Luther and Erasmus had a debate(1) in the early sixteenth century on the question of the roles of Grace and Free Will in salvation. Luther took up the position emphasizing Grace alone(2). Erasmus emphasized Human Free Will in cooperation with Grace(3). Although this has been viewed by some as simply a muted echo of the Augustine-Pelagius controversy of the fourth century, it is particularly relevant due to its placement in what was to be a crucial phase of the Reformation. Luther called the issue the key one of the Reformation. This debate carries on into the present day with the fundamental distinctions between Calvinist and Arminian theologies(4).
There are two primary aspects of the debate considered in this paper. The first is the history of the doctrine of the influence of Free Will and the other is the doctrinal difference between the two participants in the debate.
The first issue revolves around whether Erasmus was accurate in his fundamental claim, that the church had always had varying opinions on the subject and good men could hold various views without further division of the church being necessary
The second issue is which doctrinal view has the stronger Biblical and philosophical support.
However, if this paper stopped there, a fundamental question would be left unanswered; "Were there other historical attempted solutions to this problem?"(5) In focusing on a particular pair of debaters, are other viable solutions being missed? To answer these questions it is first necessary to understand the historical debate itself, together with the strengths and weaknesses of each of the opponent's positions, and only after that is done to look at the various alternatives to the positions of both sides of the debate.
In the task of understanding the debate, it is necessary to try to understand the definitions that each side used, of the terms of the debate. Much of the problem comes from the definitions of the words. This section will attempt a minimal definition of each of the terms of the debate.
The central issue is the definition of the will(6), and the bounds of its freedom. For example, a particularly crucial question is; "Was the will so corrupted by Adam's fall that man is unable to freely choose God even if salvation is offered?"
Both sides agree that humanity inherits a sin nature from Adam(7). The extent to which this sin nature corrupts the entire being is the starting point of the issue of the Freedom of the Will. The central question here is --- Does that corruption so corrupt the will that if given the opportunity to choose Christ a person would not do so, and in fact, could not do so? The inability to agree on a definition of the will is at the core of the problem presented by the debate itself(8).
Luther's contention was that the will is in bondage to Satan and could not even participate in making any decision for its own salvation. Erasmus taught that although the will was corrupted by the Fall, it was not so corrupted that a person was rendered unable to respond to God by an act of their will.
The range of freedom of the will was the key issue for Luther. This is bound in the dual questions --- Is the will free to choose all things that are possible and what things are actually possible for the will to choose? Both sides claim free will, but the limits on the will are the question. Is it truly free, or is the will constrained to certain limits?
There was agreement by both parties to the debate that God predestines(9). This is made plain by several Scriptural passages(10). However, this leaves several questions unanswered. For instance, on what basis does God predestine events? To what extent does God predetermine all events? Is humanity locked into a particular set of actions on the basis of God's predestination? Does God's foreknowledge play any part in predestination?
Double Predestination is the doctrine that not only are the just elected to salvation, but also the damned are elected by God, to damnation (reprobation), as well. This is a dividing line even among many present-day Calvinists with many holding to single predestination.
God knows all things that will happen before they happen. The concept of God's foreknowledge is directly related to His timelessness and omniscience. God created time and eternity and thus stands outside of it. God knows all things since all of time is always before Him. The relationship of this foreknowledge to election is hotly debated. Monergism and Synergism This issue centers around another set of related questions --- Is salvation up to God alone (monergism) , or does humanity play some part in salvation through exercising Free Will (synergism)? If humanity plays any part, even if that part is only to believe, is that part meritorious? Is Faith a work, or is it in a different category of things?
Similar to election and predestination, this involves the question of how much of events are pre-determined by God(11). Thus, a theistic determinist would say that all events are determined beforehand by God.
Grace applied prior to salvation that allows a sinner to come to Christ. The necessity for prevenient grace to allow a sinner to choose God is a part of the system of Erasmus.
Pelagius held to the possibility of salvation without an explicit exercise of Grace. Semi-Pelagianism is an attempt to modify the extreme (heretical) views of Pelagius by including Grace. The emphasis would be on Free Will, and the role of Grace would be secondary to Free Will.
Schaff defines semi-Augustinianism as being almost the same as semi-Pelagianism except that semi-Augustinianism stresses God's grace(12). The emphasis would be on Grace, but Free Will would be cooperating with that Grace.
The historical controversy about the roles of Free Will and Divine Grace in salvation did not begin with the debate between Luther and Erasmus. In fact, the major point of the Diatribe by Erasmus concerns itself with the contention that the church always had a variety of opinions on the issue. Erasmus contended that the subject was one where honest men could disagree within the range of orthodoxy. This was the key point of Erasmus' Diatribe.
In this section the history and major players of the controversy are detailed in roughly chronological order. Both historical persons and councils are considered.
The Nicene and Ante-Nicene fathers stressed the freedom of the will and divine grace(13). The Eastern Church never developed a doctrine of Original Sin like the West. In the Western Church, Tertullian taught that the generation of the soul itself involved the propagation of sin(14). Ambrose further defined Original Sin as a state and taught that the Free Will of humanity was weakened by the Fall, but not to the point of a total inability to respond to God's grace(15). This affirmation of Free Will dominated the church for that period.
The views of Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, were historically important in the Luther-Erasmus debate. Both sides of the debate claimed Augustine as their historical inspiration.
Augustine wrote extensively about both of the poles of the Free Will debate. At one pole are those who assert Free Will and claim that humanity is able to follow God without the need of Divine grace(16). At the other pole were those who denied that man has any free will at all(17). Augustine denied both extremes and asserted both Divine Sovereignty as well as Human Free Will.
The Pelagians charged that Augustine denied Free Will by holding to Divine Sovereignty. Against that charge, Augustine wrote:
Now we do not, when we make mention of these things, take away freedom of will, but we preach the grace of God.(18)
Augustine also wrote about the free will of believers:
Do we then by grace make void free will? God forbid! Nay, rather we establish free will. For even as the law by faith, so free will by grace, is not made void, but established. For neither is the law fulfilled except by free will but by the law is the knowledge of sin, by faith the acquisition of grace against sin, by grace the healing of the soul from the disease of sin, by the health of the soul freedom of will, by free will the love of righteousness, by love of righteousness the accomplishment of the law(19).
Augustine asserted that the responsibility for sin rests solely with the free will of the individual:
"The next question we shall require to be solved," says he, "is this: By what means is it brought about that man is with sin? --- by the necessity of nature, or by the freedom of choice? If it is by the necessity of nature, he is blameless; if by the freedom of choice, then the question arises, from whom he has received this freedom of choice. No doubt, from God. Well, but that which God bestows is certainly good. This cannot be gainsaid(20).
Luther claimed that the law was given to show that a person could not fulfill it due to the bondage of the will(21). To the contrary, Augustine wrote.
What is the import of the fact that in so many passages God requires all His commandments to be kept and fulfilled? How does He make this requisition, if there is no free will?(22)
Again affirming both free will and grace, Augustine wrote about our ability to keep God's commandments:
Neither, indeed, on the one hand, would any injunctions be laid upon us to keep them, if our own will had nothing to do in the matter; nor, on the other hand, would there be any room for prayer, if our will were alone sufficient(23).
Augustine was reacting to Pelagius, who taught that there are three features in human action: power, will, and realization. The first comes exclusively from God and the last two belong to man. The doctrines of Pelagius flow out of his concepts of human freedom(24).
The key issue between Augustine and Pelagius was whether man could exercise his Free Will to obtain salvation without the aid of God's grace. Pelagius was examined by the bishops and he replied:
"This I stated in the interest of free will. God is its helper whenever it chooses good; man, however, when sinning is himself in fault, as under the direction of a free will."(25)
According to Augustine, the bishops missed the error in the defense that Pelagius gave for his doctrines. Augustine wrote:
... when Pelagius said that "a man was able by the help of God's grace to live without sin," he perhaps meant by the term "grace" the capability possessed by nature as created by God with a free will, as it is understood in that book which I received as his and to which I replied; and that by these means he was deceiving the judges, who were ignorant of the circumstances(26).
