Free Will....an essay.
enzo@af
03-15-2001, 08:27 PM
Okay, so this is an essay I wrote earlier in the year. I didn't get a great grade on it, but I was really interested in the subject. So, what do you think in regards to man's ability to choose? Does God control everything? Anyone interested in this should read "Discourse on Free Will". Great book.
The Great Debate: Erasmus vs. Luther
Free will as it relates to salvation was a topic of heated debate during the renaissance. Humanism pushed the Renaissance man to discover his world, as well as to explain his spirituality. Differing opinions on the subject of spiritual free between Luther and Erasmus were clearly expressed and intensely debated. Erasmus zealously argued that we are free willed beings, able to make decisions and participate in grace. Luther disagreed, saying that Erasmus’ views were blasphemous, and the happenings in our lives are set out by necessity. Differing perspectives on how scripture should be interpreted and different perspectives of the supporting scriptures fueled their argument. Because of their different scopes of argument, reconciliation between the two is improbable. A compromise of their perspectives, however, would prove to be a more tolerable argument.
Although the renaissance experienced an insurgence of worldly thoughts and philosophy, religion was not forsaken. This interest in the mortal world is referred to as humanism. Although humanist philosophies became more and more common, religion was still a part of everyday life and was still regarded as important. Both Erasmus and Luther put so much trust in scripture that they only accepted it as the basis and support for their arguments.
As argued by Erasmus and Luther, free will relates to our ability to choose those actions that help to determine our salvation. It is not argued that we have free will to perform trivial, meaningless tasks, but rather whether or not we are able to participate in the grace that leads to our salvation. Erasmus defines free will as “the power of the human will whereby man can apply to or turn away from that which leads unto eternal salvation,” (Erasmus 20). Understanding the definition of free will as debated in the text is essential to understanding the arguments posed therein.
The disagreement between Erasmus and Luther relates to how far free will is extended away from trivial tasks and towards those works that may be related to our salvation. Is salvation already set for us by a foreknowledge of God, or is it something we must reach through our earthly actions and choices? Are these actions necessary, or do we have an option regarding our sins or our works? Luther claims that we are destined for what God has laid out for us, and any charitable acts are only accomplished through God’s grace. In Erasmus’ view, humans must, at some level, partake in their own salvation.
Erasmus argues that God’s role in salvation is not to control, but rather to guide. “Would a pious God deplore the death of his people, which he himself is causing?” (Erasmus 34) and “If man could effect nothing, why do they admonish us to work?” (Erasmus 59). These are questions that lead to disbelief in the bondage of free will, and thus agree with Erasmus. He similarly claims that all people possess the ability to choose, calling it natural grace, and are even capable of participating in extraordinary grace to some extent. This means that they hold some bearing on their salvation, and thus God does not simply grant salvation, but rather rewards us with it.
Erasmus is somewhat contradictory in his arguments regarding biblical scriptures. He agrees that passages are unclear; they were written in a divine light, yet are put forth for interpretation by more earthly people. He admits that some “distorting” (59) can be used. Thus, confusion can arise when reading passages. In light of possible misinterpretations, Erasmus alludes to the Bible very often. His argument stating that scripture is indefinable seems to contradict his later arguments.
Erasmus focuses much of his scriptural argument towards the contradictions that would be created assuming the bondage of free will to be the truth. Erasmus argues that “it ceases to be sin if it is not voluntary,” (Erasmus 26) and in regard to God’s commandments that “It would be ridiculous to command one to make a choice, if he were incapable of turning in either direction,” (Erasmus 32). His argument is directed to the fact that it would be contradictory for God to ask his followers to make proper choices if God himself has final control of those choices. Erasmus argues against another, clearer, contradiction. Quoting Isaiah 1,19, he says “If you be willing and harken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land,” (qtd. in. Erasmus 33). Emphasis for the argument is fueled by the use of “willing” in the passage. “Whenever the word “will” is used, it implies free will,” (Erasmus 35). Isaiah 21,12, “If you seek, seek; return, come” (Erasmus 33), similarly supports this contradiction. What is the use of urging followers to “seek” if the act of seeking is ultimately controlled only by divine necessity?
Erasmus brings up some passages that directly display free will. Erasmus says ”If you obey my laws you shall live; if you disobey, you must die;” (32), and quotes Isaiah 1,19 “If you be willing and hearken to me, you shall eat of the good things of the land.” (qtd. in. Erasmus 33). These passages display that good choices are rewarded with salvation and acceptance to heaven. He then quotes 2 Timothy 2,1, “If anyone, therefore, has cleansed himself from these, he will be a vessel for honorable use” (qtd. in. Erasmus 42), which displays that souls free of sin are godly and will be saved. These passages provide evidence of choices, and that proper choices lead to a reward.
