipsing human effort)
61: "it is not impossible for our will to work together with the divine will for our eternal salvation
62: E uses 2 Tim. 2:20–21 to argue that we can cleanse ourselves to a degree—he says this passage awakens us to zeal and protects us from presumption and despair, whereas Is. 45/Rom. 9 (re: a potter) gets us to stop grumbling about God's grace to others
63: E says that Is. 10 (tools cannot boast) is more about a godless king who believes that his own wisdom and strength have given him success—the purpose is to dampen his arrogance; E says that Ez. 36 (hearts of stone and flesh) is metaphorical language—cf. a Latin teacher who takes away ignorance and imparts knowledge, but only if a student is industrious
64: summary of the problem: human impotence removes merit and reward, but human power removes the need for grace
64–65: E argues that passages that emphasize human effort should not be reinterpreted to mean that grace does everything [but he doesn't admit the opposite: passages that emphasize grace should not be reinterpreted to mean that humans earn salvation]
66n8: antecedent necessity (determinism) vs. consequent necessity (see 58–59)

Ch. 6: Luther's Proofs against the Free Will
67: E thinks that free will is on a throne?; "the weakness of our nature incline[s] towards sin"
68: "The tendency towards evil existing in most men does not completely cancel out the freedom of the will, even when one cannot overcome evil without the help of divine grace" [doesn't a tendency mean that the will is not completely free from all influence?]; re: the flood, E says that the interval of 120 years between the threat of the flood and the actual flood shows that God gave time for people to change their minds [it could simply be the case that God's patience is demonstrated]; E doesn't like calling pre-salvation works "evil" (see p. 34), because he wants humans to have the ability to prepare themselves for God's grace
70: "no one is forced to do evil unless he consents" [agreed]
71: "The one who guides does not necessarily force"; "When God, propitious to his people, inclines the heart of a king towards good, he is not necessarily forcing the will"; God's inclining someone toward evil is simply permitting him to follow his passions [agreed]
72: E takes John 15:5 (can't do anything without Christ) to mean that we cannot achieve our ultimate goal, but he wants to maintain that we can do something

Ch. 7: Postscript on Apparent Proofs against the Free Will
75: we contribute so little that all the glory goes to God (76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 86, 91, 92, 97)
75–76: like a mariner sailing his ship through a storm, or a farmer harvesting a crop, a father with beautiful children, a doctor restoring health, a king winning a war, ground producing fruit—we can't say that they contributed nothing [but are these really good analogies?]
76: Matt. 10:20 reduces anxiety about our having to perform well, but it can't mean that we do nothing; we must respond well to grace (not refuse it)
77: human actions involve thinking, willing, and doing —> thinking and doing are by grace alone, but we contribute something in our willing (see 91); E seems to deny sola gratia (see 92); E admits that "even the fact that [someone] consented and cooperated with divine grace is God's gift" (see the bottom of the page, and 91)
78: Phil. 2:12–13: "this passage teaches us clearly that both God and man works" [post-regeneration!]
79: E seems to suggest that it's possible to keep all of God's commandments [Pelagian]
80–81: prodigal son example (prevenient grace spurs the son to return, and he does); God credits us for not turning from His offer of grace (see 91); our "striving cooperates with divine help"
82: E doesn't like the images of a potter/clay or carpenter/axe because these objects can't cooperate (they're passive materials/tools) [but the images are biblical...]
82: "We oppose those who conclude like this: 'Man is unable to accomplish anything unless God's grace helps him. Therefore there are no good works of man.' We propose the rather more acceptable conclusion: Man is able to accomplish all things, if God's grace aids him. Therefore it is possible that all works of man be good."

