Martin Luther was a German monk who was of the Augustinian order and later became a lecturer of theology at Wittenberg University. As a monk, he led a life of strict religious devotion and discipline. Nonetheless, with more prayers, charitable acts, and self-denial, Luther became more conscious of his sins and felt that he did not merit God’s salvation and. Martin Luther grappled with the feelings of hopelessness and even developed some hatred towards God for being perfect and imposing punishment on men for their imperfections (Hampson 2017, p.3). After the encounter with the New Testament, his views were radically transformed, and his beliefs changed when he started advocating that people do not earn God’s approval just by their mere actions because human actions will never be good enough to meet the threshold that God requires. Instead, he opines that God justifies people and that the death of Jesus Christ bailed everyone from their sins and thus they can be received in heaven. Further, he astounded the Catholic believers of that time when he asserted that believers don’t choose to lead a good Christian life or persuade God to accept them into Heaven, but instead, God chooses people to go to Heaven. Such extreme views led to his excommunication from the Catholic Church (List 2014, p.156).
Erasmus lived in the Netherlands and was a renowned thinker as well as a reformer in the Catholic church. In the midst of the religious conflicts that occurred in the early 16th century, Erasmus chose a moderate approach that was against the Reformation and at the same time spearheading the calls for reconciliation between the Protestants and Catholics
Divergent Views
Education
Martin Luther had interesting views on education. He reckons that parents should not take their children to schools where the emphasis and teaching of Holy Scriptures are not supreme. He further asserts that every institution that does not pursue the doctrines of God in their studies becomes corrupt. Furthermore, Luther expressed his firm opinion that universities risk becoming conduits to hell unless they start teaching Holy Scriptures diligently and ensure that they impress the knowledge of the scriptures on the young students (Smith 2017, p.121). Erasmus, on the other hand, opines that human beings forfeit their humanity if they lack education. Further, he reckons that schooling has enabled human beings to rise above the level of beasts by learning how to control and manage their emotions and become resources members of the society. Erasmus in his explanation states that philosophy and education preclude the danger of man being left at the mercy of impulse whose effect is worse than that of the wild beast. According to Erasmus, the most critical aspect in the learning of children is not the teaching of the spiritual dimension but the holistic teaching of all the disciplines in schools such as mathematics, logic and other subjects. Education helps children learn how to socialize and become protectors of their families as well as productive members of the society (Amos 2017, p.23).
Free Will
Erasmus defines free will as the human power and ability to take control of the things that lead to the attainment of eternal salvation or deny one a chance to attain the same salvation. By this, Erasmus implies that man has a free choice or voluntary will to decide the to follow the way that leads to salvation other than the covering of God’s grace. According to Erasmus, the question as to how man attains salvation is not the work of God or man alone because God and man cooperate. Furthermore, he seems to subtly contradict himself by asserting that man can freely choose by himself the destiny of his salvation, but on the other hand, he again finds the necessity of God’s grace to aid an individual to attain salvation (Erasmus and Luther 2013, p.26). He further, refers to Adam as an epitome of someone who had the free will to choose between good and evil. However, despite the freedom to want to do good or evil with the aim of attaining salvation, that will alone cannot work in isolation with the grace of God. The central theme of Erasmus’ argument is that God rewards those who do good works with Grace and hence gain salvation. However, the philosophy of Erasmus should not be misconstrued to mean that he agreed with the Pelagian doctrine regarding the primacy of the free will in everything.
Martin Luther refutes the Erasmus; argument by asserting that free will is a nonentity. Luther implies that a free will is a hollow concept that consists of a name alone because salvation is the exclusive and sovereign work of God alone. Moreover, Luther points out the contradictions in Erasmus’s argument that man has the will and power to choose what is good but at the same time says man needs the grace of God to do good. By opposing Erasmus, Martin Luther rightly claims that if there is free-will in the pursuit of salvation, there is no need to expect grace from God. Finally, Luther reckons that the salvation of human beings depends on the free work of God, who alone has the sovereignty and ability to save men (Luther 2008, p.5).
The Battle of the Biblical Texts
The rift in interpretation begins with the fundamental difference separating Erasmus and Luther concerning the doctrine of Scripture. Erasmus defends certain insignificant aspects of scripture. In essence, he says that man cannot comprehend with certainty most of the things in the bible. Furthermore, Erasmus opines that the word of God is plain in some texts while in certain passages it's unclear. He also applies the obscurity of the biblical interpretation to the controversy that surrounds the freedom of will. He points out the hidden things such as the hour of death and the time of judgment as some of the things that the scriptures are not clear about and thus is not significant in the life of a Christian. According to Erasmus, the discussion regarding hidden things is worthless and does not help the church expand its virtues of love and unity. Erasmus uses logic to interpret scripture and at times goes back to the tradition of the Roman Catholic church by consulting the church fathers for interpretation (Vessey 2018, p.133).
In contrast to Erasmus, Martin Luther does Scripture to scripture interpretation. He sees God’s word as the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, he trusts the Holy Spirit to interpret and reveal the word of God to the believers. When reading a passage from Scripture, Luther does not veer off context as Erasmus does. Instead, he studies the context and checks other readings that have used the same words. Therefore, the main point of departure between Luther and Erasmus with regards to Scriptural interpretation is that the former relies on the Holy Spirit whereas the latter employs the use of logic.
References
Amos, N.S., 2017. The Education of a Christian Society: Humanism and the Reformation in Britain and the Netherlands. Taylor " Francis, p.23-45.
ERASMUS, D., " LUTHER, M. (2013). Discourse on Free Will. London, Bloomsbury Publishing, p.26
Hampson, D., 2017. Luther Then and Now. Toronto Journal of Theology, 33(1), pp.3-16.
List, C., 2014. Free will, determinism, and the possibility of doing otherwise. Noûs, 48(1), pp.156-178.
Luther, M., 2008. The bondage of the will. Hendrickson Publishers. 22(1) 4-67
Smith, S.J., 2017. The Protestant Reformation: Educational Ideas and Approaches Cultivated by Luther and Other Reformers, p.121.
Vessey, M., 2018. Erasmus (1515) between the Bible and the Fathers: Threshold of a Hermeneutic. Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions, p.133.