On the assistance that God provides to the will, Augustine wrote:
Therefore aid is brought to the infirmity of human will, so that it might be unchangeably and invincibly influenced by divine grace; and thus, although weak, it still might not fail, nor be overcome by any adversity.(27)
Additionally, Augustine wrote on the subjects of Predestination and Perseverance:
This grace He placed "in Him in whom we have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things." And thus as He worketh that we come to Him, so He worketh that we do not depart.(28)
It is clear that there existed a burden on Luther to demonstrate that at least one of the Church Fathers held his view. Erasmus assumed the burden of proving that the diversity of the opinions of the Fathers allowed for a variety of opinions. Further, if it could be demonstrated that none of the Fathers took their views to the same extreme that Luther did, that would shift the burden of proof substantially against Luther.
Luther denied the primary authority of the Fathers, but did not deny they have any authority at all:
Therefore the authority of the Fathers is neither here nor there, and statutes wrongly enacted (as are all which are not in accordance with the Word of God) ought to be torn up and thrown away, for Christ ranks higher than the authority of the Fathers(29).
Luther mocked Augustine for his use of sophisticated language:
..., in the way in which Augustine and the Sophists after him limit the glory and range of the word "free" by introducing the disparaging notion of what they call the 'vertibility' of free choice. In such a way it would be fitting for us to speak, to avoid deceiving hearts of men with inflated and high-sounding but empty words; ...(30).
However, Luther recognized the weakness of a position that went against all of the authorities of the church. In fact, Luther claimed the agreement of Augustine on several key points, including that of his central thesis:
... Augustine, in his second book against Julian, slave choice(31), rather than a free choice(32).
Luther is misrepresenting the views of Augustine on this subject(33). Unlike Luther, Augustine does not deny the Free Will, but only limits its freedom due to the effects of the fall. Augustine does not pour the same meaning into "slave will" that Luther does. Augustine taught that humanity lost acquired freedom, but never lost natural freedom(34).
To summarize, Erasmus had correctly noted that Augustine affirmed both Free Will and Grace. Erasmus points out that Luther erred by overemphasizing Grace to the neglect of Free Will, something that Augustine was always careful to avoid. Erasmus more accurately analyzed the views of Augustine. In this critical point, i.e., the historical aspect of the debate, Erasmus points out that the Fathers are split on the details of the issues surrounding Free Will. To Erasmus, dogmatism is thus unwarranted.
Erasmus explains a subtle point of his understanding of the African Church Father that Luther did not appear to grasp:
Augustine calls it cooperative grace. It assists those who strive until they have reached their goal. Although free will and grace together accomplish the same work, grace is the leading cause and not just a concomitant one. But some are divided even on this opinion and say: if one considers the act according to its nature, then the will of man is the more important cause; if one considers, however, the meritorious aspects of the act, then grace is the more important(35).
Luther, in several places, incorrectly compares the position of Erasmus to that of Pelagius:
... you waste a lot of good words, walking so very warily and quoting so many opinions on free that you almost turn Pelagius into an Evangelical!(36)
And:
What shall we say to those --- I mean the Pelagians --- who on the basis of this passage used to deny grace altogether and attribute everything to free choice(37).
However, Luther is misrepresenting the position of Erasmus by his hyperbole. While Pelagius held to Free Will, he also denied the need for Divine Grace, something that Erasmus was careful not to do.
Contemporary writers often have made the same critical mistakes as Luther in handling the writings of Augustine. Augustine is represented as initiating a major doctrinal change towards determinism from the Free Will views of the earlier Church Fathers. Key to the issue of the correct reading of Augustine is to recall that he presented his views(38), including his concept of double predestination against those of Pelagius and much of his points are presented as a reaction against Pelagianism.
As an example of contemporary understanding of Augustine, Schaff summarizes the Augustinian school as the following 5 points:
- All men are sinners, and justly condemned in consequence of Adam's fall.
- Man in the natural state has no freedom of choice, but is a slave of sin.
- God out of free grace elected from eternity and unalterably a part of mankind to holiness and salvation, and is the author of all their good deeds while he leaves the rest in his inscrutable counsel to their merited damnation.
- God has unalterably predestined the impenitent and persistent sinner to everlasting punishment, but not to sin, which is the guilt of man and condemned by God.
- Christ died only for the elect(39).
In this representation of the doctrines of Augustine, Schaff, himself a Calvinist, casts Augustine back in time as the prototype Calvinist. No positive mention in the summary is made of Free Will, which was shown to be central to the theology of Augustine.
Other contemporary writers treat Augustine in the same way. For instance, Dr. Sproul points to Augustine as the prototype of the Calvinistic theological system(40). Dr. Sproul wrote that:
Augustine triumphed in his struggle with Pelagius whose views were consequently condemned by the church(41).
There are at least two problems with the analysis of Dr. Sprouls here.
The first is Dr. Sproul only tells half of the story when it comes to the history of the issue. While it is true that the views of Pelagius were condemned by the church (through its councils), so were the stricter interpretations of the double predestinationarian views attributed to Augustine. Hence, the verdict of history is that neither of the extremes were completely accepted. In fact, the church adopted a form of semi-Augustianism and Dr. Sproul neglects to mention that point.
Secondly, although Sproul and other modern reformers strive in asserting Sola Scriptura and thus reject the councils and fathers as authoritative, they frequently use the judgements of the councils and fathers when it is expedient for them to do so. If the councils condemn teaching they agree with, then they quote the councils. If the councils disagree with the teaching that they agree with, then they either ignore the ruling of the council, or point out that the Scripture is what matters, not the findings of a church council. In this particular reference, Sproul does not make it clear in what manner the church condemned the views of Pelagius, whether through council or exactly how the views were condemned.
This is an inconsistent use of the Church Fathers and was also seen in the writings of Luther. The modern followers of the Reformers recognize the inherent weakness of positions that were not found in 1,500 years of church history and have gone to extreme lengths to counter the problem.
At the end of the early period, which was at the start of the medieval period, lies Gregory the Great. His semi-Augustinian view was to be the basis of the view of the medieval church period. Gregory held to prevenient grace, but denied irresistible grace and particularism(42).
A Benedictine monk, Gottschalk was a student of the writings of Augustine and Fulgentius(44) of Ruspe. Gottschalk became enamored with the doctrine of double predestination and insisted on sharing his views with those around him. In 847 or 848, Gottschalk met Bishop Noting of Verona who he told about his doctrine of predestination(45). Noting, in turn informed the Archbishop of Mainz, Rabanus Maurus who wrote a letter to Noting in an attempt to refute the teaching. Maurus denied double-prestination in his writings, holding instead to a form of single predestination and that was a major point of contention between the two. The issue of double predestination is necessarily related to Free Will(46). If a person is elected to damnation, then their choice could never be said to be truly free. That person could do nothing other than what they did.
Gottschalk appeared before the council of Mainz and held to his belief in double-predestination before the council(47). He also asserted a belief in limited atonement, the concept that Jesus only died for the elect and not the whole world.
As a result of what was judged heresy at Mainz. Gottschalk was condemned along with his teachings and delivered to his metropolitan, Hinemar to exact his punishment. Gottschalk was taken before the Council of Chiersy in the spring of 849. As a result of his refusal to relent of the teaching, he was condemned as a heretic, removed from the priesthood, scourged publicly (nearly to death), forced to burn his own books, and shut up in prison in the Rheims province(48).
While in prison, Gottschalk wrote two confessions, reasserting his doctrine of double predestination. Gottschalk appealed to the Pope, who demanded a reinvestigation (which never happened). Gottschalk died after 20 years in prison(49). The Calvinists revere Gotthschalk as a martyr to the faith(50).
