On Free Will (De Libero Arbitrio)

Summary

On Free Will, published in Latin at Basel in September 1524 as De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio (a discourse or comparison of passages concerning free will), is Erasmus's public answer to Martin Luther on the question of whether the human will has any part in salvation. Erasmus had long hesitated to write against Luther, whose criticism of abuses he partly shared, but by 1524 he was pressed by friends, princes and churchmen to declare himself, and he chose the one doctrine on which he thought Luther had gone furthest: Luther's statement of 1520 that free will after the Fall is a name without a reality. The book opens with a preface on method. Erasmus says he takes little pleasure in fixed assertions and would rather follow the judgment of Scripture and the Church where Scripture is plain, and suspend judgment where it is obscure. Some questions, he argues, are like the hidden recesses of a cave, and may be discussed among the learned without being pressed on ordinary believers. He then defines free will as a power of the human will by which a person can apply himself to the things that lead to eternal salvation or turn away from them. The main body is a careful collation of texts. First come passages that seem to support free will: Ecclesiasticus 15, where God leaves man in the hand of his own counsel; Genesis 4 and Deuteronomy 30, where life and death are set before the people; the calls to turn and repent in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Zechariah; and in the New Testament Christ's lament over Jerusalem, the commandments offered to the rich young man, and Paul's exhortations to run the race. Erasmus asks what sense commands, promises, warnings, rewards and punishments can have if the will can do nothing. Next he takes up the texts Luther relied on, among them the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, Jacob and Esau and the potter and the clay in Romans 9, and Christ's words that without him we can do nothing, and offers readings that preserve both grace and human responsibility. He reviews the range of opinion from Pelagius through the scholastics and Augustine to Luther's own position, and favours a view that ascribes almost everything to grace while leaving the will a small, real part in consenting to it. The epilogue argues that this middle way honours God's mercy without making him the author of sin or rendering moral effort pointless. Luther replied in December 1525 with The Bondage of the Will, and Erasmus answered him in the two books of Hyperaspistes (1526-1527). No public-domain English translation is stored in this library; the familiar modern translations are still in copyright.

Plot or Argument

• Preface: on assertions and the obscurity of Scripture

  Erasmus explains his distaste for rigid assertions, his deference to Scripture and the decrees of the Church, and his view that some questions are better explored among scholars than preached to everyone. He compares obscure doctrines to the recesses of a cave that God has not wished us to penetrate fully.

• Definition of free will

  He defines free will as a power by which a person can apply himself to, or turn away from, what leads to eternal salvation, and distinguishes his question from the freedom of ordinary choices.

• Old Testament testimonies

  A collation of passages that seem to presuppose a real choice: Ecclesiasticus 15:14-17, the choice set before Cain in Genesis 4, the blessing and curse of Deuteronomy 30, and the prophetic calls to turn and live in Isaiah, Ezekiel and Zechariah.

• New Testament testimonies

  Christ's lament that he would have gathered Jerusalem but it would not, his words to the rich young man about keeping the commandments, the parables of reward, and Paul's language of striving, running and cleansing oneself.

• The texts that seem to deny free will

  Erasmus examines the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, God's choice of Jacob over Esau, the potter and the clay of Romans 9, and John 15:5, arguing that they speak of God's foreknowledge, of grace preceding and assisting the will, or of particular judgments rather than a universal necessity.

• The range of opinion

  He surveys positions from Pelagius, who gave too much to the will, through the scholastic theologians and Augustine, who gave most to grace, to Wyclif and Luther, who in his view left the will nothing, and states his preference for the opinion that attributes nearly all to grace.

• Epilogue: the case for moderation

  Erasmus sets out the difficulties he sees in Luther's position: it seems to make exhortation pointless, to discourage effort and to raise hard questions about God's justice. He concludes that grace and the will cooperate, with grace as the chief cause, and that this middle way best keeps both God's mercy and human responsibility.

Characters

• Desiderius Erasmus, author

  Humanist scholar who writes as a reluctant controversialist, preferring careful comparison of texts to sharp assertion.

• Martin Luther, opponent addressed

  Wittenberg reformer whose 1520 claim that free will is a mere name is the target of the book.

• Augustine of Hippo, authority cited

  Church father whose teaching on grace both sides claim; Erasmus places his view close to Augustine's emphasis on grace.

• Pelagius, authority cited

  Fifth-century monk whose confidence in unaided human ability Erasmus rejects as one extreme.

Lessons

• Reading Scripture by collation

  Erasmus's method is to lay passages side by side, testimony for and against, and to ask how they can be read together. The book is a model of the humanist habit of going back to the sources and weighing texts before drawing conclusions.

