Erasmus and Luther: The Final Fray           

The real problem, however, was not in accepting the authority of Scripture. The real problem was the authority of the interpretation of Scripture. Luther, objected Erasmus, “constantly opposes either his own revelation or his own personal interpretation”.

Edward Burger, Erasmus and the Anabaptists (1977) pgs. 7-8

I confess it
is right that the sole authority of Holy Scripture should outweigh all the votes of all mortal men. But the authority of Scripture is not here in dispute. The same Scriptures are acknowledged and venerated by either side. Our battle is about the meaning of Scripture.

Erasmus, Freedom of the Will

To believe that the
church is in need of reform is one thing, but to approve a particular way of reforming the Church is a very different thing. Erasmus and the Anabaptists agreed with Luther, Zwingli,
and the other Protestant leaders that the Church was in need of reform, but the Anabaptists had much more in common with Erasmus as to how that was to be done  than they did with the Reformers.

I.B. Horst, Erasmus, the Anabaptists and the Problem of Religious Unity

Erasmus of
Rotterdam (1466-1536) and Martin Luther (1483-1546) were, probably, the two
most important reformers of the 16^th century, but their
understanding of the meaning of reform was quite different. Erasmus was
Luther’s elder and senior by almost twenty years, and it was Erasmus, as some
have said, that laid the egg that Luther hatched. The young Luther had an
immense admiration for the fine Biblical translations that Erasmus had done,
and Erasmus’
criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church were something that Luther (and many
others) would nod a hearty Amen to without much reservation.

The year that
Luther posted his 95 theses on the church door at Wittenberg (1517) was the
same year that Erasmus, ironically enough, also published his classic missive, The
Complaint of Peace. The Complaint of Peace is a sustained argument for peace and concord in
opposition to those that separate and divide the church into different tribes
and clans. Luther was on the verge and cusp of doing the very thing that Erasmus
feared in 1517, although none suspected how far and deep the schism would go
and last. The controversial publication of Erasmus’ Julius Exclusus was also published about this time. Luther
was fully on board with this tract for the times that suggested that the
warlike Pope Julius, after death and upon meeting Peter, would not be admitted
through the gates into heaven. Such a stinging colloquy contra Julius placed
Erasmus and Luther on the same page, and Luther used this colloquy in his
defense at times.

The more the Roman
Catholic loyalists tightened the knot around Luther’s neck, the more
reactionary he became. Erasmus continued to defend Luther and his many valid
and needful insights. He cautioned, again and again, the Roman Catholic
Sanhedrin against cornering Luther. Sadly so, the light of Erasmus went
unheeded as the heat between Luther and the Roman Catholic conservatives
intensified. The publications in 1520 of Luther’s Open Letter to the
Christian Nobility of the German Nation concerning the Reform of the Estate (August 1520), The Babylonian Captivity
of the Church (October
1520) and Of the Liberty of the Christian Man (November 1520) were a slap in the face to Leo X’s
papal bull Exsurge Domine (June
15 1520). Luther went as far as to publically burn the papal bull (December 10
1520). When Luther did this, lines were, increasingly so, being drawn in the
ecclesial sand. And yet, behind the scenes, Erasmus was still defending Luther
and urging caution to the Roman Catholic leadership. Many Roman Catholics were
turning against Luther, and since Erasmus was not doing so, they began
questioning his loyalty to Rome. Erasmus paid a heavy price for continuing to
walk by Luther’s side in 1520 and again in 1521 at the Diet and Edict of Worms
(when Erasmus still, with reservations, attempted to see the good in Luther’s
approach to theology). Erasmus’ patience was beginning to wear thin, though, by
1521 when he left for Basel. Luther was also becoming frustrated that Erasmus
would only go so far down the trail with him.  

Erasmus and Luther
were both fully committed to the authority of the Bible, but it was becoming
apparent in the early years of the 1520s that Luther’s interpretation of the
Bible and his central focus on ‘justification by grace through faith’ was
reductionistic. The fact that Luther thought (and demanded) that such a
position of Biblical interpretation was the litmus test of an authentic
understanding of Biblical authority and interpretation was not something that
Erasmus could or would accept. It was becoming apparent that Luther’s notion
and read of Paul was not the only read of Paul. Would Luther be willing to
split the historic church over an interpretation of the Bible?