Erasmus poses another argument, differing in direction; he does not argue based on biblical passages, but rather against Luther’s claim to be filled with the spirit. The substance of his refutation comes from a comparison between one man’s (Luther’s) interpretation and the opposite interpretation by many intelligent men of the church through the ages. The latter, Erasmus says, holds more weight than the former because it has been generally accepted for ages.
Let us assume that he who has the spirit is sure of the meaning of scripture. How can I also possess the certainty which the other pretends to have? (Erasmus 18)
The argument bases itself upon the weight and legitimacy credited towards the figures that all interpret passages in a different way than Luther does.
The rebuttal posed by Luther does not focus on logic, or scripture, or reason, but instead attacks the arguments made by Erasmus. Luther directs his comments towards the argument of grace posed by Erasmus, as well as towards Erasmus’ thoughts on interpretation of passages.
Initially, Luther claims that misinterpretation of the bible should not happen. He “admit[s] that many passages in Scriptures are obscure and abstruse” (Luther 103), but claims that this is caused by man’s ignorance. Although some passages may be difficult, Luther claims that due to their literal nature, they can all be deciphered. It is Luther’s opinion that most passages are very clear and can not be argued. Luther also says that his interpretation is correct, because he is filled with the Holy Spirit.
Luther proceeds to attack Erasmus’ arguments, calling them blasphemous. In regard to scriptural interpretation Luther says “But that there are in Scriptures some things abstruse and not quite plain, was spread by the godless Sophists, whom you echo, Erasmus,” (Luther 103). To Luther, the theory posed by Erasmus that humans participate in their own grace at some point is blasphemous. Bringing such a divine thing as grace to the level that humans can partake in it is disgraceful.
Because of the vastly differing arguments posed by the two theologians, it would be difficult to reconcile their differences. Many of the two’s most heated debate is derived from quite basic theories of free will. Reconciliation between the two would require one to overhaul their entire argument, an unlikely scenario. However, constructing a compromise between the two arguments would not prove quite so difficult. Whereas each author tends to pose the extremes, a medium between the two may appeal to the masses.
The theories posed by Erasmus and Luther are very well argued, and it is difficult to decide a definite winner of the debate because the exchange of punches between the two provides for a quite heated battle. Both contenders provide good arguments, good ideas, and good scriptural support. However, the topic at hand is one so fundamentally important that it is difficult to sway one’s stubborn views. Ultimately we are left to decide for ourselves.
The Great Debate: Erasmus vs. Luther
Free will as it relates to salvation was a topic of heated debate during the renaissance. Humanism pushed the Renaissance man to discover his world, as well as to explain his spirituality. Differing opinions on the subject of spiritual free between Luther and Erasmus were clearly expressed and intensely debated. Erasmus zealously argued that we are free willed beings, able to make decisions and participate in grace. Luther disagreed, saying that Erasmus’ views were blasphemous, and the happenings in our lives are set out by necessity. Differing perspectives on how scripture should be interpreted and different perspectives of the supporting scriptures fueled their argument. Because of their different scopes of argument, reconciliation between the two is improbable. A compromise of their perspectives, however, would prove to be a more tolerable argument.
Although the renaissance experienced an insurgence of worldly thoughts and philosophy, religion was not forsaken. This interest in the mortal world is referred to as humanism. Although humanist philosophies became more and more common, religion was still a part of everyday life and was still regarded as important. Both Erasmus and Luther put so much trust in scripture that they only accepted it as the basis and support for their arguments.
As argued by Erasmus and Luther, free will relates to our ability to choose those actions that help to determine our salvation. It is not argued that we have free will to perform trivial, meaningless tasks, but rather whether or not we are able to participate in the grace that leads to our salvation. Erasmus defines free will as “the power of the human will whereby man can apply to or turn away from that which leads unto eternal salvation,” (Erasmus 20). Understanding the definition of free will as debated in the text is essential to understanding the arguments posed therein.
The disagreement between Erasmus and Luther relates to how far free will is extended away from trivial tasks and towards those works that may be related to our salvation. Is salvation already set for us by a foreknowledge of God, or is it something we must reach through our earthly actions and choices? Are these actions necessary, or do we have an option regarding our sins or our works? Luther claims that we are destined for what God has laid out for us, and any charitable acts are only accomplished through God’s grace. In Erasmus’ view, humans must, at some level, partake in their own salvation.
Erasmus argues that God’s role in salvation is not to control, but rather to guide. “Would a pious God deplore the death of his people, which he himself is causing?” (Erasmus 34) and “If man could effect nothing, why do they admonish us to work?” (Erasmus 59). These are questions that lead to disbelief in the bondage of free will, and thus agree with Erasmus. He similarly claims that all people possess the ability to choose, calling it natural grace, and are even capable of participating in extraordinary grace to some extent. This means that they hold some bearing on their salvation, and thus God does not simply grant salvation, but rather rewards us with it.
