The Freedom of the Will Controversy

Before reading this book, I thought that Erasmus’ and Luther’s ideas on free will were something like the special theory of relativity and the general theory of relativity. The special theory is like Luther’s view, very dependent on those chapters in Romans where Paul says he “does not the things which he would”, and “I agree with the law that it is good, but in the members of my body,” etc. I thought this view was a special case which only some of us encounter or experience, and certainly does not include all of us at all times. The general theory of relativity, on the other hand, is like Erasmus’ view, being all those other times when we are asked to do God’s will, and we attempt to do it. But by the end of this book I found I agreed more with Luther that we are all trapped in evil and cannot do good ourselves, and that free will is just another way of persisting in good works and continuing in our pride. Erasmus also argues against pride but Luther is much more proactive against it. We are not saved halfway by God and the other half by ourselves, which is where we eventually end up if we insist our salvation is partly our own doing.

There is a sense, in Erasmus’ view, that we apply ourselves to salvation, whether it be reading the Bible or praying, etc., but we should be doing that in faith and in the Spirit, and how can someone do that on their own or without God’s manifest help.

In short, I believe Luther won the central argument.

The other parts of the book I did not feel persuaded by either side, really. Luther says everything happens by necessity. To an average intellect like me, I have no idea what that might mean. God’s foreknowledge and predestination are other areas I have no opinion on still, other than to maintain we are human and that that is God’s realm, not ours. In those respects I may have agreed more with Erasmus.

The book seemed worth it though - even reading through all those chapters in the middle of the book, when it seemed like it would go on forever, (I almost gave up on it), anguishing at every personal insult leveled at Erasmus by Luther, and suffering through all the medieval theological arguments which were unfamiliar to me. The book stirred me up to think about my own relationship with God and my indemnity to God - and that seems a good enough result.

Another installment in the Erasmus and Luther study, not being able to side totally with one or the other, but having to acknowledge good in both and deficiencies in both, but learning, I hope, a little something in the process.