(literally Of free will: Discourses or Comparisons) is the Latin title of a polemical work written by Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam in 1524. It is commonly called The Freedom of the Will or On Free Will in English. It was written to call out Martin Luther's revival of John Wycliffe's alleged teaching that "everything happens by absolute necessity".
Erasmus' civil but deliberately provocative book mixes evangelical concerns that God has revealed himself as merciful not arbitrary ("nobody should despair of forgiveness by a God who is by nature most merciful" I.5.) and the conclusion in the Epilogue that where there are scriptures both in favour and against, theologians should moderate their opinions or hold them moderately: dogma is created by the church not theologians. In his view, a gently held synergism mediates the scriptural passages best, and moderates the exaggerations of both Pelagius (humans meriting or not requiring grace for salvation) and Manichaeus (two Gods: one good, one bad).
In response, Luther wrote his important work On the Bondage of the Will (1525), against which Erasmus in turn wrote the two-volume book Hyperaspistes (1526, 1528), which Luther did not respond to. Background was nominally written to refute a specific teaching of Martin Luther, on the question of free will."Erasmus says that his prefatory remarks pertain to the controversy at hand more than the body of his work. It is more important that he instill moderation in his readers than he make the particular case for free will." Luther had become increasingly aggressive in his attacks on the Roman Catholic Church to well beyond irenical Erasmus' reformist agenda.
One of the propositions ascribed to Luther and anathemized by Pope Leo X's bull Exsurge domine (1520) was that "Free will after sin is a matter of title only; and as long as one does what is in him, one sins mortally."
Luther responded, publishing his Latin Assertio omnium articulorum which included the statement "God effects the evil deeds of the impious" as part of the Wycliffian claim that "everything happens by pure necessity," so denying free will. (For the popular German version of this work, Luther sanitized his text for Article 36 to remove the arguments that "God is the cause not only of good deeds in man but also of sins, and that there is no natural power of the human will to direct man's actions either for good or for bad.")
Erasmus' mentor Bishop John Fisher published a detailed response to the Latin version's arguments as Confutation of the Lutheran Assertion in 1523. In the same year, Catherine of Aragon's confessor Alphonso de Villa Sancta put out De libero arbitrio aduersus Melanchtonem, on Melancthon's version of Luther's theory.
Erasmus also had decided necessity/free will was a subject of core disagreement deserving a public airing, and strategized for several years with friends and correspondents on how to respond with proper moderation without making the situation worse for all, especially for the rigorous humanist classicist/biblicist/patristic reform agenda of "". He sent the draft to English King Henry VIII for comments, and received a note from Pope Clement VII encouraging publication, and a letter came from Martin Luther recommending he kept silent.
Erasmus' eventual irenical strategy had three prongs:He had adopted a similar strategy the previous year, where the collequy Amicitia presented his positive thoughts on friendship while the Spongia dealt with negative, specific issues mentioning individuals.
first, a dialogue Inquisitio de fide to turn down the general heat and danger, and to set the stage for calm debate, which asked the question of whether Lutherans were heretics and, because they accepted the Creed, proposed that Lutherans must not be classed as heretics; second, six months later, a small book On Free Will addressed as much to issues of limits of authority, discourse, biblical interpretation, as to free choice of humans in the things of God; third, published the same day as On Free Will, a small book De immensa misericordia dei (On the Immense Mercy of God), written ostensibly as a model sermon which provided Erasmus' positive alternative to Luther's idea in a non-controversial genre, without mentioning him. It set up that God was not arbitrary, against the claims of predestination; notably it sets "mercy" as a synonym for all kinds of grace, allowing a far broader range of scriptures to be applied than those that used the term "grace":We might say that Erasmus proposed sola misericordia instead of sola gratia. "What is the grace of God, if not the mercy of God?" (It also warns the audience against Manicheeism, which proposed two Gods, the just but not equally good God of the Old Testament, and the good but not equally just God of the New.)
Terminology Synergism is the idea that adult salvation or justification involves some sort of unequal co-operation (noting that the co- does not connote equality of the parties, God's grace always being in some way prior and unearned.) This is the view that Erasmus believes explains scripture and tradition better in On Free Will. One version of this is the doctrine of prevenient grace associated with Augustine, who taught that without grace the will is captive. Monergism is the idea that God brings about an individual's salvation or justification regardless of their co-operation. This is the view associated with the early leaders of the Reformation such as Martin Luther. One version of this is the doctrine of irresistible grace associated with John Calvin. Semi-Pelagianism is the idea that the commencement of conversion is a free choice, with grace supervening only later. Pelagianism is the idea that humans have free will to achieve perfection. In some popular Protestant views (such as this website) synergism, semi-Pelagianism and Pelagianism reduce to effectively the same position, which is that humankind is basically good.