Erasmus is somewhat contradictory in his arguments regarding biblical scriptures. He agrees that passages are unclear; they were written in a divine light, yet are put forth for interpretation by more earthly people. He admits that some “distorting” (59) can be used. Thus, confusion can arise when reading passages. In light of possible misinterpretations, Erasmus alludes to the Bible very often. His argument stating that scripture is indefinable seems to contradict his later arguments.
Erasmus focuses much of his scriptural argument towards the contradictions that would be created assuming the bondage of free will to be the truth. Erasmus argues that “it ceases to be sin if it is not voluntary,” (Erasmus 26) and in regard to God’s commandments that “It would be ridiculous to command one to make a choice, if he were incapable of turning in either direction,” (Erasmus 32). His argument is directed to the fact that it would be contradictory for God to ask his followers to make proper choices if God himself has final control of those choices. Erasmus argues against another, clearer, contradiction. Quoting Isaiah 1,19, he says “If you be willing and harken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land,” (qtd. in. Erasmus 33). Emphasis for the argument is fueled by the use of “willing” in the passage. “Whenever the word “will” is used, it implies free will,” (Erasmus 35). Isaiah 21,12, “If you seek, seek; return, come” (Erasmus 33), similarly supports this contradiction. What is the use of urging followers to “seek” if the act of seeking is ultimately controlled only by divine necessity?
Erasmus brings up some passages that directly display free will. Erasmus says ”If you obey my laws you shall live; if you disobey, you must die;” (32), and quotes Isaiah 1,19 “If you be willing and hearken to me, you shall eat of the good things of the land.” (qtd. in. Erasmus 33). These passages display that good choices are rewarded with salvation and acceptance to heaven. He then quotes 2 Timothy 2,1, “If anyone, therefore, has cleansed himself from these, he will be a vessel for honorable use” (qtd. in. Erasmus 42), which displays that souls free of sin are godly and will be saved. These passages provide evidence of choices, and that proper choices lead to a reward.
Erasmus poses another argument, differing in direction; he does not argue based on biblical passages, but rather against Luther’s claim to be filled with the spirit. The substance of his refutation comes from a comparison between one man’s (Luther’s) interpretation and the opposite interpretation by many intelligent men of the church through the ages. The latter, Erasmus says, holds more weight than the former because it has been generally accepted for ages.
Let us assume that he who has the spirit is sure of the meaning of scripture. How can I also possess the certainty which the other pretends to have? (Erasmus 18)
The argument bases itself upon the weight and legitimacy credited towards the figures that all interpret passages in a different way than Luther does.
The rebuttal posed by Luther does not focus on logic, or scripture, or reason, but instead attacks the arguments made by Erasmus. Luther directs his comments towards the argument of grace posed by Erasmus, as well as towards Erasmus’ thoughts on interpretation of passages.
Initially, Luther claims that misinterpretation of the bible should not happen. He “admit[s] that many passages in Scriptures are obscure and abstruse” (Luther 103), but claims that this is caused by man’s ignorance. Although some passages may be difficult, Luther claims that due to their literal nature, they can all be deciphered. It is Luther’s opinion that most passages are very clear and can not be argued. Luther also says that his interpretation is correct, because he is filled with the Holy Spirit.
Luther proceeds to attack Erasmus’ arguments, calling them blasphemous. In regard to scriptural interpretation Luther says “But that there are in Scriptures some things abstruse and not quite plain, was spread by the godless Sophists, whom you echo, Erasmus,” (Luther 103). To Luther, the theory posed by Erasmus that humans participate in their own grace at some point is blasphemous. Bringing such a divine thing as grace to the level that humans can partake in it is disgraceful.
Because of the vastly differing arguments posed by the two theologians, it would be difficult to reconcile their differences. Many of the two’s most heated debate is derived from quite basic theories of free will. Reconciliation between the two would require one to overhaul their entire argument, an unlikely scenario. However, constructing a compromise between the two arguments would not prove quite so difficult. Whereas each author tends to pose the extremes, a medium between the two may appeal to the masses.
The theories posed by Erasmus and Luther are very well argued, and it is difficult to decide a definite winner of the debate because the exchange of punches between the two provides for a quite heated battle. Both contenders provide good arguments, good ideas, and good scriptural support. However, the topic at hand is one so fundamentally important that it is difficult to sway one’s stubborn views. Ultimately we are left to decide for ourselves.
Porsche
03-15-2001, 08:30 PM
B+
enzo@af
03-16-2001, 02:20 AM
Exactly.
TheMan5952
03-16-2001, 02:31 AM
Looks good man.
Hey, I noticed your from Eugene Enzo. I'm up in Tigard, you got AOL or anything? Maybe we can chat.
Hey, I noticed your from Eugene Enzo. I'm up in Tigard, you got AOL or anything? Maybe we can chat.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026