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?
First, before exploring Luther’s rejection of the peasant revolt, one must examine his explanation of Christian freedom. Written in 1520, The Freedom of a Christian proclaimed the new freedom to be found in salvation by faith alone. His doctrine liberated people from works but also from the laws of the Old Testament. Salvation was found in the promise of Go...
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.
But before confirmation of this statement there is one snag, namely the fact that according to religious teachings free will no matter what is not capable of and dependence on God's grace. Erasmus did not stop, and he decided to find a way out of this situation. Firstly, he rejects the idea of the Fall and clarifies that even mired in sin man has light. Secondly, it modifies the original and common understanding of grace. Erasmus divides it into three types so that all living get any of these graces. And since free will is nothing without grace, and grace is now in all, then free will is alive in each and able to act. Third, having achieved his goal and gain independence grace, he proceeds to describe its power. It is about these ability, Luther later gives his answer.
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.
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.
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.
Like I said before freewill is a topic that philosophers have argued about over the years. Most times when the question ‘do you have freewill?’ is asked, a lot of individuals usually say they are free even without thinking twice. Although there are a lot of philosopher that believe we all have freewill and there are also other philosopher who have spoken up and tried to prove their point that humans have no freewill. Philosopher that argue that humans have no freewill are called the determinists. The determinists argue
“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 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 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:
What this quote says, is that how can we possibly be responsible for our own actions if God knows what we are going to do anyways, and if God does know everyth...
Luther states “the law is spiritual. If the law were for the body, it could be satisfied with works. Because it is spiritual, however, no one can satisfy it- unless all that you do is done from the bottom of the heart” (Luther 77). What Luther really means by this is that law can only be fulfilled where there is a spiritual heart and where that spirit is absent from the heart then there is sin and dissatisfaction with the law. A law is achieved by doing works which God decides if we are performing these tasks with the will of God from the heart. However, one will be punished by God for performing deeds when there is no heart because God is not satisfied by individuals who only do good works when others are watching or to get something in return. (Luther 76). Laws are meant to keep the sinful attributes of individuals under control through the fear of punishment. The law shows anyone that compares their life to Christ’s life who was without sin that he or she is sinful. God gave us law not because he is harsh but to help society maintain order and is also a guide so that we can know what good works will please God. The book of laws are found in the Old Testament which teaches what individuals can and cannot do. The Old Testament is comprised of the demanding of good, stories of how laws can be maintained or broken, and promising the forgiveness of sin (Luther 98). The apostles use the
It can be argued that Doctor Faustus is damned from the moment of conception. His innate desire for knowledge inevitably leads to his downfall. He represents the common human dissatisfaction with being human and the struggle of accepting our lack of omnipotence and omniscience. Marlowe manipulates this struggle between the aspirations of one character of his time and the implications to Christianity in relation to its doctrine of heaven and hell. Indeed, Doctor Faustus asks for more than what was intentionally made available to him through God's plan, yet it was God's gift to him of his intellect, that tempted him to search beyond his appointed realm of knowledge. Faustus, through his own free will, decides to trade his soul with Lucifer in order to gain the answers to the questions of the universe. According to the divine plan ideology of Catholic doctrine, his decision worked into the cosmic outline. The divine application of his decision implies that there are benefits or rather some other importance, outside of the connection to Faustus, of his selling his soul. This lessens the impetus behind his decision because of the emphasis on universal application as opposed to the immediate ramifications to Faustus, the human being. Therefore, one can argue as to where the responsibility or fault lies concerning Faustus' fate because of the presence of other forces who may have influenced his decision. However the responsibility for his choice remains his and his alone.