Ch. 8: Summary and Conclusion
85: E urges a moderate position (see 96); those who ascribe too much to free will probably do so to encourage those who despair that they cannot do anything to change their state, while those who deny free will probably do so to avoid presumption/arrogance (see 97)
86: E acknowledges some strengths of those who deny free will (e.g., rely wholly on God, don't boast [see 98])
87: E seems to accuse L of saying that even post-regeneration good works are sin (see 94–95) [I hope L doesn't say this]; "[God] wants us to watch, to fight and to struggle for the reward of eternal life"
88: E thinks God would be unjust to show mercy to some while punishing sinners [but God doesn't owe anyone grace, and He may be gracious to whomever He wills]
88–89: bad analogy of a king giving reward to only some of his generals [sinners are rebels]; bad analogy of a chain servant who is punished for not working [we put ourselves in chains]
89: E has reservations about justification by faith alone (to him, faith and love seem mutually supporting)
90: E argues that Augustine reacted too strongly to Pelagius (cf. the Greek who cut down vineyards to avoid drunkenness)
91–92: example of a father who shows his son an apple—the boy must still make an effort; "I readily admit that our striving contributes less to the gaining of eternal life, than the boy's running at the hand of his father" [well that's good]
92: E isn't thrilled with "Whatever he has effected in us, he gives" [sounds Augustine's Confessions]; E prefers to think of grace and the human will acting simultaneously
93: E says some people admit that God works in man evil works [I don't know anyone who says this]
93–94: E offers a response that a reformer might give: Who are you to challenge God's decisions?
94: E denies that original sin destroys the human ability to please God; E describes a reformer's position on the law: all it can do is magnify God's grace by showing us what we can't do [actually, this almost does sound Lutheran—cf. the Contemporary Grace Movement]
96: exaggerations destroy progress: Luther denies purgatory and satisfaction in penance, the need to keep monastic vows, and the goodness of (RCC) ecclesiastical hierarchy
96–97: classical allusions to Achilles, Hector, and Scylla and Charybdis; exaggerations/reactions might be helpful in bending a rod back, but they're not helpful in doctrine
97: purpose of arguing for free will: justify punishing those who resist God's grace, prevent anyone from saying that God is cruel/unjust, prevent despair and presumption, and encourage good works
98: good rhetorical move of claiming to be willing to learn

Luther: The Bondage of the Will
Ch. 1: Introduction
Wow. L opens with machine gun fire. Almost surprised not to find and "Your momma" jokes.
103: L concedes that he's not eloquent; he thanks E for 1) not being rude and thereby avoiding making L angry [good grief—so this is L holding back], and 2) not saying anything new or helpful; Melanchthon has already written on this subject; L feels sorry/embarrassed for E
104: L feels confirmed in his own view by reading the bad arguments of a very smart man

Ch. 2: Refutation of Erasmus' Preface
107–8: L attacks E for not wanting to assert—L says Xns must make assertions
109–10: many things about God are obscure, but the Bible is revelation—obscure things are due to our ignorance, not its obscurity; use clear Scripture to interpret obscure Scripture
110: funny German insertion (see 118n6)
111: E admits that "free will" is ineffective (in matters of salvation) until God's grace helps it—so how is it "free"? (see 116–17); this issue is not superfluous, but rather "the very hinge upon which our disputation turns"
112: "God foreknows nothing contingently"; tyranny of papal laws (binding people to confession/satisfaction)—don't bind consciences
113: E wants peace at the expense of truth [L: Peace if possible; truth at all costs]
114: E wants to hide the bad decisions of previous councils to preserve the church's authority
115: L dismisses E's concern that L's teaching opens the floodgates of iniquity; it is humbling to rely on God's grace alone; "By necessity I do not mean compulsion. I meant what they term the necessity of immutability"
116: people sin without God's compulsion; necessity of immutability = "the will cannot change itself, nor give itself another bent"; "the human will is like a 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 72,22). 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."
117: L acknowledges that our wills are free to choose within our natures [we can pick out our socks in the morning], but when it comes to issues of salvation, we cannot break free from our sinful will unless God's grace intervenes

Ch. 3: Refutation of Erasmus' Introduction
120: L mentions the church's condemnation of John Hus
121: L plans to "confute the arguments which are brought forward in support of free will," "defend our own arguments that are being attacked," and "contend for the grace of God against free will"