John Scotus Erigena (815-877) originated an alternative theory to Gottschalk's view(51). Erigena's view incorporated the concept of God's timelessness. To Erigena, the concept that God stands outside of time implied that there are no such things as foreknowledge or foreordination. He held that there was only one predestination, that of the righteous, which he made identical to foreknowledge. There were serious problems with this view that rendered it unacceptable to both sides(52). Erigena introduced non-Biblical and neo-Platonic philosophical categories to the discussion(53). Erigena was charged with Pelagianism, Origenism, and charged with substituting philosophy for theology(54).
The consummate Scholastic, Thomas Aquinas considered the issue of the human Free Will at great length in his Summa Theologica. Thomas wrote plainly about Free Will that:
Man has free choice. Otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain(55).
Thomas specifically addresses the objections to this doctrine at length. For instance, Thomas acknowledges that God moves the will, but
He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary, but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature.(56).
Thomas denied that acts of the will are necessitated(57). Luther's lack of knowledge of Thomas was a great shortcoming of his approach to the debate(58).
Wycliffe was revered as the "Morning Star of the Reformation(59)". Although mainly noted for his translation of the Scriptures into English(60), he also staked out a position in the Free Will debates(61) that was later noted by Luther who cited the similarities to his own view(62):
The third is the 'most severe' view, that of Wycliffe and Luther that 'free-will' is an empty term, and that everything we do is done of pure necessity(63).
Wycliffe held to double predestination(64), but denied that any person could know if he was one of the elect(65), which is contrary to the modern Calvinistic interpretation of the "Perseverance of the Saints". There is some contemporary debate on Wycliffe's understanding of the actual issue of necessity and free will(66). The views of Wycliffe were condemned at the Council of Constance(67).
The Lollards were followers of Wycliffe who followed in his teachings well past his death(68) and they were influential in the English Reformation(69). On the continent, Hus took up the teachings of Wycliffe.
As the main topic of this paper, the Luther and Erasmus debate is considered in detail later in this paper. It is worth noting that they stand in the center of a historical tradition, though. There have been advocates on both sides of the issue as well as adherents that held to parts of each system, all throughout church history. Such was the claim of Erasmus. Additionally, the church had already dealt with many of the issues throughout history and had settled into a "comfortable" sort of semi-Augustinianism. None of the orthodox teachers had completely denied the Freedom of the Will to the time of Luther, although many had limited that Freedom.
After John Calvin wrote the 1539 edition of the Institutes of the Christian Religion, Albert Pighius responded with his book, Ten Volumes on Human Free Choice and Divine Grace (1542). In response to the first six of Pighius' books, Calvin wrote The Bondage and Liberation of the Will (BLW)(70) (1543). Although Luther and Erasmus have the distinction of being prior to the Calvin-Pighius debate, the writings of Calvin are much more careful than the writings of Luther on the subject and they lack much of Luther's tendency towards hyperbole.
In BLW, Calvin advances his view that grace is not only prevenient, but that it is efficacious and affects conversion, by quoting the Council of Orange(71):
Now I will bring forward on the other side a decree of the Council of Orange: "If anyone that God waits for our desire that we should be cleansed from sin, and does not acknowledge that it is the work of the Holy Spirit in us that we are even caused to want cleansing, he resists the Holy Spirit as he speaks through Solomon: "The will is prepared by the Lord".(72)
This can also be seen in other places in BLW(73). Also of note is that Calvin quotes from some twenty-five of Augustine's works in the book(74) as well as having frequent references to Pelagius. Calvin uses the writings of Augustine extensively to attempt to show that his position is historical. Book Three of Pighius (as well as Calvin's response) was written for the purpose of showing Augustine to be on the side of the debate of each individual writer.
The canons of the Synod of Orange were not available to Erasmus and Luther, as they were lost to history and only republished in 1538(75). However, the canons of Orange were available to Calvin who quoted them frequently against Pighius(76). A particularly telling quote concerning the use of the Council of Orange by Calvin is:
Now let Pighius show me one detail of the whole of his teaching which is not cut to pieces and condemned by those decrees(77).
Contrary to Augustine, Calvin believed God gave commandments that He knew humans can't fulfill(78).
Interestingly, neither Pighius nor Calvin drew their debate points from the Luther-Erasmus debate(79).
Contrary to popular opinion(80), Jacob Arminius was fundamentally from the Reformed camp, but he denied double predestination(81) and limited atonement. Arminius also wrote on the subject of the Freedom of the Will(82). A systematic analyzer, Arminius defined the freedom of the will as having 5 fundamental parts, the fourth of which is "It is a Freedom from sin and its dominion"(83).
Arminius then proceeded to divide the sort of "good things" into "natural", "animal", "spiritual", and "Divine". Arminius then dismissed the other categories and concentrates on "spiritual". Concerning the state of the will of humanity, he wrote:
VII. In this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and [attenuatum] weakened; but it is also [captivatum] imprisoned, destroyed, and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.(84)
Thus, Arminius affirmed total depravity(85) in unequivocal language. However, Arminius denied irresistable grace. He also preserved the Freedom of the Human Will in the process of conversion in his theological system by writing:
17. In the very commencement of his conversion, man conducts himself in a purely passive manner; that is, though, by a vital act, that is, [sensu] by feeling, he has a perception of the grace which calls him, yet he can do no other than receive it and feel it: But when he feels grace affecting or inclining his mind and heart, he freely assents to it, so that he is able at the same time to with-hold if assent(86).
Arminius taught that the process of regeneration and illumination occurs over an extended period of time(87). Arminius also denied universalism(88) teaching that although Christ died for all men, not all men would be saved. Arminius attributed the perseverance of the saints to the holding power of God, but affirmed that men could fall from that holding power(89). The Remonstrants were the disciples of Arminius(90).
Carlstadt was an associate of Luther, who went beyond Luther in aspects of his teaching. Eck was a Roman Catholic. The dispute between Eck and Carlstadt took place at the University of Leipzig(91) in June 1519. The basis of the debate was to be Luther's Thesis of 1517(92). Free Will was a topic for the part of the formal debate between Carlstadt and Eck. Eck denied that God was the total cause of any good work(93). Eck affirmed the ability of man, with God's grace, to perform good acts. Carlstadt took up Luther's position on the issues.
At the council of Trent there were a number of anathemas pronounced on many of the Reformed theological propositions. Two of the propositions anathematized were:
4. That the free will of man, moved and aroused by God, does not co-operate at all by responding to the awakening call of God, so as to dispose and prepare itself for the acquisition of the grace of justification, nor can it refuse that grace, if it so will, but it does nothing at all, like some inanimate thing, and is completely passive.
5. That man's free will has been wholly lost and destroyed after Adam's sin(94).
Ignatius, one of the founders of the Jesuits(96), wrote in his Spiritual Exercises, that
"We ought not to speak nor to insist on the doctrine of grace so strongly as to give rise to that poisonous theory that takes away free will."(97)
Thus, the Jesuits had a strong historical basis in asserting Free Will(98). Molina was a Spanish Jesuit priest who propounded a doctrine that divine grace is a free gift to all, but that its efficacy depends upon the will that accepts it(99). Molina's view is known in modern literature as "middle knowledge"(100). Molina's influences were the writings of Jerome and those of the Portuguese Jesuit, Pedro da Fonseca(101).
The Jesuits feared that the Dominican teaching would lead to Calvinism while the Dominicans felt the Jesuits leaned toward Pelagianism(102). In 1597(103) Pope Clement VIII had both the Thomists(104) and the Molinists(105) send delegates to Rome to debate their issues(106). The debate was before a commission of Cardinals and lasted about 10 years. Pope Paul V kept the debates going after Clement VIII died. Eventually, Paul V was advised to approve neither school, which he did in 1607(107), ordering both sides to cease and desist in their attacks on the other side. A compromise proposed by Cardinal Bellarmine ten years earlier was the final accepted form. Thus, the Roman Catholic Church has not had nearly as much subsequent development in the doctrine as the divisions in the Protestant church, nor as much disputation.
