Free Will
The debate on free will is a very deep issue that cannot be answered simply. Each person must come to his or her own conclusions based on a mixture of several factors: understanding the proposed question, studying religious beliefs, doctrines and materials, and simply drawing from life experience. In my opinion, Erasmus had a better argument against Luther for the debate of free will in humans, however, he was not entirely right in his assumptions, either. He proposed that we all have free will- we control our own actions and choose to accept or reject the way of God. Erasmus made some good points with his rhetorical questions and reasoning.
Erasmus said on page 25 that "The law announced the will of God. It placed sanctions on disobedience, and it promised reward to obedient man. Otherwise God through creation allows to their will the power of choice which he gave free and moveable in both directions." His meaning of this statement is that since we have created laws and guidelines for ourselves, we have the choice to do right or do wrong. Otherwise, rules would not be necessary. Basically, we have the will to send ourselves to hell if we refuse to accept salvation.
In contrast, Luther argues that we have no free will. This reasoning is not explanatory of why the Ten Commandments exist. In his opinion, God has predetermined our destinations of heaven or hell. What would be the purpose of the Ten Commandments if we had no free will? If God controlled what we did, we would not need these "guidelines" of how to live our lives according to God's doctrine. And if we had no free will, what purpose would a just and loving God have to willingly send his people to hell? How could God, the supreme being, creator of all, who loves each of his children equally, predetermine who is going to live through Satan's works and be punished in hell eternally? Why would hell even exist? The reward of heaven and the punishment of hell are what we receive according to how we live our lives. Luther's principle crumbles in light of this consideration. Man must have free will, otherwise commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain. If God could "guarantee" obedience and belief, why didn't He simply do that with Adam and Eve (and Satan for that matter) and thus avoid all kinds of problems?
All of Europe used to be united under one religion, Catholicism. Europe started inching away from Catholicism during the 13th - 15th centuries. The church leaders started to only think about money and the power they held, instead of the real reason they were supposed to be there, God. This caused an uprising of people who no longer wanted to be a part of the Catholic church, nicknamed Protestants because they protested the ways of the catholic church. The Protestant Reformation was caused by corruption in the church, Martin Luther and John Calvin’s ideas, and the clergy and their preachings.
St. Augustine of Hippo, Boethius, and Anselm all address the concept of free will and God’s foreknowledge in their works “The City of God”, “The Consolation of Philosophy”, and “De Concordia”. While each work was written during a different time period, each of their approaches consists of a solution comprised of both unifying and unique points and arguments. While there is no clear contesting between one work and another, it is clear that free will is a complex and critical idea in Christian theology that has long since been debated. '
As we look to the different points of view between Luther and Erasmus, we will begin looking at Discourse on Free Will. As Luther states, “You make the power of free will small and utterly ineffective apart from the grace of God. Acknowledged? Now then, I ask you: If God’s of power, what can it do for itself? You say it is ineffective and can do nothing good. Therefore it will not do what God or His grace wills” (Bloomsbury, Luther 116). Luther makes such a point to say everything very meticulously in a specific way to convey his true question or intent of that specific statement. Luther’s opinion on free will is simply that we have none. He specifically believes that since we do not have free will, we must rely simply on God’s grace to lead us down the right path for we do not have the opportunity to make our own path.
The view of free will has been heavily debated in the field of philosophy. Whether humans possess free will or rather life is determined. With the aid of James Rachels ' article, The Debate over Free Will, it is clearly revealed that human lives are "both determined and free at the same time" (p.482, Rachels), thus, in line with the ideas of compatibilist responses. Human 's actions are based on certain situations that are causally determined by unexpected events, forced occurrence, and certain cases that causes one to outweigh the laws of cause and effect. The article also showcases instances where free will does exist. When human actions are being based on one 's emotions of the situation, desire, and simply that humans are creatures that are created to have intellectual reasoning. I argue, that Rachels’ article, provides helpful evidence on compatibilists responses that demonstrate free will and determinism actions come into play with each other.
Luther is uneasy when it comes to how the law affects human behavior. His view is that laws exist to restrict and control man, and we are free to act within the law, but genuine freedom exists when we naturally adapt our actions to the shape of the law: “To have the law on our side is the very nature of freedom from sin and the law...this freedom consists of taking pleasure simply in doing good, or in living uprightly, without being constrained to do so by the law.” (Luther pg. 29, 30) Kant passionately contradicts Luther’s claim: “The citizen cannot refuse to pay t...
The power of acting without necessity and acting on one’s own discretions, free will still enamors debates today, as it did in the past with philosophers Nietzsche, Descartes, and Hume. There are two strong opposing views on the topic, one being determinism and the other “free will”. Determinism, or the belief a person lacks free will and all events including human actions are determined by forces outside the will of an individual contrasts the entire premise of free will. Rene Descartes formulates his philosophical work through deductive reasoning and follows his work with his system of reasoning. David Hume analyzes philosophical questions with inductive reasoning and skeptism with a strong systematic order. Neither a systematic philosopher nor a rigid thinker, Nietzsche offers his own nihilistic spin on the topic of free will. The three different approaches of free will by Nietzsche, Hume, and Descartes all obtain their strong suits as well as their pitfalls. Nietzsche insists free will is created by theologians and therefore denies its existence, while Descartes embraces free will, and Hume individualizes the meaning of free will.