Ch. 4: Refutation of Erasmus' Old and New Testament Proofs Supporting the Free Will
123–24: L attacks E's definition of "free will"; a truly free will is "a will that can and does do God-ward whatever it pleases, restrained by no law and no command"—but E's definition seems to fit something like "mutable will"
124–25: "Upon the authority of E then, free will is a power of the human will which can of itself will and not will the word and work of God, by which it is to be led to those things which are beyond its capacity and comprehension"—technically, that leaves little work for grace and the Holy Spirit; E's free will is less free than the Pelagians' free will or the Sophists' free will, but he still exalts the power of choice
126: to E (re: Thomas's opinion of free will [p. 36]): "you said that free will is a power of the human will by which a man can turn towards good, whereas here you say approvingly that man without grace cannot will good. The definition affirms what its example denies. Hence there are found in your free will a yes and a no."
126–27: "the free will which you define is one, and the free will you defend is another. E, outstripping others, has now two free wills, and they militate against each other"
128: L's explanation of the law seems limited to one use of the law (not the other two uses)
129: exhortations "are intended to animate those who are already justified and have obtained mercy to be diligent in the fruits of the Spirit and of the righteousness given them, to exercise themselves in love and good works, and to bear courageously the cross and all the other tribulations of this world"

Ch. 5: Comments on Erasmus' Treatment of Passages Denying Free Will
131–32: E's way of getting around the Pharaoh and Jacob/Esau passages (pp. 53–54) is to say that they're tropes (figures of speech); Luther prefers the plain reading [is this a consistent position?]
132–33: when God works evil in people, He is simply moving them according to their fallen natures; He uses evil people as instruments, and he can turn evil to good
134: it does seem cruel (to our common sense) for God to leave people in their sin (L has been offended by the thought), yet L says that despair is near to grace [if we don't deserve grace, we're the exact people for whom Christ died]
134–35: just as we did nothing to contribute to our creation [or natural birth], so also did we do nothing to contribute to our spiritual birth (including preparing ourselves for grace)

Ch. 6: Summary on the Bondage of the Will
139: L learned the hard way that we cannot earn righteousness through works; we please God, not by our own merit/works, but by His own favor

Ch. 7: Conclusion
141: E alone has focused on the main issue

[Sophia]

I am concerned with a serious, vital and eternal verity, yes such a fundamental one, that it ought to be maintained and defended at the cost of life itself, and even though the whole world should not only be thrown into turmoil and fighting, but shattered in chaos and reduced to nothing.

I read this for a class, and it has given me an invaluable perspective on political and social thought during the Renaissance and leading up to the Reformation. Free will is mostly considered an absolute nowadays, so it was eye-opening to consider how this topic was such a heated debate between Erasmus and Luther during their time. In comparing the discourse with other works from the Renaissance, I think this debate is really interesting to juxtapose with thoughts on love and desire. Did authors of the era believe God creates that first spark of affection (or another higher being commonly referenced in poetry, such as Eros), or did they write about love thinking it blossoms of human's own free will? I think this perspective is explored well in Christoper Marlowe's Hero and Leander, a personal favorite of mine.

It's difficult for me to declare a "winner" of this debate. I appreciated Erasmus' moderation and graciousness in some points, but I do agree with Luther's point on the importance of assertion and defending an issue wholeheartedly. On the other hand, Luther is extremely confident and almost giddy in his attacks, but his points on predetermination are not particularly practical or reassuring. In the end, I understand why Luther became one of the most influential people of all time because he wrote so audaciously about seemingly fixed issues people were never supposed to question; however, I think it's important to recognize that Erasmus' moderate approach still had its own part in influencing the Reformation and modern thought.

I do not especially want to quarrel with those who attribute everything to faith as the fountainhead, although it seems to me that faith and love, and love and faith come about and nurture each other mutually. Certainly faith is nurtured by love, as the flame in a lamp is nurtured by oil. For we have greater faith in him who we love dearly.

