On Free Will - Desiderius Erasmus

Summary

Desiderius Erasmus's 'De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio' (A Diatribe or Discussion Concerning Free Will) is a theological treatise published in 1524, which directly challenged Martin Luther's views on the human will. Instead of a narrative plot, it is a detailed academic argument. Erasmus, a renowned humanist scholar, sought to find a moderate path between the Pelagian heresy (which overemphasizes human ability without grace) and the deterministic views he perceived in Luther (which seemed to deny any effective human agency in salvation).

The book's central purpose is to argue for the existence of free will, understood as the human capacity to choose between good and evil, and to cooperate with divine grace in the process of salvation. Erasmus meticulously examines numerous biblical passages and interpretations from Church Fathers, presenting them as evidence that humans possess a degree of moral choice and responsibility. He argues that denying free will undermines human moral effort, the justice of divine commands and punishments, and the very concept of repentance. While acknowledging the limitations of human will due to original sin and the absolute necessity of God's grace, Erasmus contends that humans must still possess the ability to turn towards or away from God. He advocates for modesty and caution in theological discourse, fearing that extreme positions on either side could lead to dangerous moral and social consequences.

Book Sections

Section 1

Erasmus begins by introducing the profound and difficult nature of the doctrine of free will, acknowledging that it is a complex topic on which many learned individuals have disagreed. He expresses his preference for caution and moderation in theological discussions, especially concerning mysteries that are beyond human comprehension. He states his intention to approach the subject not to dogmatically assert one position, but to facilitate a humble and careful discussion (a "diatribe" or "collatio"). He defines free will as "the power of the human will by which a man can apply himself to those things that lead to eternal salvation, or turn away from them." He then sets out to examine the various arguments for and against free will, primarily drawing from Scripture and the writings of early Church Fathers. He makes it clear that he understands human effort is utterly dependent on divine grace, but he seeks to define what role, however small, humanity plays.

Character / Perspective	Characteristics	Motivations
Erasmus	Humanist scholar, theologian, proponent of moderation, peace-seeker.	To defend a nuanced understanding of free will, preserve human moral responsibility, promote Christian piety, and find a moderate path between perceived extremes of Pelagianism and determinism (Luther's view).
Luther (Implicit)	Radical reformer, emphasizes God's absolute sovereignty and human depravity.	To assert God's glory by denying human agency in salvation and emphasizing salvation by grace alone through faith. Erasmus is implicitly arguing against his emergent doctrines.
Biblical Texts	Divine revelation, ultimate authority for Christian doctrine.	To provide the foundational truths from which both sides of the debate draw their arguments; interpreted and reinterpreted by both Erasmus and his opponents.
Church Fathers	Early Christian theologians (e.g., Augustine, Origen, Jerome, Chrysostom).	Their writings and interpretations are used by Erasmus to demonstrate a historical consensus on a qualified view of free will, and to provide traditional authority for his arguments.

Section 2

In this section, Erasmus systematically presents biblical arguments in favor of free will. He cites numerous passages from both the Old and New Testaments that seem to imply human choice, responsibility, and the possibility of meriting rewards or incurring punishments based on one's actions. He points to verses where God commands, exhorts, warns, and reproaches humanity, arguing that such divine communication would be meaningless if humans lacked the capacity to respond. For instance, he quotes passages like "If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land" (Isaiah 1:19) and "Choose this day whom you will serve" (Joshua 24:15). He contends that these passages clearly assign a role to human will in the process of salvation and moral living. He also emphasizes that the concept of sin and punishment presupposes that individuals had the option to choose otherwise. He interprets these scriptures to mean that while God's grace is primary and essential, there is a human faculty that must align itself with that grace.

Section 3

Having established a case for free will from Scripture, Erasmus moves to address arguments against free will. He acknowledges that there are indeed many biblical passages, particularly those emphasized by Luther, which appear to support the idea that God alone acts, and that human will is entirely passive or even "bound" (servum arbitrium). He specifically engages with passages that speak of God "hardening hearts" (e.g., Pharaoh) or granting grace unconditionally. Erasmus endeavors to interpret these seemingly contradictory texts in a way that harmonizes them with the concept of free will. He suggests that such passages should often be understood either rhetorically, or as emphasizing God's primary and sovereign role without negating human secondary causes, or as referring to certain individuals in specific contexts rather than a universal rule. He also points out that overly literal or one-sided interpretations of such texts can lead to dangerous theological conclusions, such as making God the author of sin.