Erasmus continued
to find common ground with Luther even up to 1524. The publication of Erasmus’
colloquy in March 1524, ‘An Examination of Faith’, is a dialogue between Aulus
(Roman Catholic) and Barbatius (Lutheran) about the Apostles’ Creed. Aulus,
like Erasmus, leads the discussion, and by dialogue’s end, it is quite clear
that both Aulus and Barbatius agree on the Apostles’ Creed. There are hints of
differences round the edges in the prologue and epilogue, but neither differ
seriously on their assent to the Creed. Why then must the Roman Catholics and
Luther part paths? Erasmus was committed to find the agreed upon esse (essence) of the church, and he was more
than willing to recognize diversity of interpretations (in both the Bible and
the Tradition) on issues the church could not agree upon. The Apostles’ Creed
was of the esse of
church life, Roman Catholics and Luther could agree upon it, so why the split
and schism? ‘An Examination of Faith’ highlights the fact that Erasmus was
still seeking to reconcile Luther with the Roman Catholic position by agreeing
upon the Apostles’ Creed in 1524. Luther, though, insisted there was more to
the essentials of the faith than the Apostles’ Creed and this is why, in the
end, paths were parted. It was not a debate about the authority of the Bible or
the importance of the Tradition—it was much more about that which was essential
to the faith journey and that which was indifferent (adiaphora).      

Many of Erasmus’
more moderate friends encouraged him to enter the fray in a way that questioned
the path and direction of Luther’s exegesis and theology. Erasmus decided, in a
rather irenical way, to challenge the heart of Luther’s emerging dogmatic
theology. The publication in September 1524 of Erasmus’ Discourse on the
Freedom of the Will went
straight to the core of Luther’s exegesis and theology. Luther admitted that
the text ‘seized him by the throat’. Erasmus argued, in Discourse on the
Freedom of the Will, that
humanity, although fallen and fallible, finite and prone to err, still had the
ability to heed, hear and respond to the overtures of Divine Grace. Human will
has vestiges of possibility, and there was still much good in humanity.
Erasmus, faithful to the Biblical text, drew forth verse after verse that
demonstrated his case that humans had enough freedom of will that they could
chose or reject God and the Good. Luther knew that if Erasmus’ read of the
Bible was accepted, his position was finished. It should be noted that the
debate between Gospel-Law and Grace-Will was a tension that Erasmus was willing
to live within, and he refused to tip his hat too far one way or the other—he
keenly recognized verses could be drawn from the Bible that supported both
positions, hence was willing to leave the answers to the issue in the realm of
uncertainty and mystery. In short, excessively focussing on a definitive answer
to such questions was not of the essence of the faith, and, more to the point,
the church should never be split up over an issue that is neither definitive in
the Creeds or the Bible. Luther insisted, though, that his read of the Bible
was the only read, and his response to Erasmus made this abundantly clear.     

Luther knew he had
to respond with haste and thoroughness to, probably, the most important
Biblical exegete and commentator of the 1520s in Europe. Luther turned on
Erasmus with a hammer. On the Bondage of the Will was published in 1525, and Luther used
verse added to verse in the Bible that confirmed his agenda. Needless to say,
both men, given their thorough exegetical abilities, knew the Bible well, but
they differed on what verses and passages they would use to support their cause
and agenda. The protestant west has tended, sadly so, to genuflect to Luther
and ignore or dismiss Erasmus. What has the West missed and lost in doing so?
It is significant to note that both the Roman Catholic and Protestant
traditions turned on Erasmus. On the Bondage of the Will had a profound impact on Calvin, and
Calvin’s Institutes (1536)
very much reflected Luther’s thoughts contra Erasmus. The clash between
Luther-Erasmus is now part of reformation lore and legend. It must be noted
that Erasmus did reply to On the Bondage of the Will in depth and detail, but this longer book, Hyperaspistes is routinely ignored. The tensions that
Erasmus was willing to live with, Luther was not going to accept. Erasmus never
denied the validity and reality of books, verses, texts and passages that
Luther used–he merely pointed out that there were other passages, texts, books
and verses that embodied another way of interpreting the Grace-Will issue and
tension. The Bible, in short, for Erasmus was not a text of clear and distinct
answers to the troubling dilemmas of life—for Luther, it was. It was these
quite different approaches that underlay how both men approached the Bible and
the Creeds of the church.     