[Cody · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent book, made even more valuable by the inclusion of both Erasmus’ original writing and Luther’s reply in a single volume. It’s striking that Luther, the Church’s most radical reformer who championed the idea that everyone should read the Bible and establish their own relationship with God based solely on scripture, viewed the application of reason to obscure or ambiguous biblical passages as intrinsically deceitful, anti-Christian, and foolish. How remarkable that, despite being so progressive and willing to challenge social norms and ancient institutions in such a radical way, Luther maintained such an anti-reason bias. To him, attempting to think critically or apply reason to certain biblical passages was unchristian!

Erasmus, as always, demonstrates why he is considered one of the greatest writers in history, even if this topic did not showcase his very best. His writing prose is filled with elegance, intellect, and a polite sharpness that allows him to twist the dagger while looking in the eyes of his opponent. This combination of style and substance makes his contributions both entertaining and insightful. Although I am not personally convinced of his position, think Luther won this round of the debate.

[Judy]

Erasmus was originally sympathetic with the reform movement of Christianity. He himself acknowledged the expression of his time. "Erasmus laid the egg which Luther hatched." Yet Erasmus did not agree with the Lutheran form of reform. Disiderius Erasmus, born in Rotterdam in approximately 1466 was the illegitimate son of a priest and a physician's daughter.
Martin Luther was 14 years younger than Erasmus, born in 1483 to a mining family of peasant stock. "Luther, fiery and committed, is really interested in the grace of God." p. xi

The way I see it, Erasmus comes across as more organized, thoughtful and reasonable. He backs up what he has to say with quotes from classical works. Luther seems to be shooting from the hip, and emotional. His words are powerful; he seems to say because of the way he says them (they do have a truly powerful beginning) and simply because he says them.

[Miguel López · Rating 4 out of 5]

Erasmo salvó a las humanidades. Con su obra refuta todo intento de relegar al género humano como meros seres sin poder y con nula capacidad. Y, aunque no escape de cierto teocentrismo, justifica de manera indirecta el arte renacentista como el reflejo de la gran obra de Dios y su máxima creación: el humano. Ante las pesimistas teologías, Erasmo reivindica que también el hombre puede buscar la virtud, aunque tenga que recurrir a Dios para que esta sea completa. La obra erasmiana, de este modo, adquiere sentido. El afán que tuvo Erasmo por recuperar la cultura clásica fue un intento de casar los ejemplos de la Belleza, y Verdad junto a la perspectiva cristiana y de demostrar, de forma más o menos brillante, nuestra valía dentro del mundo.

[Nichi · Rating 3 out of 5]

The arguments aren't super compelling, though the editor's notes are generally useful. Erasmus makes an interesting argument, though the form of throwing a bunch of examples and claiming to have hundreds more has mixed results. Much of the interpretive work could easily be read not in favor of his argument, which Luther does. Luther also proceeds to redefine the term "free will" as to render the substantive argument away in favor of semantics. What he lacks in evidence, though, he makes up for in savage prose.

[Flo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hilfreiche Einführung, wobei mich wundert, dass Erasmus kaum (oder gar nicht?) gekürzt war, während Luther nur auf den letzten 50 Seiten (im Vergleich zu mehreren Hundert Seiten im Original) zu Wort kommt.

Wie dem auch sei. Erasmus stellt wichtige Fragen und bringt bisweilen gute Argumente ein; Luther hat die Bibel auf seiner Seite und ist darüber hinaus höchst amüsant zu lesen. - Was für ein Abschluss für mein Lesejahr 2020!

[James S · Rating 3 out of 5]

Erasmus’ position has its faults, but also many valid points, not least his reading of Scripture. Luther answers only the faults. His response raises questions. How does belief in free will necessarily become synonymous with believing in salvation by works? More satisfying than either is J I Packer’s little book on the subject.

