In the 1520s a famous written discussion found place between Martin Luther and Desiderius Erasmus regarding the will of man. Erasmus was a Christian author - a renowned priest - who lived at the same time as Luther did, in the 1500s. The reason for the discussion with Luther on the freedom of the will was that Erasmus was encouraged by his friends to refute Luther on something Luther had written about the will. I assume that the discussion between the two of them shows the difference between the Catholic and the Protestant point of view with regards to being a Christian.

Erasmus thought that God, after the fall, has given man freedom to choose to do evil or good. And he believed that we are to judge, that is for God to hold dear, from the choices we make. For we are in a position to choose between good and evil. There is, thus, no question of any other mercy than the mercy man was shown when God let man live after the fall, said Erasmus. We are all meant to achieve eternal life, but if we really will achieve eternal life depends on whether we are able to suppress the will to do evil. He argued that the distinction between good and evil would have been meaningless if we were not put in a position to choose between doing good or doing evil, for sin had not been ill if not man was capable of sin by the act of will. Salvation, according to Erasmus, is the reward for doing well.

Luther stated that to give justice to the Holy Spirit is pure idiocy. Nothing of what we are by our own assistance may meet the standards of God. The contrary is the case. Luther argued that there is no free will. Even though we are capable, by our will, to do good in the sense that we follow the law and act in accordance to what people think well of, we are unable to act really righteous by our own relief and assistance. The righteousness of God depends not on the capability to follow statutory regulations, however good we are to keep the law. The will is thus good only if it is in virtue of God's Spirit. Luther believed that we can be for the good only if we are subject to God's control - when God's Spirit is working through us. The will is given to be evil when that does not happen. And the one who is subjected to God's governance will find it needful to do what he does. He will enjoy doing well by course, completely independent of any kind of freedom of the will. He is driven by the Holy Spirit. For in and by itself is man, according to Luther, unable to do anything well.

If Luther's teachings are drawn to the extreme it is claimed by it that we are not able to be saved by anything we do. We will be saved only when the Spirit of God works through us, and if so we are destined for eternal life. The other ones are doomed to perish because God's Spirit does not work in them. They are given to be unable to repent. This is the doctrine of Predestination. Erasmus, on the other hand, believed that all people have been qualified, by the will to do good, or rather by the ability to not do evil, to be found worthy of salvation.

I think the positions are to understand on the basis of this word in the Gospel of Matthew which says that many are called but few are chosen. All those who alone are called upon will, with Erasmus, think themselves as sons of God, supposed to belong to Christ. They will think that we make God the current by acting in the name of the Father, that is by doing good, and they think that the reward for doing good is to be incorporated into Christ. They think that we actually have a free will, namely the will to do evil rather than good. We can, by the act of will, omit obeying the call. We can choose to do evil instead of good. And even though in theory we all are supposed to gain eternal life, they will think that not all who are called upon to obey the call will do so. By God we have all got life and death painted before our eyes, but not all will strive to do well. Eternal life is reserved for those whom God find worthy of incorporation into Christ, and whether we are found worthy depends on our lives. For we are in a position to choose between evil and good. Thus, we have a free will. But some God has chosen. They will think differently. They will, as the woman who is married, think that God has allowed them to conceive and let them dwell in a circumstance in life which is of the Holy Spirit. They will think of their sons in all their work. They will, with Luther, deny any freedom of the will. They will perceive the flesh as basically evil, incapable of doing good. We can in this view only do good when the Spirit works in us - when we have been oriented towards the Son. It is only when the Spirit works in us we can do well. In this view, we have no freedom of the will. The Spirit will constantly rush at us, and when we do something, then it is not by virtue of a free will, but it is the power of the Spirit that works in us. Our wills are bound. We are not under compulsion, but we find it to be oriented. Our wills spring under the relief and assistance of the Holy Spirit. We are married – by God.

I think Luther and Erasmus thought completely differently because they thought differently about the human relationship with God. And I will give both right, even though my sympathy is with Luther. As sons of God, we will take responsibility and promote Christ. We are all always free to do so - that is to obey the call. And many are called but few are chosen. As selected, as married, made real, we will not be able to decide to do good. By the Holy Spirit which works in us is the will is bound and locked to the task of satisfying God's infallible and eternal purposes. We are formed in the power of the Holy Spirit.

But Erasmus and Luther disagree in what it means to be a Christian, and the question today is whether their views are still valid for the distinction between the Catholic and the Protestant Church.

Erasmus believed that the individual was given to choose between good and evil by means of reason and that reason kept the individual's miserable nature in control. Erasmus formulated three kinds of laws which the individual is subjected to, namely the law of nature, which tells us that it is unfair to do to others what we do not want to experience ourselves, the law of good works, which gives witness to what is good and support the bid with the threat of punishment, and the law of faith, which makes the impossible possible and the mundane fun by God's gracious influence on our feeble will. When these three laws are kept, the individual, according to Erasmus, is in control. According to Erasmus, we constantly choose to follow the law, that is choose to do good as opposed to evil, and it is our choices which qualifies us for eternal life. He quotes Moses ("I have set before you life and death. Choose the good and follow me.") and writes: "God shows what is good and what is evil. He offers as recompense death or life. He relinguishes to man the freedom of choice. It would be ridiculous to command one to make a choice, if he were incapable of turning in either direction. That’s like saying to someone who stands at the crossroads «choose either one,» when only one is passable."

Luther rejected everything Erasmus wrote on the matter. Luther believed that a man who is motivated by the law is unable to really do well. A man related to God as a legislative outer power is incapable of doing good, and he wrote that everything we do is evil unless God works in us. "That is to say, a man void of the Spirit of God does not do evil against his will, under pressure, as though taken by the neck and forced into it, … but he does it spontaneously and willingly. And this willingness and desire of doing evil he cannot, by his own strength, eliminate, restrain or change. He goes on still desiring and craving to do evil. And if external pressure compels him to act outwardly to the contrary, yet the will remains averse and chafes under such constraint." The more nature is forced, writes Luther, the more reluctant it becomes. Whoever God is working through will, in contrast, always do good. His nature, characterized by the Spirit, is love. Luther formulates a "thunder bolt" which in his view lays all the talk about free will dead "It is essentially neccesary for Christians to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but that he foresees, purposes and does all things according to His immutable, eternal and infallible will." If it was so that we had a freedom to choose, the outcome of life would be open. It is not. Either we are ridden by Satan or we are ridden by God. Man is unable, by any free will, to reverse God's purpose.

These are two very different conceptions of what it means to be a Christian. In Norway, we have adopted Luther's view and assume that those who profess being Christians also have good hearts.

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2 Corinthians, 5:17)

According to the view of Erasmus, Moses said, “I have painted good and evil before your eyes.” According to the view of Luther, Moses said, “I have painted good and evil for your eyes.” There is a big difference between the two views.

A way to claim Luther's vision is to say that you must be nice to be pretty, cf. the phrase "nice and pretty". You must have the power to show authority, cf. the phrase "power and authority". There must be a smile if there shall be laughter, cf. the expression "smile and laughter". Luther asserted the truth that the mind by itself is hopeless without the authority of the heart, cf. the phrase "heart and mind". But if the heart is perfect, all the activity of the mind is good.


Source:
 Erasmus - Luther: "Discourse on free will". Continuum, New York, 1996.