Erasmus and the Church Fathers
In the early sixteenth century, two renowned theologians engaged in a heated dialogue on the issue of authority. This line of inquiry came about with newfound uncertainty amongst Christian scholars as to what humanity should submit to in judging actions. Martin Luther, the better-known scholar of the two, feared that Christian ideas were straying too far toward secular jurisdiction. Luther preferred the idea that those who called themselves followers were submitted to the Holy Spirit and God and that they were obliged to cooperate because God created man and sent the Holy Spirit to embolden them. Luther’s contemporary, Desiderius Erasmus, presented an opposing viewpoint that seemed to preserve the sanctity of the tangible Church. Erasmus saw the Church fathers and the Scripture as the true source of authority for the Church because of the credibility of said authority and the naive subjectivity of knowing the Holy Spirit. I contend that Erasmus presents the more sound argument for the Christian source of authority. I will use several passages from the debate between Luther and Erasmus to illustrate the strength of Erasmus’ argument.
The first important point in laying out the debate for Erasmus is the explanation of what free choice is. Erasmus utilizes Scripture throughout his discourse, and uses his book of Ecclesiasticus to describe what free choice is: “God made man from beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel. He added his commandments and precepts. If thou wilt observe the commandments, and keep acceptable fidelity forever, they shall preserve thee. He hath set water and fire before thee; stretch forth thine hand for which tho wilt. Before man is life and death, good and evil; that which he shall choose shall be given him.” This quotation presents the basic premise of Erasmus’ argument. He maintained that God created humanity in order to spread good and His word to everyone but also allowed free will in His creation. God is seen as a benevolent Creator who imparts upon his grace, which allows the performance of all our deeds.
The point of free will, however, is that there is the option to not utilize God’s grace and go another path. Erasmus uses the example of an architect and his pupil to illustrate the issue of free will. The architect gives the pupil all of the information and vital details that are needed to create the building but it is up to the pupil to do the work. Just as the architect allows the pupil to make his own choice, God allows men to make their own choices. However, God is also present in order to help us through our mistakes, as Paul says, “…the Spirit helps us in our weakness.” In short, God gives us all we need and it is up to humanity to utilize this grace and free will toward a greater good.
The free will analyzed by Erasmus consists of three parts: the law of nature, the law of works, and the law of faith. The law of nature is what is given to every member of mankind, which is a certain law that must be obeyed for us to survive. This includes the adage “…a crime if any does to another what he would not wish done to himself.” The law of works is the actual deeds that are propagated by man and the punishments or rewards that are given for these actions. Erasmus goes to Ecclesiasticus again to prove his point by quoting “…if you will keep the commandments, they shall keep you.” The final law, that of faith, is what allows us to overlook reason and weakness and perform deeds in the name of God. An important quote used to defend this point is taken from Luke “…I am with you always, to the close of the age.” This discussion of what free will is made of is important because it allows a relation between what man does and what God’s role is in our lives and deeds. This is a very critical point because Erasmus is making an argument based not on blind faith, but on written works and scholastic achievement by the Church forefathers that requires some explanation in the parlance of the people.
If one looks at Luther’s refutation of Erasmus, the obvious theme is that man is helpless to the whim of God’s will. For example, Luther tears apart Erasmus’ use of an analogy of a sailor and his ship. Luther states that it is not “…what we can do through God’s working, but what we can do of ourselves;…we do or attempt…anything under the general motion of omnipotence to prepare ourselves for the new creation of the Spirit.” Luther goes on to say that man does nothing from the birth of the physical body to the final judgement of his deeds; God does all of the work and there is no division of labor amongst man and God.
Luther’s argument does not seem to have the same solid standing that Erasmus bases his analysis on. Erasmus’ use of the sailor and the ship metaphor is just a culmination of all of the other evidence that he compiles in his deliberation. The metaphor illustrates that while God allows man everything he needs to do the right thing, man must actually perform the deeds in order to realize man’s potential. Luther misses the point of the parable and takes an extremely conservative viewpoint. Erasmus uses yet another Scripture passage to support his viewpoint: “…Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain.” Erasmus, as is typical for this treatise, leans on the Bible and the fatheres of the Church to support the view of free choice.
The last point that Erasmus uses is possibly the most understandable to the layperson: a verbal picture of man and child, teacher and student. The parent stands the child up and leads the child with an apple found on the ground. The child would be unable to reach the apple if not for the encouragement and the resources offered by the father. This parable is relatable to most people since we have been at either one end or the other. God is like the father, giving us grace and free choice with the intention of creating good within humanity. Humanity acts as the child who attempts good, sometimes to its own detriment because it does not seek out the help of God. With this, Erasmus wraps up the work with a tidy bow with his parables of the human eye and the father’s assistance with the child.
Erasmus presented a very sound argument for the belief in free choice amongst his readers. He criticized the faith that Luther had in merely accepting the hand of God as our guide, saying that those who think they have the Holy Spirit may be immature or interpret their feelings in an incorrect manner. Erasmus argues from the point of pragmatism, saying that the Church fathers and Scripture allow for a solid background for any knowledge of how God acts. It seems that Erasmus was being an optimist to human nature in agreeing with free choice, but such a leap of faith was not taken without precaution. Erasmus gives so many sources of information for his discourse that it is very difficult to find a flaw in the course of his work. Erasmus trumps Luther in both the technical arguments he presents and the deeper philosophical issues he addressed in the debate.