[Kitap · Rating 3 out of 5]

"What is more important, tolerance or commitment? Where is truth?" - with these words, translator and editor Ernst F. Winter reveals the continuing relevance of this 500-year old back-and-forth between Erasmus and Luther, even for dyed-in-the-wool secularists.

[Brian Park · Rating 3 out of 5]

Argumentation on both sides were lacking, but it's good for getting a primary-source taste of the thoughts of both of these theologians. In particular, I was surprised at the two authors' tones; how caustic Martin Luther sounds, and the starkly contrasting graciousness in Erasmus' voice.

[Sparky Shelton · Rating 3 out of 5]

Luther is an undisputed master of backhand-fronthand argumentation, wherein you issue a backhanded compliment about the person you're debating, then a couple paragraphs later you call him an stupid bitch. Like of course he's a Scorpio

[Micah999 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dont really care about either's thoelogy, not really rooted in the truth so who cares, but the discussions were great and Luther was a savage with the comebacks lol...
We had some good class discussions

[Ashley Rider · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this conversation, Luther and Erasmus, a theologian and a humanist respectively from the 15th century, divulge their opinions and conclusions over free will and predestination. These are two Christian doctrines that have been debated for hundreds of years. Luther defends predestination and the lack of free will while Erasmus defends the free will given by God.
Luther is clear and straight to the point, using evidence from the Bible and his faith. Erasmus uses elegant language, providing proof from the Bible, historical documents, and philosophical standpoints.
In "Discourse on Free Will," Luther and Erasmus both explain their opinions from the time. This supplies an opportunity for ourselves, to think and decide on what we believe and different ways to portray an idea.

[Mouza · Rating 1 out of 5]

كتاب فلسفي بعنوان " حرية الإرادة" للكاتب دسيدريوس إيراسموس
اقتيت الكتاب بسبب الكاتب والعنوان، لكن قراءته صعبة
لأنه عبارة عن ردّ على فلاسفة آخرين ومواضيع محددة ..
نجمة واحدة لأني ما فهمته :(

[Sam Knecht · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good collection of correspondence between Erasmus and Luther on a thorny topic. This edition really lets you get to know both men through their contentious friendship.

[Soraya Keiser · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this for Humanities II. Dense at times, but overall an interesting read. I have to say that I agree with Erasmus regarding free will in that it does exist.

[Dustin Popp]

Stimulating discussion but I wish more of Luther’s work was included in that excerpt.

[[Name Redacted] · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Renaissance dispute over the existence and efficacy of free will essentially came down to two conflicting desires: the one side (here represented by Erasmus) desired a God who was all-good; the other side (here represented by Luther) desired a God who was all-powerful. Both sides muddy the waters with a variety of semantic, philosophical, theological and logical arguments, but really that's all there is to the dispute.

People like Luther wanted to believe in a God who was entirely in control of everything, both good and evil; a God whose foreknowledge forced things to happen, and who was solely responsible for both the evil and the good that people did in their mortal existences. Erasmus and his fellows correctly argued that this would mean God had created people to be helpless puppets for His divine will, forcing them to be either good or evil according to his designs, yet thereafter condemning or rewardng them NOT according to their will but according to what God had forced them to do -- that, in essence, the God of Luther & co. was a capricious and unjust tyrant. Luther & co. could only answer that whatever God did was, by default, good, and therefore no-one should question the God they envisioned; they then pointed to a small number of scriptures which seem to back their theological and christological conclusions.

People like Erasmus wanted to believe in a God who was purely good and purely just; a God who created and valued free will in humanity and allowed humans to make their own choices between good and evil, rewarding them according to their own choices and actions; and whose foreknowledge was distinct from His will (citing the example of astronomers whose foreknowledge of an impending eclipse does nothing to create or hasten the celestial occurance). Luther & co. correctly argued that this meant God was not, literally, in control of all things and therefore limited God's dominion -- however they then went further and argued that this insulted the glory and majesty of God and denied the efficacy of Grace. Erasmus & co. countered that the vast majority of the Old and New Testaments testified both implicitly and explicitly to the existence and efficacy of free will in humanity, and that Grace was the means by which man became aware of God and the force which sustained and motivated humans as they sought to follow God's laws. They concluded that God was CAPABLE of interfering in many things (human nature included) but that he chose not to do so; thus God could be said to be responsible for many things because he allowed them to occur (or not occur), without having been actively involved in them.