The tensions and
eruptions in the 1524-1525 between Erasmus and Luther finally clarified why
Erasmus would not follow Luther and why Luther turned his back on Erasmus.
There is more to the tale, though, and it is this more that brings us to the
final fray between the aging Erasmus and Luther in full stride.  

Irena Backus, in
her fine article, ‘Erasmus and the Spirituality of the Early Church’, rightly
notes that the clash between Erasmus and Luther in 1534 ‘seems to have escaped
historians’ attention so far’. Erasmus published a rather lengthy reflection on
the Apostles’ Creed in 1533. Erasmus, being the nuanced Biblical exegete he was
and, equally so, a gifted commentator on the Fathers of the Patristic Era (East
and West) was cautious about forming solid and definitive conclusions on many
interpretive issues. The level of interpretive uncertainty and ambiguity that
did, at times, walk side by side with Erasmus was an anathema to Luther. Luther
was, for the most part, convinced that his interpretation of the Bible was the
real one, he questioned some of Erasmus’s reads of the Fathers and he thought
Erasmus’ probes of the Apostles’ Creed was not sure footed enough. In short,
Erasmus the man who knew how to walk on egg shells and not break them was the
opposite of Luther who broke every egg shell he stomped on. Luther wrote a
letter to Nicholas Amsdorf in 1534, and in the blistering letter he shredded
Erasmus up one side and down the other. There are those who often, tirelessly,
insist that Erasmus was not a theologian, and he was more concerned with ethics
than theology. Those who take the time to read the detailed and elaborate
reflection of Erasmus on the Creed of 1533 will realize Erasmus knew his
theology well. But, the way Erasmus did exegesis and theology left room for
different possible interpretations. This did not appeal to Luther (and those
like him) who are convinced there is only one interpretation of the Bible
(which is theirs).

Erasmus, the
peacemaker and irenical visionary of the early 16^th century, was in
his late autumn years when Luther turned on him in 1534. Erasmus knew he had,
as he had done before, to respond to the blows and challenges of Luther. The
incisive and compact missive, Purgatio adversus Lutherum, took Luther to task at the level of
certainty-mystery. Luther was an exegetical and theological ideologue and
Erasmus was not. Erasmus was quite willing to acknowledge the fact that
different ways of interpreting the Bible and Fathers did exist, and it was
simply dishonest to reduce such complex material to one dimensional and single
vision interpretations. Luther would and could not accept such an approach, and
he was willing to split the church over the issue of interpretation. It is
significant that Jerome and Augustine had a similar clash and tension in their
time. Jerome and Erasmus had much more in common than both did with Augustine
and Luther. But, the tensions and clashes between Jerome and Augustine did not
mean that Augustine would divide the church over different interpretation of
the Bible. The post-apostolic and Patristic Era did, indeed, have a diversity
of Biblical interpretations (that, at times, was more about heat than light),
Erasmus was more than aware of this (being both a Biblical and Patristic scholar),
but Luther would not abide such a way of reading the Bible, Fathers or Creeds.

Erasmus died in
1536. The initial and final fray between Erasmus and Luther do point to two different
ways of understanding the Christian journey—-unity in the body of Christ but,
in charity, pondering different ways of understanding the mystery of faith or
definite and definitive ways of interpreting the Bible and Tradition that
brooks little or no opposition. Erasmus embodies the former way, Luther the
latter way. Sadly so, many in the church follow Luther rather than Erasmus, and
the divided church is a child of such an ideological approach that violates and
contradicts the very unity that the Bible, Fathers and Creeds hold high. Is
this not the most tragic of all ironies?                                  

Ron Dart