On the freedom of the will, the Westminster Confession(108) says
CHAPTER IX - Of Free-Will
- God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or evil.
- Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.
- Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
- When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.
- The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only.
Jansen wrote a book on Augustine which was published in 1640.The 'Five Propositions' based on the teachings of Jansen were drawn up in 1653 and are as follows:
- Some commandments of God to men wishing and striving to be righteous are impossible with regard to the present strength that they possess; and they lack the grace by which they may become possible.
- Interior grace is never resisted in the state of fallen nature.
- For merit or demerit in the state of fallen nature freedom from necessity is not required in man by freedom from compulsion.
- Semipelagians admit the necessity of prevenient interior grace for single acts, even for the beginning of faith, and they are heretics in this, that they wish grace to be of such a kind as human will can resist or obey.
- It is Semipelagian to say that Christ died and shed his blood for all men.(109)
Thus, the Jansenites were branded as Calvinists by the Roman Catholic Church and rejected.
There was a long string of synods and councils on all sides of these issues. These councils were used by both sides of the historical debate as support for their positions. The results illustrate that there were a large variety of opinions in church history on the subject.
Coelestius condemned for his teachings where he denied Original Sin(111).
Produced nine anti-Pelagian canons, but had no insistence on prevenient grace(113). Confirmed by Pope Zosimus in his Epistula tractoria(114).
Condemned the views of Lucidus including his denial of Free Will after the Fall, limited atonement, double predestination(115).
Ended with the "triumph of semi-Augustinianism" and condemned the system of Semi-Pelagianism(117). Absolute predestination was not accepted by the council, and prevenient grace was affirmed(118). Denied limited atonement on one side, and the free will of the unbeliever on the other.
Free will was viewed as weakened in Adam, but restored by baptism.
CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it(119).
Also, from the Conclusions:
The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God's sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him. ... We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.
The acts of the Synod were lost, but the result was to reach a similar result(120) as that of the Synod of Orange, 529.
Affirmed unlimited atonement and Free Will(121).
Affirmed with qualifications and distinctions(122) double predestination and denied Free Will(123).
Affirmed double predestination and denied Free Will(124).
Affirmed free will(125). Was the final victory of semi-Augustinianism.
This was a fundamental difference between Erasmus and Luther. Luther condemns Erasmus for relying on patristics for his authority(126), but then turns around and quotes them himself. For instance, Erasmus noted that Luther only had the support in antiquity of Manichaeus, Wycliffe, and as a contemporary, the skeptic Valla(127). Luther admits the general lack of patristic support but claims Augustine as being "entirely with me(128)". Erasmus is forced to work at a disadvantage, being without the prime weapon of the Scholastics (quotes of the Fathers), when he agrees to play by Luther's stated rules. Luther, on the other hand, is not bound by his own rules.
For much of the Bondage of the Will Luther relies on Augustine to establish the historicity of his position(129). One particular indirect quote of Augustine, by Luther, is telling of the extent to which he went to try to locate agreement in Augustine:
Lombard clearly thinks with Augustine that free choice by its own power alone can do nothing but fall and is capable only of sinning(130).
The following is the chronology of the debate(131).
| Date | Author | Title |
|---|---|---|
| 15xx | Luther | (Assertions) |
| 1 Sept 1524 | Erasmus | Diatribe seu collatio de libero arbitrio(132) (Diatribe) |
| Dec 1525 | Luther | De servo arbitrio (The Bondage of the Will) |
| 1526 | Erasmus | Hyperaspistes Diatribe adversus servumarbitriun M. Lutheri Vol 1(133) |
| 1527 | Erasmus | Hyperaspistes Diatribe adversus servumarbitriun M. Lutheri Vol 2(134) |
| 1533 | Erasmus | On Restoring Concord in the Church |
Most of the commentators on the debate focus on the Diatribe/Bondage of the Will pair of writings. This is particularly true of Calvinistic commentators. Very little attention is given to the two-volume response of Erasmus to Luther's Bondage of the Will. Unfortunately, selecting this pair allows Luther to appear to have won the overall debate much more decisively than was the actual case for the entire debate(135).
The question of the extent of the Free Will of humanity was not an issue in the original ninety five theses that Luther posted on the Wittenburg door.(136) However, by the time that Luther and Erasmus entered into debate(137), the issue had risen in the mind of Luther to be the essential point of the Protestant Reformation.
During the debate between Luther and Erasmus, Luther staked out the position of the total inability of the corrupted human will to respond to God. On the other side, Erasmus held that the will was not so totally depraved that a person would be rendered unable to choose God. As has already been noted, the position of Erasmus had the much greater weight of historical witnesses.
Luther in his book, The Bondage of the Will(138), compared the will to a horse that is being ridden by one of two riders. The horse has no power to go one way or the other and goes the way that the rider takes him. Luther wrote:
Thus the human will is placed between the two like a beast of burden. If God rides it, it will and goes where God wills, as the Psalm says: "I am become as a best
and I am always with thee" . If Satan rides it, it wills and goes where Satan wills; nor can it choose to run to either of the two riders or to seek him out, but the riders themselves contend for the possession and control it.(139)
There are several objections that can be raised against Luther's statement. The first is that it involves a serious categorical fallacy(140). The human will is not in the same category of things as an animal. Thus, the analogy fails due to the difference between the categories of the two things.
The next, and more serious objection, is that Luther's view denies human responsibility. How could a person be responsible for their actions when they are not choosing the direction of their own life, but the rider of the horse is doing the choosing? At the very least, the person is told that they are being held accountable for their actions but are unable to do otherwise.
Thirdly, this makes God seem impotent. If God is in this sort of a battle with Satan, why doesn't God always win? After all, the definition of Sovereign would mean that God has more power than Satan and should never lose the battle to ride [the will]. In fact, if Satan is riding the person, it can only be because God wants Satan to ride the person, otherwise, God would make the effort to take the horse for Himself. Thus, the choice of salvation, or damnation, if it rests completely with God, and not man, raises the question of why God would choose to save some and not just save all.
Finally, this view has a dualistic tone to it. The two combatants are presented as "fighting" over a person. In fact, the analogy runs contrary to the whole idea of election. If the analogy was recast it would be that Satan is riding the horse until God comes along, knocks him off (without any battle or struggle) and then takes away the horse. The idea of God fighting Satan at all, in this realm, denies the sovereignty of God. What sort of a fight can there be when one side has all the power?
This particular statement was to become a major failing point in the debate for Luther. Others would have to distance themselves from Luther due to the extreme language he selected(141). A similar statement is found in Bondage of the Will, here:
Here, then, is something fundamentally necessary and salutary for a Christian, to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but that He foresees and purposes, and does all things by His immutable, eternal and infallible will. Here is a thunderbolt by which free choice is completely prostrated and shattered, so that those who want free choice asserted must either deny or explain away this thunderbolt, or get rid of it by other means.(142)
First of all, this assertion is just that, an assertion. Next, a problem lies in the words "all things". What things are included in Luther's definition of "all things", except all things? Is sin included? How about evil? Additionally, what does the operation of God's will have to do with the human will? Why the necessary connection? Worst of all, Luther does not adequately deal with the conclusion that his view would make God the author of evil.
Luther also denied that the will is inviolate with the following statement:
By contrast, if God works in us, the will is changed, and being gently breathed upon by the Spirit of God, it again will and acts from pure willingness and inclination and of its own accord, not from compulsion(143)...