Content A scholar has commented: "De Libero Arbitrio is clear in what it opposes, less so in what it affirms" about free will. However, another has commented that "The most important and lasting legacy of Erasmus' theology was its nuance": what is being strongly affirmed is not free choice per se but a hermeneutic. Because of his irenical anti-Scholasticism,His philosophia Christiani "demonstrates the combination of Biblical precepts and the wisdom of ancient scholars without referring back to the medieval scholastic tradition." Erasmus attempted to argue without dogmatism, over-systematization, insult or much appeal to Scholastic methods."Erasmus’ tract…is a showpiece of his methodology. He begins his argumentation in the classic skeptical fashion by collating scriptural evidence for and against the concept of free will and demonstrating that there is no consensus and no rational way of resolving the resulting dilemma."
The conclusions Erasmus reached also drew upon a large array of notable authorities, including, from the Patristic period, Origen, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine, in addition to many leading Scholastic authors, such as Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus. He also engaged with recent thought on the state of the question, including the perspectives of the via moderna school and of Lorenzo Valla, whose ideas he rejected.
Preface Erasmus' thesis was not simply in favour of undogmatic synergism,Erasmus also expressed this view in 1499's Prayer of Erasmus of Rotterdam to the Son of the Virgin, Jesus as "It is a great thing, I know, that a wretched worm asks of Thee, not only beyond his merits, but beyond human prayers and human understanding.... Therefore, not for my merits, which are none or evil, but by thyself, I beseech Thee. . . " but that Luther's assertive theology was not grounded and bounded adequately, as can be seen from the headings of the Preface:
Luther's supposed infallibility Objectivity and scepticism Having an open mind Difficulties in the scripture Essence of Christian piety Man's limited capacity to know Unsuitability of Luther's teachings
Luther's response to these (ignoring the first point) had the headings: Assertions in Christianity; No liberty to be a sceptic; Clarity of scriptures; Crucial issue: Knowing free will; Foreknowledge of God; Tyranny of Laws; the Christian's peace; Christian liberty; Spontenaity of necessitated acts; Grace and free will.
For Erasmus, the heart of the issue was not theology but the role of prudence in limiting what can be claimed theologically: "what a loophole the publication of this opinion would open to godlessness among innumerable people."
Erasmus asserted that over-definition of doctrine (whether by Church Councils or by Luther's assertions) historically leads to violence and more schism or heresy. The mentality and mechanisms of heretic-hunting were encouraged, not relieved, by adding to the articles of faith (such as requiring belief for or against free will), this hunting then requiring terrors and threats. Erasmus' extremely tentative affirmation (of synergism) comes from these reflections: not only is any nasty disputation un-Christian, but the assertion of extra doctrines promotes, in effect, evil. Later opposing commenters interpreted this as that Erasmus loved Peace more than Truth.
He found no justification in consensus or history for Luther's idea on necessity, except for Manichaeus and John Wycliff.
He suggested that his (and, implicitly, Luther's) own preferences might owe to personality more than to other sources. These were "red rags to a bull" for Luther."which he must have guessed would provoke Luther to reply, in his De servo arbitrio, with such vehemence that no reconciliation of views was possible."
Free Will Erasmus adopted an unusual definition of Free Will: the ability of an individual to turn themselves to the things of God. So this included not only conversion but more general daily moments.
In his response, Luther split his definition of Free Will to cover on the one hand moral things—where he allowed free choice to operate— and on the other hand conversion issues—where predestination was the proper explanation to the necessary exclusion of free choice.
Synergism and Causation Erasmus explains prevenient grace by the analogy of a pre-toddler, too weak to walk on his own yet. His parent shows the child an apple as an incentive, and supports the child as the child takes steps towards the apple. But the child could not have raised himself without the parent's lifting, nor seen the apple without the parent's showing, nor have stepped without the parent's support, nor grasped the apple unless the parent put it into his small hands. So the child owes everything to the parent, yet the child has not done nothing. (s57)
This example is similar to one John Wycliffe gave in Tractatus de universabilus.
Pan-Biblical Evidence