In the history of human affairs, there have been some epic matchups: David vs. Goliath, Mark Anthony vs. Octavian, Napoleon vs. the Duke of Wellington, Ali vs. Frazier, and me vs. a golf ball on the third hole of the University Park Golf Course in Muskegon, Michigan. (I did hit it eventually.) To this great panoply of mano-a-mano conflict, we must add the literary duel of Desiderius Erasmus and Martin Luther in 1524–25. As the late E. Gordon Rupp so colorfully described this showdown, “It was a duel in which the two participants got up at crack of dawn, one armed with a rapier, the other with a blunderbuss …”[1]
It was meant to be a debate over the free will of human beings, or lack thereof. Erasmus began the festivities with his book On the Freedom of the Will. Not to be outdone, Luther responded with On the Bondage of the Will. The real issue at hand was not whether a person can freely choose to put sugar in their tea. (Though why anyone would want to do such a thing is another good topic for debate.) The two theologians were at odds over whether a person could choose to follow Christ. Put another way, what role does human will play in the salvation of human souls?
It was impossible to consider this matter in isolation, so the two men also debated whether scripture can be clearly understood by the average person, what we can comprehend about God’s nature and will, and whether Erasmus’ book was, in fact, a load of crap. (On that latter point, Luther at least acknowledged it was crap in a gold container.) But at the very heart of their argument stood a central issue of Reformation theology: the difference between law and gospel.
Erasmus Argues We Can Choose Good and Keep the Law
Erasmus’ argument is notable for the fact that it seldom uses the terms “law” and “gospel,” particularly as Luther would define them. Erasmus did name three types of law: 1) the law of nature (i.e., the golden rule); 2) the law of works, which commands things we cannot do without grace; and 3) the law of faith, seen in the extreme requirements of the Sermon on the Mount and other New Testament passages. He argued,
The law of faith commands more arduous things than the law of works, yet because grace is plentifully added to it, not only does it make things easy which of themselves are impossible, but it makes them agreeable also. Faith, therefore, cures reason, which has been wounded by sin, and charity bears onward the weak will.[2]
But regardless of how much grace a person is given, Erasmus was certain that human beings could choose good and reject evil with their free will. God’s law therefore pointed humans to life. “The Law shows what God wills, sets out the penalty to him who disobeys and the rewards to the obedient. For the rest it leaves the power of choice to the will that was created in them free and able rapidly to turn to one or the other.”[3]
Drawing upon the biblical example of Cain, Erasmus argued, “[God] sets before him a reward if he wills to choose what is good and punishment if he prefers to follow the evil. And he shows that the movement of the will toward evil can be overcome, nor does it bring a necessity to sin … God shows what is good, what is evil, shows the different rewards of death and life, leaves man freedom to choose. It would be ridiculous to say, ‘Choose,’ if the power of turning one way or the other were not present …”[4]
Erasmus did not understand how one could interpret the biblical commands in any other way than this: God has shown us what is good, we can choose it, and with his help, we can perform it. “What is the point of so many admonitions, so many precepts, so many threats, so many exhortations, so many expostulations, if of ourselves we do nothing, but God in accordance with his immutable will does everything in us, both to will and to perform the same?” he asked in the book’s conclusion. “Why does he command us to seek with so many labors what he has decided freely to bestow?”[5]
Luther Argues We Choose Evil and Cannot Fulfill God’s Commands
In his response, Luther called foul. “In these passages [Erasmus’] Diatribe makes no distinction whatever between expressions of the law and of the gospel; for she is so blind and ignorant that she does not know what law and gospel are.”[6]
He particularly rejected the idea that the presence of commands in scripture (e.g., “Do this and live,” “Return to the Lord”) implies that human beings can keep those commands. “But it does not follow from this that man returns by his own power, nor do the words themselves say so, but they say simply: ‘If you return,’ by which man is told what he ought to do; and once he knew this and saw that he could not do it, he would seek the means to enable him to do it…[7]
Luther drew particular attention to the Book of Zechariah, which includes a formula typical of the Old Testament prophetic books. “Therefore say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “Return to Me,” declares the Lord of hosts, “that I may return to you,” says the Lord of hosts.’” [8] (Zech 1:3) He used this verse to distinguish law from gospel.
But to put vanities aside, the word “return” has two uses in the Scriptures, one legal, the other evangelical. In its legal use it is an expression of exacting and imperious command, which requires not merely an endeavor but a change of the whole life … In its evangelical use it is an expression of divine comfort and promise, by which nothing is demanded from us, but the grace of God is offered to us … Zechariah, therefore, has given us the briefest possible epitome of both kinds of preaching, both of law and of grace: for it is nothing but law, law at its peak, when he says, “Return to me,” and it is grace when he says, “I will return to you.”[9]
The words “legal” and “evangelical” indicate law and gospel, or law and grace. Luther reveals his method for reading scripture: whenever a demand is made of humans, that is the law, and whenever the work of Christ on our behalf is revealed, that is the gospel. Erasmus did not make the same distinction as Luther in his exegesis of scripture, so he believed humans could be justified by law keeping. Luther looked only to a justification apart from the law, by faith alone.
Luther wrote that “by the command to love we are shown the essential shape of the law and what we ought to do, but not the power of the will or what we are able to do, but rather what we are not able to do; and the same is shown by all other expressions of demand.”[10] Therefore, the path to salvation is to despair of one’s efforts at law keeping and trust in the righteousness of Christ credited to us by faith. “For this also must be observed, that just as the voice of the law is not raised except over those who do not feel or acknowledge their sin … so the word of grace does not come except to those who feel their sin and are troubled and tempted to despair.”[11]
Whereas Erasmus saw scripture as a book of commands and the gospel as a “reset” button that gives us a fresh start to keep God’s law, Luther looked to the many promises of God contained in his Word, which provide true gospel hope. “What, indeed, does almost more than half of Holy Scripture contain but sheer promises of grace, in which mercy, life, peace, and salvation are offered by God to men?”[12]
The clash between Erasmus and Luther was not simply an odd entertainment for stuffy academics. It was an intensely practical consideration of the most basic question human beings face: Where can we find grace? In his distinction between law and gospel, Luther set forward a path that leads to relief in the finished work of Christ on our behalf.
[1] Rupp, E. Gordon. “Introduction: The Erasmian Enigma” in Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, ed. E. Gordon Rupp and Philip S. Watson, The Library of Christian Classics Ichthus Edition (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1969), 2.
[2] Erasmus, Desiderius. De Libero Arbitrio in Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, ed. E. Gordon Rupp and Philip S. Watson, The Library of Christian Classics Ichthus Edition (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1969), 49–50.
[3] Erasmus, 50.
[4] Erasmus, 54.
[5] Erasmus, 87.
[6] Luther, Martin. De Servo Arbitrio in Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, ed. E. Gordon Rupp and Philip S. Watson, The Library of Christian Classics Ichthus Edition (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1969), 194.
[7] Luther, 195.
[8] Taken from the 1995 New American Standard Bible, copyright The Lockman Foundation.
[9] Luther, 196–7.
[10] Luther, 196.
[11] Luther, 199.
[12] Luther, 198.