Section 4

This section delves deeper into the interpretative challenges, particularly concerning the teachings of Saint Augustine, who became a crucial figure in the debate due to his emphasis on divine grace and predestination. Erasmus acknowledges Augustine's profound influence and the complexity of his thought, noting that Augustine himself evolved in his views, particularly in his later works. Erasmus argues that even Augustine, despite his strong emphasis on grace, still recognized a degree of human assent or cooperation. He distinguishes between different kinds of grace (prevenient, operating, cooperating) to show how human will, though weak, can still play a role. He attempts to reconcile Augustine's teachings with the idea of free will, suggesting that Augustine's primary goal was to combat Pelagianism (which he felt went too far in asserting human self-sufficiency), rather than to entirely deny any human agency whatsoever. Erasmus also brings in other Church Fathers like Origen, Chrysostom, and Jerome, showing that many of them, while asserting the necessity of grace, simultaneously affirmed human free will.

Section 5

In his concluding arguments, Erasmus summarizes his position and reiterates his call for moderation and humility. He asserts that while God's grace is absolutely necessary for salvation and that human free will is severely wounded by original sin, it is not utterly destroyed. He believes that denying free will entirely leads to impious conclusions, such as making God responsible for evil, undermining all moral effort, rendering prayers and warnings meaningless, and removing the incentive for repentance and good works. He expresses concern that such extreme doctrines could lead to moral laxity and social disorder. Erasmus suggests that certain theological truths, while perhaps logically coherent to a few, are not beneficial for the masses and should be taught with prudence and circumspection. He stresses that understanding the precise mechanics of divine grace and human will is beyond human capacity, and it is safer to err on the side of upholding both God's omnipotence and human responsibility, thereby encouraging piety and good living. He calls for a respectful and charitable dialogue, prioritizing peace and unity within the Church over rigid dogmatism on such difficult points.

Genre

The book's genre is a theological treatise or a polemical essay. It is a work of academic and religious argumentation rather than a narrative or fictional text.

Author Facts

• Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (c. 1466 – 1536) was a Dutch Christian humanist, Catholic priest, theologian, and classical scholar.
• He was one of the most influential scholars of the Northern Renaissance, renowned for his erudition and his efforts to apply humanist methods to theology.
• Erasmus advocated for a return to the early Christian sources (ad fontes), promoting the study of Greek and Hebrew to better understand the Bible. His 1516 edition of the Greek New Testament was highly influential.
• He remained a devout Catholic throughout his life but was critical of abuses within the Church and clerical corruption, advocating for reform from within.
• His most famous satirical work is 'In Praise of Folly' (1511), which critiques various societal and religious follies.
• Although he shared many of Luther's criticisms of the Church, Erasmus ultimately refused to join the Protestant Reformation, fearing it would lead to schism and violence. His 'De libero arbitrio' marked a definitive break between him and Luther.

Moral/Key Takeaway

The central moral or key takeaway of 'De libero arbitrio' is the importance of human moral responsibility and cooperation with divine grace, balanced with a plea for moderation, humility, and charity in theological discourse. Erasmus argues that while God's grace is paramount, humanity retains a wounded yet real capacity for moral choice, without which concepts like sin, repentance, and divine justice lose their meaning. He advocates for maintaining a theological position that encourages piety, good works, and the pursuit of virtue, rather than falling into deterministic conclusions that might lead to moral complacency or despair.

Curiosities

• The Catalyst: This book was a direct response to Luther's growing influence and his increasingly deterministic views on the human will, which Erasmus found unsettling and dangerous. It marked the definitive theological split between the two most prominent intellectuals of the early Reformation.
• Luther's Response: Luther famously responded to Erasmus's 'Diatribe' with his own treatise, 'De Servo Arbitrio' (On the Bondage of the Will, 1525), which is considered one of his most important theological works and a foundational text for Protestant theology. Luther claimed that Erasmus's 'Diatribe' was the only work that truly addressed the core of the Reformation debate.
• The "Prince of Humanists" vs. The "Reformer": The debate between Erasmus and Luther was a clash between two intellectual giants and two distinct approaches to Christianity: Erasmus, the classical humanist seeking harmony and moderate reform, and Luther, the radical reformer prioritizing theological purity and God's absolute sovereignty.
• A "Weapon from the Pope": While Erasmus's 'Diatribe' was written independently, the Catholic Church viewed it favorably as a crucial intellectual weapon against Luther, as Erasmus was the most respected scholar of his time. This engagement alienated Erasmus from many of his former admirers among the early reformers.
• Nuance and Caution: Unlike Luther's often fiery and uncompromising style, Erasmus's 'Diatribe' is characterized by its cautious tone, extensive scriptural and patristic citations, and a strong emphasis on the difficulty of the subject, reflecting his humanist penchant for reasoned debate and avoidance of dogmatic extremes.