Erasmus and Luther: Seemingly Similar, Decidingly Opposite

Erasmus and Luther: Seemingly Similar, Decidingly Opposite

Desiderius Erasmus and Martin Luther both wrote extensively on theology. For the last five hundred years, people have tried to understand their ideas on topics from scriptural authority to ideal Christian piety. In order to do this, one must analyze the two men’s works together and compare their ideas on many topics. While the similarities between Erasmus’ thoughts on Scripture, Church failings, and the ideal Christian Life caused a “misunderstanding” in interpreting Luther, the differences between Erasmus and Luther are more important to understanding both theologians.

Both Erasmus and Luther agree that Scripture should be widely read. This similarity could cause some confusion for the masses. Both men were involved with making the New Testament more readable – Erasmus with his Greek and Latin translation, Luther with his German translation – and both men encouraged laymen to read the Scriptures. Erasmus writes in Paraclesis in 1516:

I absolutely dissent from those people who don’t want the holy scriptures to be read in translation by the unlearned – as if, forsooth, Christ taught such complex doctrine that hardly anyone outside a handful of theologians could understand it, or as if the chief strength of the Christian religion lay in people’s ignorance of it. Perhaps the state secrets of kings have to be concealed, but Christ wanted his mysteries to be disseminated as widely as possible. (Paraclesis, 121)

It is obvious that Erasmus is encouraging people to read Scripture because he shoots down the idea that laymen cannot understand it. Erasmus further argues in his Forward to Third Edition that “hearers Christ attracted – was it not an indiscriminate multitude, including the blind and the halt, beggars, publicans, centurions, artisans, women and boys? Shall we prevent those people from reading – the very ones by whom he wanted to be heard” (Forward to Third Edition, 130). He blatantly states that everyone should be allowed access to the Bible. Luther offers his advice in Preface to New Testament with “The true kernel and marrow of all the books, those which should rightly be ranked first, are the gospel of John and St. Paul’s epistles, especially that to the Romans, together with St. Peter’s first epistle. Every Christian would do well to read them first and most often, and, by daily perusal, make them as familiar as his daily bread” (Preface to New Testament, 18). In Luther’s mind, not only should one read Scripture, but they should read Scripture daily. The idea that laymen should read Scripture was so radical that people could believe that Erasmus and Luther were basically arguing the same thing.

Though Erasmus and Luther agreed that everyone should read Scripture, they disagreed on how to interpret it. Erasmus writes in Discourse of Free Will that “Holy Scripture contains secrets into which God does not want us to penetrate too deeply, because if we attempt to do so, increasing darkness envelopes us, so that we might come to recognize in this manner both the unfathomable majesty of divine wisdom and the feebleness of the human mind” (Discourse on Free Will, 8). It seems he is contradicting his own previous statement in Paraclesis, but it is clear that now he thinks that perhaps laymen should not try to understand Scripture, as they may be delving to deep that it offends God. Meanwhile, Luther responds to Erasmus with “I admit that many passages in Scriptures are obscure and abstruse. But that is due to our ignorance of certain terms and grammatical particulars, and not to the majesty of the subject. This ignorance does not in any way prevent our knowing all the contents of Scripture” (Discourse on Free Will, 103). Luther’s argument is that one does not need to know everything in Scripture to understand Scripture. These differences are more obvious in direct discourse between the two theologians. If one were just reading their separate works, it would be easy to see their arguments as quite similar.

In a time when laymen were quite dissatisfied with the church due to practices such as selling indulgences and benefices, Erasmus and Luther could easily be lumped together as two more theologians who are critical of the church. Erasmus, though much more mild in his criticisms of the church writes that “in fact no men resisted Christ more obstinately than these very men charged with guarding the books in which his coming is foretold and represented” (Forward to Third Edition, 128). He is critical of the clergy for hiding the Bible and keeping the teachings of Christ to themselves. Luther is also critical of the church, at first, in just administrative issues. In Luther’s Appeal to the Ruling Class, he lists several grievances. Similar to Erasmus’ criticism, Luther writes “When the Holy Scriptures have been used to reprove [Romanists], thy have responded that no one except the pope was competent to expound Scripture” (An Appeal to the Ruling Class, 407). Luther and Erasmus both fear that the clergy has become corrupted.