  • Why does Erasmus begin with the passages that seem to support free will before turning to those that seem to deny it?
  • Is it fair for Erasmus to argue that the many commands and invitations of Scripture assume the hearer can respond?
  • What does Erasmus's treatment of Pharaoh's hardened heart show about how he reads difficult texts?

• Moderation as a theological temper

  Erasmus prefers a middle way between Pelagius and Luther and distrusts certainty on questions he thinks Scripture leaves partly hidden. His defenders see in this humility and peace-making; Luther and others saw an unwillingness to confess what Scripture plainly teaches.

  • When is suspending judgment a sign of humility, and when might it be a failure to commit?
  • Erasmus says some questions should be discussed among scholars rather than preached to ordinary believers. What reasons can be given for and against this view?

• Grace and human responsibility

  Erasmus wants to give nearly everything in salvation to grace while keeping a real, if small, place for the will's consent. He argues that this keeps God just, keeps exhortation meaningful and gives believers a reason to strive.

  • What does Erasmus mean by saying grace is the chief cause while the will cooperates?
  • Why does Erasmus think that denying free will would make God seem unjust?
  • How might a Christian who agrees with Luther answer Erasmus's concern about exhortation?

• Controversy among friends of reform

  Erasmus and Luther had both criticized abuses in the Church and both appealed to Scripture, yet they parted on this question. The exchange shows how a shared desire for renewal could lead to different answers about human nature and grace.

  • Why might Erasmus have chosen free will, rather than indulgences or the papacy, as the subject on which to answer Luther?
  • What can students learn from the courteous tone Erasmus tries to keep with an opponent?

Context

By 1524 the movement begun by Luther's Ninety-Five Theses had spread across the Empire, and Erasmus, whose biblical scholarship and satire of clerical abuses had prepared the ground for reform, was widely suspected on both sides. Catholic critics said Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched; evangelicals hoped he would join them. Pope Adrian VI, Pope Clement VII, Henry VIII of England and Duke George of Saxony were among those who urged him to write against Luther.

Composition

Erasmus worked on the treatise in Basel in 1523-1524 and published it with Johann Froben in September 1524. He chose the form of a diatribe or collatio, a scholarly discussion and comparison of passages, rather than a judicial condemnation, and limited himself to a single article: Luther's 1520 Assertion that free will after sin is a name only. Luther had written to him in April 1524 asking him to remain a spectator of the conflict.

Reception

Philip Melanchthon praised the book's moderation, and many humanists welcomed it. Luther replied at length in The Bondage of the Will (December 1525), thanking Erasmus for going to the heart of the matter while rejecting his arguments; Erasmus answered with Hyperaspistes in two books (1526 and 1527). The exchange marked the public separation of Erasmian humanism from the Lutheran Reformation and remains a standard text in the history of debates over grace, free will and the authority of Scripture.

Comparisons

• luther-bondage-of-the-will

  Luther's direct reply, which follows Erasmus point by point; reading the two together shows each side's handling of the same texts, from Ecclesiasticus 15 to Romans 9.

• luther-selected-sermons-and-treatises

  Luther's earlier treatises, including The Freedom of a Christian, show the doctrine of faith and grace that Erasmus was responding to.

• utopia

  Written by Erasmus's close friend Thomas More, and first printed in 1516 with Erasmus's help; both books share the humanist Latin culture and the hope of Christian reform through learning.

• confessions

  Augustine's account of a will bound by habit and freed by grace stands behind both Erasmus and Luther, and each claims him as an ally.

• the-consolation-of-philosophy

  Boethius's fifth book on divine foreknowledge and human freedom is the classic earlier treatment of the problem Erasmus raises about necessity and prescience.

• summa-theologica

  Aquinas's discussion of free choice and of grace gives the scholastic distinctions that Erasmus surveys and partly adopts.

Quotes

For Students

A reading companion for classical Christian high school students. See the student guide.

Reading Guide

Watch for

• The preface, where Erasmus explains why he dislikes assertions and why he thinks some questions belong to scholars rather than to sermons. His method is part of his argument.
• His definition of free will near the beginning; notice how narrow it is and that it concerns turning toward or away from salvation, not ordinary choices.
• The long collation of Old and New Testament passages and his repeated question about what commands and promises would mean if the will could do nothing.
• How he handles Pharaoh's hardened heart and the potter and the clay in Romans 9, the texts Luther will press hardest.
• The epilogue, where he places his own view between Pelagius and Luther and gives grace the chief part.

Key terms and names

liberum arbitrium

Latin for free choice or free will. Erasmus uses it for the power to apply oneself to, or turn from, what leads to salvation.

diatribe

In Erasmus's title, a learned discussion or discourse, not an angry attack. He chose the word to signal an inquiry rather than a verdict.

collatio

A comparison or gathering of passages side by side. Erasmus's book is largely a collation of biblical texts for and against free will.

grace

God's unearned favour and help. Erasmus holds that grace goes before, accompanies and completes every good work, while the will consents.