This denial denies the ordinary definition of the word, "compulsion". Compulsion would normally be understood as being forced to do something which is against ones will. Thus, Luther begs the question he strives to answer. To Luther, the will is not violated when it is changed, as it desires what it is changed to want. Essentially, Luther argues that this is not a violation of the will since the person is happy with the result and would not want anything else(144). This line of reasoning is similar to the argument that the mental patient who received the lobotomy was actually better off and what did it really matter since he did not know the difference anyway.
Erasmus offered the following definition of free choice:
By free choice in this place we mean a power of the human will by which a man can apply himself to the things which lead to eternal salvation, or turn away from them(145).
Luther attacked this definition as inadequate for the issue at hand:
You may rightly assigned to man some kind of will, but to assign to him free-will in divine things is going too far. For the term free-will in the judgment of the ears of all, means that which one can and does do Godward, whatever it pleases, restrainable by no law and no command(146).
A basic flaw in the position of Erasmus was that he expressed a general sort of agnosticism about the issue. Essentially, Erasmus stated that good men had disagreed in church history on this subject and that it was an issue that was not an essential of the faith. The lack of a specifically stated position, was mistaken by Luther as a weakness in the basic position of Erasmus. For Erasmus, it was not wise to be dogmatic about things that the church had not been dogmatic on in the past.
Luther misrepresents the call for miracles of Erasmus. Luther writes:
Was it in the name or by the power of free choice, or to confirm the dogma of free choice, that any of them became a saint, received the Spirit, and performed miracles?(147)
However, Erasmus made the charge of lacking miracles against the reformers as whole. From the perspective of Erasmus, Luther is claiming apostolic authority for his actions without the corresponding miracles that accompany the office of apostle. To Erasmus, the continuing existence of miracles in the Roman Catholic Church was proof that it was God's institution. Luther responds to this by attempting to separate the participants. Luther asks Erasmus to produce a miracle himself and he will accept his authority in the matter.
A papal bull on 15 June 1520 condemned, as heretical, forty-one errors drawn from Luther's writings(148). One of these was that "free choice after sin is a reality only in name, and while it does what it can, it sins mortally"(149). On the other hand, both Pighius (in his writings against Calvin) and Erasmus are ultimately said to have gone beyond the limits of orthodox Catholic theology in affirming the power of Free Will.
There are a number of modern treatments of the Freedom of the Human Will. Some representative views are included here.
Charles H. Spurgeon, called the Prince of Preachers, wrote:
" .. that there is no such a thing as preaching Christ and him crucified unless you preach what is now-a-days is called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I state boldly. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else(150)."
Geisler(151), has a chapter(152) titled, "Is Man Free?", where he points out that there are four possible answers to the question. These ultimate categories are hard determinism, soft determinism(153), indeterminism(154), and libertarianism(155). Geisler sums up the alternatives as:
This issue [theological determinism], hotly debated in Christian circles, has been purposely omitted in this chapter. It is based on varying interpretations of Scripture and is, therefore, a theological question rather than a purely philosophical one.
In defending libertarianism, Geilser argues that the will is self-caused and thus the actions of the will are truly free. Geisler contends that to ask the question, "what causes the will to do such and so a thing?", is asking an improper question. The actions of the will are not caused by some other agent, but are self-caused. Reasons for the actions of the will are seen as separate from causes and effects.
Fook Meng Cheah has written an analysis of the views of Erasmus and Luther(156). His analysis is only notable due to the general lack of balanced coverage of the debate on the Internet. This article stands out as an example written from a Lutheran/Reformed perspective. However, Cheah does not adequately consider the historical aspect of the debate. For instance, Cheah wrote:
Thus Erasmus' method seems a very commendable one. He tries to be historical and biblical. But, as we shall see, having the right tools is not enough. When biblical data are read with the eyes of human reason, it can only lead to a disastrous consequence. Instead of arriving at a biblical doctrine, one arrives at a diabolical theology that is hostile to Christianity. Into this Erasmus has brought himself.
Cheah simplistically (and incorrectly) analyzes the historical question:
Up to the time of the Reformation, one can almost say that there were two views of anthropology and soteriology. One either believes in salvation by works or salvation by grace. In other words one is either a Pelagian (whether pure or semi) or an Augustinian. Salvation is either by sovereign grace or by human merits.
The Alliance for Confessing Evangelicals (ACE), formerly Christians United for Reformation (CURE), exists for the purpose of getting out the word about the Reformation and defending Calvinism in particular. One of its leaders, Michael Horton, has written extensively in defense of his views on classical Calvinism. A particularly interesting quote is:
"It would seem that the moderation of Erasmus is winning out over the harshness of Luther and Calvin"(157).
R. C. Sproul is also typical of the modern Calvinists in his denial of Free Will. Sproul provides an excellent historical analysis of the doctrine of Free Will as found in Pelagius, Augustine, the Semi-Pelagians, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, Edwards, Finney, and Chafer(158).
A prominent Calvinist, Boettner wrote the following:
THE PROBLEM OF MAN'S FREE AGENCY
That the makers of the Westminster Confession recognized the freedom of man is plain; for immediately after declaring that "God has freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass," they added, "Yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (159)"
In this quote Boettner, acknowledges that the idea that God foreordains everything but asserts that this idea is not incompatible with Human Free Will. The typical Calvinistic response when presented with this dilemma is to state "that's just the way things are".
A modern Roman commentator wrote about the debate:
It was a purely scholastic question involving philosophical and exegetical problems, which were then, as they are now, arguable points in the schools(160).
Thus the commentators continue to agree with Erasmus that this is an issue for the Scholastics and not a point of division for the church in general. The same commentator wrote about Luther's Bondage of the Will, that:
It consists of "a torrent of the grossest abuse of Erasmus", and evokes the lament of the hounded humanist, that he, the lover of peace and quiet, must now turn gladiator and do battle with "wild beasts"(161).
As noted, the Roman Catholic position was formed after the Debates before the Pope (1597-1607) and Trent. The Thomist and Molinist theories are described in great detail by current Roman commentators(162).
This work(163) is the definitive analysis of Luther's Bondage of the Will from the perspective of a modern Roman Catholic. The fruit of over ten years of effort, this book is the landmark publication on the subject.
As already noted, there are prominent advocates of Middle Knowledge. This position is held by pre-eminent Christian philosophers William Lane Craig(164) and Alvin Plantiga(165). Criticisms of the Molinist view are published elsewhere(166). Contemporary advocates of Middle Knowledge include Christian philosophers William Lane Craig(167) and Alvin Plantiga. Middle Knowledge continued to be a "third option", and with the advocacy of scholars like Craig and Plantiga, it is gaining in adherents(168).
Craig, in particular, has published a large set of well-footnoted papers that are easily accessible on the Internet(169).
This paper analyzed two basic aspects of the Luther-Erasmus debate on Free Will and Salvation; the historical claims and the theological claims.
For Erasmus, the key point of the debate was his contention that the church had always had varying views on the subject. This paper demonstrates that Erasmus was correct in his fundamental claim. Further, the claim of Erasmus that Luther was outside of the historical boundaries has been demonstrated as well. The condemnation by the church of Gottschalk, Wycliffe, and others showed that their views were outside the range of acceptable viewpoints. The church historically held that both of the poles must be held in tension.
The theological issues are much more difficult to judge. However, there are other resolutions to the question of the Freedom of the Will than the views of Erasmus or Luther. The reductionism of the current age into labels of "Arminian" and "Calvinist" does not do justice to the other possibilities. These labels often obscure the actual positions of the participants.
Some of the alternate views, for instance, that of Middle Knowledge, are undergoing a current Renaissance under the persuasive influences of William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantiga. Many present day Calvinists have difficulties with the idea of Limited Atonement. Trying to lock one's views into the extremes is not particularly useful for productive dialog.
Arminius, J. The Works of Arminius. (WA) Translated by James Nichols and William Nichols. Three Volumes. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1991.
Bangert, W. V., (S. J.) A History of the Society of Jesus. St. Louis, Missouri: The Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1986.