The similarities end near the time Luther is excommunicated. Erasmus still stays with the church and therefore generally civil. Luther on the other hand, now a heretic, is harshly critical of the church. Luther writes in the introduction of Freedom of a Christian:

As you well know, there has been flowing from Rome these many years – like a flood covering the world – nothing but a devastation of the worst of all things. All this is clearer than day to all, and the Roman church, once the holiest of all, has become the most licentious den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the kingdom of sin, death, and hell. It is so bad that even Antichrist himself, if he should come, could think of nothing to add to its wickedness. (Freedom of a Christian, 46)

This vicious attack those surrounding the papacy is a thinly veiled attack on the pope himself. There can be little that is harsher than the Antichrist being unable to think of any more evils for the church to participate in.

Luther could have been misinterpreted as sharing the same view as Erasmus of the Christian Life because both had such a similar end result. Erasmus writes in Paraclesis:

The first step is to know what [Christ] taught, the second to put it in practice. I don’t think anyone should consider himself a Christian simply because he can carry on a dispute about instances, relations, quiddities, and formalities involving the question in a thicket of thorny abstractions – but only if he holds to the lessons that Christ taught and exemplified, holds to them, and exemplifies them himself. (Paraclesis, 124)

The outward appearance of a pious Christian would be someone doing good works. It is the action that the laymen will see. Luther writes in Freedom of a Christian:

We must, however, realize that these works reduce the body to subjection and purify it of its evil lusts, and our whole purpose is to be directed only toward the driving out of lusts. Since by faith the soul is cleansed and made to love God, it desires that all things, and especially its own body, shall be purified so that all things may join with it in loving and praising God. Hence a man cannot be idle, for the need of his body drives him and he is compelled to do many good works to reduce it to subjection. (Freedom of a Christian, 68)

While the fundamental idea is essentially reversed, the end result is still a Christian doing good works. This is what people see, and so this is why Luther and Erasmus could be considered similar in their idea of Christian piety.

However, Erasmus and Luther differ on how the Christian Life is obtained. For Erasmus, the Christian Life is obtained through actions. In Discourse on Free Will, Erasmus writes:

If we are on the road to piety, we should continue to improve eagerly and forget what lies behind us; if we have become involved in sin, we should make every effort to extricate ourselves, to accept the remedy of penance, and to solicit the mercy of the Lord, without which neither the human will nor its striving is effective; for all evil let us consider ourselves responsible, but let us ascribe all good to Divine Benevolence alone, for to It we own even what we are; and in all things must we believe that whatever delightful or sad happens to us during life, God has caused it for our salvation, and that no injustice can come from Him who is by nature just, even if something should befall us which we deem undeserved; nobody should despair of forgiveness by a God who is nature merciful. (Discourse on Free Will, 9)

Here, it is the person that achieves the Christian Life on their own. Luther, however, writes that “It is evident that no external thing has any influence in producing Christian righteousness or freedom, or in producing unrighteousness or servitude” (Freedom of a Christian, 54). It is the grace and will of God if someone leads a Christian Life. If one is not in God’s grace, no matter how many good works one does, one cannot get into God’s grace except for God’s will alone.

Desiderius Erasmus and Martin Luther in some respects held seemingly similar views on issues. They both wanted more people to become scripturally literate, they both say flaws in the Catholic Church, and they both envisioned a Christian Life that to an outsider would look quite similar. These similarities resulted in a misunderstanding among some that the two theologians were indeed arguing the same thing. However, to truly understand Erasmus’ and Luther’s views, it is imperative that one analyses the differences as well as the similarities.

1 | Page