Luther believed that the Christian Faith was being exploited. The leaders of the Roman church were abusing their monopoly over their Christian followers for their benefit. Luther wrote The Ninety-Five Theses in response to the sale of indulgences by the Pope. He wanted to make the people aware of how a true Christian should act and how the Pope was violating them: "The treasures of indulgences are nets, whereby they now fish for the riches of men." (Luther, The Nine-Five Thesis, p.5) He felt that giving to the poor and needy would make them far better off than if they bought pardons. The Romanists had set up barriers so that no one could condemn their actions and power. They thought that the temporal power had no jurisdiction over the spiritual power. Secondly, the only person who could interpret the Scriptures was the Pope. Therefore, he decided what was right and what was wron...
with his 95 Theses. A strict father who most likely did not accept “no” as an
Luther defines faith as the absence of all good works. What were Luther's objections to the Pope and other church officials? He felt that the Pope and other officials of the Catholic Church had no knowledge or comprehension of the Bible or had ever even read it. They were wicked people who were preoccupied with wealth and power, but who never considered accomplishing God's will.
The Pagan Servitude of the Church – Composed in 1520, this work by Luther is one of his most important contributions to Christian history and theology. In the Pagan Servitude of the Church, Luther addresses critical issues that surround the seven sacraments that the Roman Catholic Church practices, but for this session, only the sacrament of the Eucharist is covered. Luther does not start gently, as he immediately contradicts the norm by advocating for the administration of both elements of the Lord’s Supper to the laity. His argument brings to light opposing comments from other theologians and leadership of the Roman Catholic Church, but Luther overcomes them all with a simple redirection to Scripture. He uses a combination of his interpretation of Scripture from the Gospels and Paul’s epistles along with logic and common sense to declare that the laity should have the right and privilege to partake in both the bread and the wine elements.
Thesis statement: Martin Luther was responsible for the break-up of the Catholic Church Martin Luther was a representative during the 16th century of a desire widespread of the renewal and reform of the Catholic Church. He launched the Protestant reform a continuation of the medieval religious search. From the Middle ages, the church faced many problems such as the Babylonian Captivity and the Great Schism that hurt the prestige of the church. Most of the clergy lived in great luxury while most people were poor and they set an immoral example. The clergy had low education and many of them didn’t attend their offices.
“Please tell me: isn’t God the cause of evil?” (Augustine, 1). With this question to Augustine of Hippo, Evodius begins a philosophical inquiry into nature of evil. Augustine, recently baptized by Saint Ambrose in Milan, began writing his treatise On Free Choice of the Will in 387 C.E. This work laid down the foundation for the Christian doctrine regarding the will’s role in sinning and salvation. In it, Augustine and his interlocutor investigate God’s existence and his role in creating evil. They attempt not only to understand what evil is, and the possibility of doing evil, but also to ascertain why God would let humans cause evil. Central to the premise of this entire dialogue is the concept of God, as relates to Christianity; what is God, and what traits separate Him from humans? According to Christianity, God is the creator of all things, and God is good; he is omnipotent, transcendent, all-knowing, and atemporal- not subject to change over time- a concept important to the understanding of the differences between this world and the higher, spiritual realm He presides over. God’s being is eidos, the essence which forms the basis of humans. With God defined, the core problem being investigated by Augustine and Evodius becomes clear. Augustine states the key issue that must be reconciled in his inquiry; “we believe that everything that exists comes from the one God, and yet we believe that God is not the cause of sins. What is troubling is that if you admit that sins come from… God, pretty soon you’ll be tracing those sins back to God” (Augustine, 3).
Luther preaches grace and in so free choice is abolished, suggesting that divine grace and human freedom are contradictory concepts. Because reconciliation between God and humans is made possible through the death of Jesus, God’s gift, it is foolish to assume that the exercise of freedom could have any relevance to salvation. Human freedom in Luther’s eyes is derived from the notion that individual’s are already saved through God’s righteousness and confirmed with the works of Christ, you are saved because of your possession of faith:
One thing that philosophers are great at is asking big questions, usually without providing answers. However, Saint Augustine has a more direct approach to his speculation, often offering a solution to the questions he poses. One such topic he broached in The City of God against the pagans. In this text, Augustine addresses the problem of free will and extends his own viewpoint. Stating that humankind can have free will with an omniscient God, he clarifies by defining foreknowledge, free will, and how they can interact successfully together (Augustine, 198). Throughout his argument, he builds a compelling case with minimal leaps of faith, disregarding, of course, that you must believe in God. He first illustrates the problem of free will, that it is an ongoing questions amongst many philosophers, then provides insight into the difference between fate and foreknowledge. Finally, finishing his argument with a thorough walk-through on how God can know everything, and yet not affect your future decisions.
Luther had been hunted by fears that God's wrath was being stored up against him. Luther didn't look to the Bible for an answer to his burning question.