Bassinger D. Predestination and Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom. Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1986.
Berkhof, L. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1959.
Bettenson, H. Documents of the Christian Church (DCC). Oxford: Oxford Press, 1963.
Boettner, L. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination [http://www.concentric.net/~mslange/free.htm]. Undated.
Calvin, J. The Bondage and Liberation of the Will (BLW). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1996.
Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.knight.org/advent/cathen/]. Encyclopedia Press, Inc., Printed 1913. Electronic version copyright 1996 - New Advent, Inc.
Cheah, F. M. A Review of Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation. [http://www.iserv.net/~prc/prtj/nov95b.html]. Undated.
Custance A. C. The Sovereignty of Grace. [http://www.custance.org/grace/ch3.html] June 3, 1997.
Elwell, W. A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (EDT). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1984.
Geisler, N. Introduction to Philosophy. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1980.
Horton, Michael. How Wide is God's Mercy?: Is Faith in Christ Absolutely Necessary? , [http://www.remembrancer.com/ace/MHHowWide.html]. February 1993.
Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines (ECD). San Francisco, Ca.: Harper Collins Publishers, 1978.
Latourette, K. S. A History of Christianity, In two volumes. New York: Harper and Row, 1975.
McSorley, H. J. Luther: Right or Wrong? An Ecumenical-Theological Study of Luther's Major Work, The Bondage of the Will. New York & Minneapolis: Newman Press & Augsburg Press, 1969.
Runes, D. Dictionary of Philosophy. Totowa, New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams & Company, 1974.
Rupp, E. G. Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation. Philadelphia, Penn.: Westminster Press, 1969.
Schaff, P. History of the Christian Church (HCC) in 8 Volumes, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1884.
Schaff., P. and Wace, H. editors. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I. [http://ccel.wheaton.edu/fathers/]. November 11, 1997.
Sproul, R. C. Captive Hearts, Captive Church. [http://www.sce.carleton.ca/rads/ceh/freewill.txt]. Undated.
Sproul, R. C. Willing to Believe: The Controversy Over Free Will. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1997.
Webster's Biographical Dictionary. Springfield, Mass: G & C Merriam Co, Publishers, 1971.
Winter, E. F. Erasmus - Luther, Discourse on Free Will. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co, 1961.
Bainton, R. H. Erasmus of Christendom. New York: Scribner's, 1969.
Berkhof, L. The History of Christian Doctrines. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1937.
Craig, W. L. No Other Name': A Middle Knowledge Perspective on the Exclusivity of Salvation through Christ. Faith and Philosophy 6 - 1989: p. 172-188.
Craig, W. L. Middle Knowledge: a Calvinist-Arminian Rapprochement? In The Grace of God, the Will of Man, pp.141-64. Edited by Clark H. Pinnock. Academie Books. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1989
Craig, W. L. Lest Anyone Should Fall: A Middle Knowledge Perspective on Perseverance and Apostolic Warnings. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 29 (1991): 65-74.
Craig, W. L. Middle Knowledge and Christian Exclusivism Sophia 34 (1995): 120-139.
Craig, W. L. Robert Adams's New Anti-Molinist Argument Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54 (1994): 857-861.
Geisler, N. L. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1995.
Grimm, H. J. The Reformation Era 1500-1650. New York: Macmillan, 1973.
Helm, P. Calvin and Bernard on Freedom and Necessity: A Reply to Brümmer. Religious Studies 30 (1994): 457-65.
Hillerbrand, H. J. The World of the Reformation. New York: Scribner's, 1973.
Huizing, J. Erasmus and the Age of Reformation. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957.
Leith, J. Creeds of the Churches. Atlanta, Ga.: John Knox Press, 1973.
Livingston, E. A. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford: Oxford Press, 1977.
Olin, J. C. Luther, Erasmus and the Reformation. West Hanover Mass.: Fordham, 1969.
O'Malley, J. W. Erasmus and Luther, Continuity and Discontinuity as Key to Their Conflict, 5/2 , 1974: 47-65, The Sixteenth Century Journal.
Plantinga, A. God, Freedom, and Evil, first published by Harper and Row, 1974; present edition 1977 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.: Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Plantinga, A. Is Theism Really a Miracle?, Faith and Philosophy, vol. 3, no. 2, April 1986, pp. 109-134.
Plantinga, A. Reply to Robert M. Adams, in, pp. 371-382.
Rushdoony, R. J. The Institutes of Biblical Law. __, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973.
Smith, G. Molina and Calvin. In Freedom in Molina, edited by Gerard Smith, 24-36. Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1966.
Weiss, J. M. Erasmus at Luther's Funeral: Melanchthon's Commemorations of Luther in 1546, 16/1 -1985: 91-114.
Wynkoop, M. B. Foundations of Weslyan-Arminian Theology, Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1967.
1 Not actually a formal, i.e., face-to-face debate, but a series of writings by both Luther and Erasmus.
2 Rupp,. p. 141 (BotW) where Luther wrote "... we do everything by necessity and nothing by free choice".
3 Rupp, p. 89-90 (Diatribe) where Erasmus wrote: "... that this itself is part of the divine gift, that we can turn our souls to those things pertaining to salvation, or battle together (Latin: synergein) with grace.
4 Basinger, Predestination and Free Will, is an excellent example of the contemporary relevance of this debate. In the book four writers take different positions on the subject and answer each other's views. John Feinberg takes a deterministic position and the other three authors take alternative positions.
5 The law of non-contradiction would seem to indicate that there are only two possibilities. Either man has a free will, or man does not have a free will. This is logically valid, but the source of difficulty is in the consistent definitions of the terms.
6 Runes, D. Dictionary of Philosophy, lists several different categories of definitions of the will, with sub-definitions in each category. These are Will, Will (Scholastic), Will - the Free Elective, and Will to Believe.
7 The doctrine of Original Sin can be see in various passages including - Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. This doctrine is not widely accepted in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, however.
8 This issue is covered later in this paper from the perspective of the debate. This section is merely laying the groundwork for the later debate points.
9 A rough definition could be --- determines before an event happens that it will happen.
10 For instance, Rom. 8:29-30, Eph. 1:5, Eph. 1:11.
11 Runes, Dictionary of Philosophy, defines determinism as the doctrine that every fact in the universe is guided entirely by law. Theistic determinism simply makes God the lawmaker.
13 Schaff, HCC, p. 4: 523. Schaff wrote: "... the anthropology of the Nicene and ante-Nicene fathers, who laid as great streee on the freedom of the will as on divine grace". See also McSorley pp. 57-61.
14 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 244. "Tertullian ... did not exclude some good in man".
15 Ibid., p. 244. This was a key point in the Luther-Erasmus debate. Berkhof wrote about the teachings of Ambrose, "The Free will of man was weakened by the fall".
16 Augustine wrote at least 13 works against the Pelagians.
17 Augustine was a former Manicheans who wrote against their deterministic world view.
18 Augustine, A Treatise On Nature And Grace, Against Pelagius; Contained In One Book, Addressed To Timasius And Jacobus. 415 AD. Chap. 36 [XXXII.] -- Pride Even In Such Things As Are Done Aright Must Be Avoided. Free Will Is Not Taken Away When Grace Is Preached. As found in Schaff, Volume 14 of the 38 Volume Early Church Fathers.
19 Augustine, A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter, In One Book, Addressed to Marcellinus, 412 AD. Chapter 52, Titled, Grace Established Free Will, As found in Schaff, Volume 14 of the 38 Volume Early Church Fathers.
20 Augustine, Chap. Iv.--(9.) The Ninth Breviate. A Treatise Concerning Man's Perfection In Righteousness, In One Book, Addressed To Eutropius And Paulus, 415 AD. As found in Schaff, Volume 14 of the 38 Volume Early Church Fathers.
21 Rupp, pp. 188-189. (BotW). Luther wrote "As I have said, by such sayings man is shown what he ought to do, not what he can do."