In this particular discourse, I'd argue that Erasmus comes out the clear winner, relying on logic, consistent and straightforward readings of thousands of biblical passages, and the strength of his argument and education; Luther on the other hand relies largely on invective, personal attacks on Erasmus's character, a very few biblical passages (which largely contradict the thousands which Erasmus cites), and his raw passion. One is reminded throughout of a weary father trying to reason with a spiteful, arrogant teenager.

[Yvonne · Rating 3 out of 5]

This little booklet of 120 pages is a translation of parts of the written discussion between Martin Luther and the Roman Catholic Monk, scholar and humanist Erasmus of Rotterdam. Each had done translations of their own of the Bible and would be considered experts in their field. They each take a unique approach to the discussion of free will which leads them to divergent opinions. The one thing that is established without question by this book is that methodology yields interpretation. No matter how sincere one is in her belief that any specific interpretation is correct, it is their method of study that has brought her to this conclusion.

Erasmus faults Luther for making assertions without supporting scriptural evidence. Luther admonishes Erasmus for being too bound to the text, word meanings, figures of speech and the context of any particular passage. Luther feels Erasmus thinks.

Erasmus fills his discourse with an abundance of scriptural references which indicate and can be interpreted that man is free to choose many things. Luther, who battled depression throughout his life, says that while it may appear that figures of speech matter they don't because they are devices used to communicate with creatures who cannot understand spiritual things. They are figurative. Anything that doesn't agree with Luther is figurative.

There is a battle raging between God and the devil. Those who do not receive God's grace and live in Christ belong to the devil and are his bond servants (slaves). While those who God chooses to grant his grace belong to Christ and they are his bond servants. Human beings can do nothing either good or evil of themselves. He concludes "I frankly confess, that I should not want free will to be given me. . . . for one devil is stronger than all men, and on these terms no man could be saved. . . . Whatever work it had done, there would still remain a scrupling as to whether or not it pleased God, or whether He required something more.. . . I learned it by bitter experience over a period of many years. But now that God has put my salvation out of the control of my own will and put it under the control of His."

[Josh Bauder · Rating 2 out of 5]

Erasmus knows how to organize and deliver an effective argument, and he knows he knows how. The whole thing is couched in his refined, sardonic, falsely modest style which contrasts comically with Luther's bullish bravado, like if Tim Gunn and Rooster Cogburn were both judges on America's Got Talent.

By 1524, when The Freedom of the Will was published, Erasmus had been pressured into taking a stand for against the Protestant Reformation, which was exploding outward from Luther's Germany. Erasmus himself had been a key figure in the Reformation, criticizing clerical excesses and promoting vernacular translations of the Bible. His Novum instrumentum, purportedly an update to Jerome's Latin Vulgate, proved to be a crucial resource for Luther and Tyndale, who relied on its compilation of the oldest and most reliable Greek texts as the basis for their translations of the Bible into German and English respectively.

But Erasmus hesitated on several key Reformation doctrines, and in The Freedom of the Will he commits himself definitively to the Roman Catholic position on both the freedom of the will and the nature of justification. Declaring himself to be an objective scholar interested in a courteous and dispassionate pursuit of the truth, he rejects the notion that the human will is bound or that man is totally dependent on God for all aspects of salvation. He insists that the whole of church history is on his side, from the fathers to Aquinas and Duns Scotus, and he spends the majority of the book discussing relevant passages of Scripture. He frequently returns to his premise that to erase free will is to simultaneously erase responsibility for sin and any possibility for obedience and salvation.