Pelagianism

The teaching, associated with the monk Pelagius and condemned in the early Church, that people can choose the good without prior grace. Erasmus rejects it as one extreme.

Ecclesiasticus

The Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, a book in the Latin Bible. Its fifteenth chapter is Erasmus's first proof text; Luther doubted its authority.

Seminar Questions

1. Comprehension How does Erasmus define free will, and which of Luther's statements is he answering?
2. Comprehension Name three passages Erasmus cites in favour of free will and two that he admits seem to tell against it.
3. Comprehension Which positions does Erasmus place at the extremes, and where does he place himself?
4. Interpretation Why does Erasmus think that commands, warnings and promises in Scripture assume some freedom in the hearer? Is the inference sound?
5. Interpretation What does Erasmus gain, and what might he risk, by saying that some doctrines are best left to the learned?
6. Interpretation How does Erasmus try to give almost everything to grace without giving everything? Is the small part he leaves to the will a real part?
7. Big Question If God's grace is the chief cause of every good act, in what sense, if any, are human beings responsible for turning to God?

Faith Connections

• Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 15:14-17 (Scripture)

  Erasmus's opening text: God made man and left him in the power of his own counsel, setting fire and water, life and death before him. Students should note that Luther questioned the book's authority, which shows how the canon itself entered the debate.

• Deuteronomy 30:15-19 (Scripture)

  Moses sets life and death, blessing and cursing before Israel and urges them to choose life. Erasmus reads it as an invitation that presumes a real choice.

• Philippians 2:12-13 (Scripture)

  Paul tells believers to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in them both to will and to do. The verse holds together the two things Erasmus wants to keep: God's working and the believer's effort.

• Augustine, On Grace and Free Will (Church Fathers)

  Augustine wrote this treatise to monks troubled by his teaching on grace, arguing that grace does not destroy the will but heals it. Both Erasmus and Luther read Augustine closely and claimed him.

Logic and Rhetoric

Central argument: Scripture is full of commands, invitations, warnings and promises addressed to people as if they could respond. If the will could do nothing at all, these would be pointless, God would seem to punish what people could not avoid, and believers would lose a reason to strive. The texts that seem to deny free will can be read as speaking of grace that goes before and helps the will, or of God's foreknowledge, rather than of a universal necessity. Therefore the safest and most scriptural view gives nearly all to grace while leaving the will a real, if small, part in consenting.

Rhetorical device: argument from the purpose of commands (reductio). Again and again in the collation of texts Erasmus asks what point there would be in God saying turn, choose or keep the commandments to people who have no power to do so, pressing the opposing view toward what he takes to be an absurd conclusion.

Debate: Resolved: that Erasmus's preference for suspending judgment on obscure questions strengthens rather than weakens his case against Luther.

Writing Prompts

Essay: Erasmus argues that the commands and invitations of Scripture assume that the hearer can respond. Explain this argument, show how he applies it to two passages, and evaluate how well it answers the texts he admits are difficult.

Comparison with The Bondage of the Will (De Servo Arbitrio): Choose one passage that both Erasmus and Luther interpret, such as Ecclesiasticus 15 or the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. Set out each reading in its own terms and argue which interpretation better fits the passage and its context.

Medical Lens

The treatise is a theological discussion of grace, the will and the interpretation of Scripture; it has no medical content.

Creative Prompts

• Dialogue

  Write a conversation between a Basel printer's apprentice and a Wittenberg student in 1525, each explaining why his teacher's view of the will is the more comforting.

• Classroom

  Divide the class into two teams. Give one team Erasmus's list of passages for free will and the other the passages he treats as difficult, and have each team explain how Erasmus reads them.

• Essay

  Explain Erasmus's comparison of obscure doctrines to the hidden recesses of a cave, and judge whether the image fits the question of free will.

• Fiction

  Write the letter Erasmus might have sent to a friend on the day he sent the manuscript to Froben, describing his hopes and fears for the book.

Further Reading

• Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, E. Gordon Rupp and Philip S. Watson (eds.)

  Library of Christian Classics volume (1969) with Erasmus's treatise translated by Rupp in collaboration with A. N. Marlow and Luther's reply; in copyright.

• Discourse on Free Will, Erasmus and Luther; trans. Ernst F. Winter

  Abridged 1961 translation of both works; in copyright.

• Erasmus and the Age of Reformation, Johan Huizinga

• Erasmus of Christendom, Roland H. Bainton

• The Reformation: A History, Diarmaid MacCulloch