22 Augustine, Chap. 4.--The Divine Commands Which Are Most Suited To The Will Itself Illustrate Its Freedom, A Treatise On Grace And Free Will., Addressed To Valentinus And The Monks Of Adrumetum, And completed In One Book, 426 AD or 427 AD. As found in Schaff, Volume 14 of the 38 Volume Early Church Fathers.
23 Augustine, Chap. X. (21.) To Whom God's Commandments Are Grievous; And To Whom, Not. Why Scripture Says That God's Commandments Are Not Grievous; A Commandment Is A Proof Of The Freedom Of man's Will; Prayer Is A Proof Of Grace., A Treatise Concerning Man's Perfection In Righteousness, In One Book, Addressed To Eutropius And Paulus, A.D. 415, As found in Schaff, Volume 14 of the 38 Volume Early Church Fathers.
24 Elwell, EDT, p. 834, under entry for "Pelagius, Pelagianism". This section appears to have been "borrowed" directly from Kelly, ECD, p. 358.
25 Augustine, Chap. 5 [III.]--The Second Item In The Accusation; And Pelagius' Answer, A Work On The Proceedings Of Pelagius,, In One Book, Addressed To Bishop Aurelius [Of Carthage], 417 AD. As found in Schaff, Volume 14 of the 38 Volume Early Church Fathers.
26 Augustine, Chap. 31.--Remarks On The Tenth Item. A Work On The Proceedings Of Pelagius, In One Book, Addressed To Bishop Aurelius [Of Carthage]. 417 AD. As found in Schaff, Volume 14 of the 38 Volume Early Church Fathers.
27 Augustine, Chap. 38.--What Is The Nature Of The Gift Of Perseverance That Is Now Given To The Saints., Treatise On Rebuke And Grace. In One Book, Addressed To Valentine, And With Him To The Monks Of Adrumetum. 426 or 427 AD. As found in Schaff, Volume 14 of the 38 Volume Early Church Fathers.
28 Augustine, Chap. 14.--It Is God's Grace Both That Man Comes To Him, And That Man Does Not Depart From Him, A Treatise On The Gift Of Perseverance, Being The Second Book Of The Treatise "On The Predestination Of The Saints." Addressed To Prosper And Hilary. 428 or 429 AD. As found in Schaff, Volume 14 of the 38 Volume Early Church Fathers.
32 Rupp, p. 174. Footnote 12. Luther quotes Lombard who quotes Augustine, De Spiritu et litera iii.5 "For free choice is not capable of anything but sinning if the way of truth is not known".
33 McSorley, pp. 134-137, lists the 13 points from Lombard's writings (Sentences). In point 9, Lombard has "The will of man is always free in some way, but it is not always good. Even though it is only good when it is liberated from sin, it is however, free from necessity."
34 McSorley, p. 64 makes the critical distinction between the two kinds of freedom. McSorley writes, "man has lost his acquired freedom, but never his natural freedom".
35 Winter, Erasmus-Luther: Discourse on Free Will., p. 28.
38 Elwell, EDT, p. 106, under "Augustine of Hippo" entry - according to Norman L. Geisler, Augustine wrote at least 13 separate treatises against the views of Pelagius, between 411-430.
39 Schaff, HCC, p. 4:533. Note the similarities to the 5-points of Calvinism (TULIP). Much of this owes itself to the presentation of the materials by Schaff.
40 Sproul, R. C, Willing to Believe, devotes all or part of 61 pages of a book that is a little over 200 pages in length to the views of Augustine, contrasting this with 13 pages on Arminius in the same book.
41 Sproul, R. C., Captive Hearts, Captive Church.
42 Schaff, HCC, p. 3:870. "... Gregory the Great represents the moderated Augustinian system, with the gratia praeveniens, but without the gratia irresistibilis and without a particularistic decretum absolutum." Schaff further argues that the stricter version of Augustinianism always had its adherents in history.
43 McSorley, p. 122. McSorley questions the completeness of the historical record as to Gottschalk: "...it is not really possible to say definitively whether Gottschalk really held the proposition that, after the fall, man's free will can only be used for evil, so that good can never be attributed to the cooperation of the human will, but to grace alone."
44 Schaff, HCC, p. 4:525, Fulgentius died 533.
47 Schaff, HCC, p. 4:527. Per Schaff: "the offensive part in this confession lies in the words two-fold and quite similarly..." comparing reprobation and election to salvation on equal terms.
48 Schaff, HCC, p. 4:528. The details of the synod are not known.
50 Custance A. C. The Sovereignty of Grace. Wrote [about Wycliffe]: As the harbinger of the Reformation formed a further link in a continuous chain which reaches from Paul in the New Testament through Augustine, Prosper, Gottschalk, and Anselm, to Luther, Calvin, and the Reformers.
51 Websters Biographical Dictionary, entry for "Erigena". Published in the book, De Divina Praedestinatione (c. 851). Per Schaff, the book was written in 850.
54 Schaff., HCC, p. 4:543. Archbishop Wenilo of Sens denounced nineteen propositions of his book. Bishop Prudentius denounced seventy-seven propositions from the book. Remigius though him insane. The Synod of Valence (855) rejected his entire book. Pope Honorius III in 1255 ordered all copies burned of his book.
55 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, first part, Q. 83, article 1. Quoted from the Encyclopedia Britannica Great Books edition. University of Chicago, 1990 edition pp. 431-436.
56 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, first part, Q. 83, article 1, reply obj 3.
57 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, first part, Q 82, article 1.
58 McSorley, p. 139-143. Section titled "Excursus: Did Luther know Thomas Aquinas". "A strong case can be made to support the view that Luther did not have an adequate knowledge of [Thomas Aquinas]..."
61 Schaff, HCC, p. 331. Notes from Wycliffe's De dom. civ., I. 358 that in Wycliffe's writings stress is laid upon the divine decree as determining who are the predestinate and who the reprobate.
62 Custance A. C. The Sovereignty of Grace.. writes: [Wycliffe] categorically rejected the idea that man before his conversion can contribute anything by his moral behaviour towards influencing God's sovereign decision to grant him the grace of the Holy Spirit needful to conversion.
64 Latourette, A History of Christianity, p 662. ... he [Wycliffe] held to the omnipotence of the arbitrary will of God. ... p. 663. [Wycliffe took] a strict Augustinian view of predestination.
66 McSorley, p. 195, notes that "it is quite possible that Wyclif intended nothing more by his doctrine of universal necessity than did Bradwardine, whose writings were undoubtedly known to Wyclif. Footnote 67 lists the resources.
67 Rupp, p. 219 (BotW). Luther criticized the Council for its condemnation of Wycliffe.
68 Latourette, A History of Christianity, p 665.
69 Latourette, A History of Christianity, p 666.
70 Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will (BLW), recently translated (published in 1996) for the first time into English.
71 The proceedings of the Council of Orange were not available at the time of Erasmus and Luther's debate.
72 Calvin, BLW, p. 88, (2.288).
73 Calvin, BLW, p. 3.304-311. etc.,
75 Peter Crabb published his two-volume Concilia omnia, per BLW p. xxvii, footnote 94.
78 Calvin, BLW, p. 221. Calvin wrote "However, God, in declaring that he has the best possible reason for giving orders, ..., even if there is not in man the ability to fulfill them."
80 Sproul, Willing to Believe, admits that there is frequent misrepresentation of the view of Arminius.
81 Arminius, Jacob., WA is the main source of source materials in English on Arminius.
82 Arminius, WA, Volume II, pp. 189-196. Section titled "Disputation XI - On the Free Will of Man and Its Powers.
84 Ibid., p. 192. This is in contrast to Pelagius who denied the necessity for grace.
85 Other similar statements are found in WA on pp. 193-194.
87 Ibid., p. 195. Arminius wrote "...this work of regeneration and illumination is not completed in one moment; but that it is advanced and promoted, from [die] time to time, by daily increase."
88 Ibid., WA, p. 9. Arminius wrote "Let those who reject the former of opinions ("the price of the death of Christ was given for all and for every one") consider how they can answer the following scritpures, which declare that Christ died for all men and that He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world...".
89 Ibid, p. 195. Arminius wrote "...the progress, continuance, and confirmation, nay even the perseverance in good, are not from ourselves, but from God, through the Holy Spirit...But, if it happen that persons fall into sin who have been born again...".
90 Bettenson, DCC, p. 268, lists the 5 Articles of the Remonstrants as found in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, III.
91 Moved to Pleissenburg Castle due to the size of the University.
92 Rupp, Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, p. 35.
93 McSorley, p. 249. Eck admits that God causes the whole meritorious act. He does not say, however that God is the total cause.
96 Properly, the Society of Jesus. Formed to defend the Roman Church against Protestant attacks. They developed apologetics against various Protestant theological propositions.
98 Barry, W., Catholic Encyclopedia. Section on "Molina" in the "Calvin" section.
99 Webster's Biographical Dictionary, entry for Molina, Luis.
100 Molina's view of Middle Knowledge can be found in the book, The Concordance of Free Will with the Gifts of Grace, published in 1588.
101 Bangert, A History of the Society of Jesus, pp. 115-116 contains a Bibliographical overview of Molina with some background information about the debate that he contributed to.
102 MacDonnell , J. "Jesuits Portrait Page" . [No longer on the Internet], No copyright date, Fairfield University , Fairfield, CT.
103 Bangert gives the date as 1594 and Catholic Resource Network lists the date as 1597.
104 The Thomists were the Dominicans.
105 The Molinists were the Jesuits.
106 Bangert, A History of the Society of Jesus.
107 Most, W G. [http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/PREDESTI.TXT - Trinity Communications, The Catholic Resource Network, 1994.
108 Gray, Terry. Westminster Confession, [http://mcgraytx.calvin.edu/gray/westminster_standards/WCF.html]. Feb 1996.
109 Bettenson, DCC, pp. 269-270.
110 Bettenson, DCC, p. 53, lists the date for this council as 412.
111 Calvin, BLW, p 82, footnote 250.
112 Bettenson, DCC, p. 59, lists the date for this council 417.
113 Calvin, BLW, p 82, footnote 250.
115 McSorley, p. 116. Not covered by Schaff in the HCC.
116 Bettenson, DCC, pp. 61-62.
117 Schaff, HCC, Volume III, p 866.
118 Calvin, BLW, p. 82, footnote 250.
119 Council of Orange. [http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/ORANGE.TXT The Catholic Resource Network, Trinity Communications, 15-Mar-94.
126 Rupp., p. 144. (BotW) Luther wrote in sarcastic tones like "such as numerous body of most learned men".
127 Rupp, p. 43 (Diatribe). "From the time of the apostles down to the present day no writer has emerged who has totally taken away the power of freedom of choice, save only Manichaeus and John Wyclif."
128 Rupp, p. 145. Another classical example of Luther's gift of hyperbole.
129 Rupp, Luther quotes Augustine pp. 134, 136, 145, 149, 163, 170, 174, 180, 203n67, 302, and 326. There may be other indirect allusions.
131 Winter, E. F., Erasmus - Luther: Discourse on Free Will. Information in book is not in tabular form.
132 A fairly short book on the subject in comparison to Luther's response, which was over four times as long (Bondage of the Will).
133 Some commentators have said that the first of the two volumes was indicative of personal offense.
134 Some commentators have noted that the second volume deals with the issues at hand.
135 For instance, the edition of the Bondage of the Will, translated by J. I. Packer (a noted Calvinist) gives no achnowledgement of the two-volume reply of Erasmus in spite of a lengthy historical introduction.
136 The points were related to indulgences, not Free Will. See the Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences, by Dr. Martin Luther, 1517 Published in: Works of Martin Luther, [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/ninetyfive.txt]
138 Schaff, HCC, 7:430. Schaff, himself a Calvinist, describes BotW as "full of grand ideas and shocking exaggerations that border on Manichaeism and fatalism."
140 An analogy comparing two things that are not of the same sort, thus drawing a false analogy based on the differences between categories.
141 Lutheran synods later rejected these views of Luther as too extreme.
145 Rupp. p. 47. Erasmus, Diatribe, 15:14.
149 Luther's 13th point defended at Heidelberg, May 1518.
150 Spurgeon, C. H., The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 1 (1856) A Defense of Calvinism, Election, and Free Will A Slave. [http://www.idontkno.ab.ca/books/quotes/Quotes.htm].
151 Geisler, Introduction to Philosophy.
152 Ibid., chapter 13, pp. 193-206
153 Soft determinism is an attempt to add some degree of human responsibility to the determinism equation.
154 Indeterminism is ruled out, by Geilser, for various reasons.
155 Also found in Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theololgy under 'Free Will'.
156 Cheah, F. M., A Review of Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation.
157 Horton, Michael. How Wide is God's Mercy?: Is Faith in Christ Absolutely Necessary? , p. 42
158 Sproul, Willing to Believe.
159 Boettner, L. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination Chapter 16. Entitled: Is Free Will Inconsistent with Free Agency?
160 Ganss, H. G., Catholic Encyclopedia. Entry for "Martin Luther"
161 Ibid. Walch, op. cit., XVIII, 2049-2482 -- gives it in German translation. See Stichart, op. cit., 370.
162 Maher, M, Catholic Encyclopedia. Entry for "Free Will", subsection of "Thomist and Molinist Theories".
163 McSorley, H. J., Luther: Right or Wrong? An Ecumenical-Theological Study of Luther's Major Work, The Bondage of the Will.
164 Craig, W. L.,"No Other Name": A Middle Knowledge Perspective on the Exclusivity of Salvation Through Christ [http://www.origins.org/offices/billcraig/docs/middle2.html. 22 August 1997. ] Has the basic defense of Middle knowledge.
165 For instance, Plantinga, A. The Nature of Necessity, Clarendon Library of Logic and Philosophy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974), p. 86; idem, "The Boethian Compromise," American Philosophical Quarterly 15 (1978): 129-38. Plantinga, Nature of Necessity, p. 179; and Alvin Plantinga, "Reply to Robert Adams," in Alvin Plantinga, ed. James Tomberlin and Peter Van Inwagen, Profiles 5 (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1985), p. 378.
166 Several critical articles are:
Wierenga, E.. Prophecy, Foreknowledge, and the Necessity of the Past, [http://www.faithquest.com/philosophers/wierenga/ewprophesy.html],
Tomberlin, J., ed., Philosophical Perspectives, 5 Philosophy of Religion (Atascadero, CA:
Ridgeview Press, 1991): 425-445 , , University of Rochester.
Adams, R. Merrihew Middle Knowledge and the Problem of Evil, American Philosophical
Quarterly 14 (1977); reprinted in The Virtue of Faith , Oxford University Press, 1987, pp.
77-93.
167 Craig, W. L. Craig has about a half dozen articles on middle knowledge on his Internet homepage at: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/articles.html
168 William Lane Craig gave a talk at Biola in Jan 1998 that was very well attended on Middle Knowledge and the issue of Christian Exclusivism of the gospel. Recognizing the threat, the Calvinists in the crowd were particularly bothered by the implications of the views of Craig and lined up for the Q&A session.
169 For instance, http://www.lu.org/offices/billcraig/docs/hasker.html. See also See Alfred J. Freddoso, "Introduction" to On Divine Foreknowledge, by Luis de Molina, trans. with Notes by A.J. Freddoso (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1988), pp. 59-60.
Copyright 1998 - Douglas Gilliland - All Rights Reserved
Last Edited 3-14-98.
Mail your comments to: (webmaster@douglasgilliland.com)