The Protestant Reformation of the 16^th century is inseparably connected with the name of Martin Luther. Yet there are also other names that figure prominently in this great event, and one of them is Desiderius Erasmus.

Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536) was a great Renaissance scholar and an expert in classical languages. In that capacity he made important contributions to the Reformation, for instance by publishing a new Greek edition of the New Testament. This helped Luther and others to recover the original meaning of the Bible which until that time was available only in a Latin translation, the so-called Vulgate, the official version which contained many errors. Erasmus also edited the works of Church Fathers such as Jerome, Augustine and Athanasius whose contributions to theology had been largely forgotten or neglected. In this way Erasmus and other Renaissance scholars provided the Reformers with the historical background necessary to prove that the Church of their day had departed from the simple faith of the fathers and had burdened religious practice with forms and rituals which were unknown in the apostolic Church.

Luther appreciated the work Erasmus had done and esteemed him greatly. Erasmus also held Luther in high regard. When he read his 95 Theses he agreed with many of the grievances the young monk addressed in these articles. He was as opposed to the practice of selling indulgences as Luther was, and he shared the latter’s concern about the moral laxity displayed by the clergy.

Both realized that the Church of their day was far removed from what it had been during New Testament times and the early Church period. Both men had a quarrel with the pope. Luther, because the pontiffs endangered the salvation of souls; Erasmus, because they insisted on external ceremonies and obstructed free investigation. Erasmus lamented the fact that the simplicity of the gospel was obscured by all kinds of man-made rules and regulations.

Differences between Erasmus and Luther⤒🔗

There also were important differences between the two Reformers. They were poles apart when it came to what exactly needed to be reformed most. Erasmus envisioned mostly a reformation of abuses and consequently an improvement in morality, especially on the part of the clergy. Luther, on the other, hand, was primarily committed to reforming the doctrines of the church and only secondarily to bringing about changes in ethical conduct.

Erasmus was a Renaissance scholar. Another way of describing him is to say he was a humanist, be it a Christian humanist. In contrast to today's secular humanists, the humanists of the Reformation era were so steeped in Christianity that they held to the basic tenets of the orthodox faith.

Erasmus was a good Catholic and viewed himself as a loyal son of the Church. Yet he was a humanist in the sense that he believed in the basic good­ness of man and in the power of human reason to discern truth from error in all questions related to religion and morality. Christianity for him was basically a way of life that emphasises decency, moderation and balance. What the Church needs in order to be reformed, according to Erasmus, was for Christians to practice self-discipline and to return to the simplicity of the "Golden Rule" as outlined in the Sermon on the Mount.

Luther's Main Concern Was Right Doctrine←⤒🔗

As long as it looked as if Luther had similar objectives Erasmus thought of him as an ally. But when Luther changed his emphasis from abuses to more specifically doctrinal issues, the Dutch humanist became alarmed. Especially when in 1525 the pope excommunicated Luther and Luther reacted by burning the papal bull, Erasmus realized he could no longer support him, because he felt the German monk had gone too far. Erasmus did not want to split the Church for doctrinal or any other reasons.

Because the pope and many others suspected him of being a supporter of Luther, Erasmus had to make a public statement showing that he had parted ways with the Reformer of Wittenberg. He therefore wrote a pamphlet in which he attacked Luther on a key doctrinal issue.

Erasmus on the Freedom of the Will←⤒🔗

He chose for that purpose the doctrine of the will – he himself contending for the freedom of the will, whereas Luther, as Erasmus knew, held to the bondage of the will. The title of the pamphlet was Freedom of the Will and in it the author defends freedom as an indispensable condition of moral action and respon­sibility. If the will of man is not free, any commandment addressed to man loses its meaning, nor can any value be attached to repentance and reward.

Erasmus was careful not to assign too big a place to free will. Man needs the grace of God to be saved, but, he says, "there is a power in the human will by which man may apply himself to those things that lead to salvation." All he wanted to do, it seemed, was to make room for a limited role for human freedom while also doing justice to the sovereignty of God. In reality, however, Erasmus as­signed a crucial role to man's ability to choose independently of God's will.

Luther on the Bondage of the Will←⤒🔗

Luther saw this immediately. In his reply to Erasmus he first thanks him for going to the root of the controversy between them: "you, and you alone, have seen the hinge on which all turns, and aimed for the vital spot." Luther then sets forth what he believed to be the Biblical doctrine of total depravity with its corollary The Bondage of the Will which is the title of his book.

For Luther the first step towards understanding the Gospel is to realize and acknowledge that man's will is not free but in bondage to sin. Unless we see this we cannot be saved. "The man who has not yet practically and experimentally learned the bondage of his will has not yet understood any part of the gospel; for it is 'the hinge on which all turns,' the ground on which the gospel rests."

God's grace is unconditional, that is to say, it cannot be earned by man. It is not a reward upon man's proper exercise of his free will, because there is no such thing as free will since the Fall in paradise. Luther did not deny that man makes spontaneous choices in every-day things, but he did deny that man has a free will with regard to salvation. Man is unable to save himself and therefore completely dependent on the sovereign grace of God.

Erasmus was of a different opinion. He saw salvation as a cooperative venture with God doing most of the work and man contributing a little bit too, namely making the right use of his will. Although willing to admit that sin has weakened man, he denied that sin has made him utterly incapable of doing anything whereby he can earn favour with God. In his view, all who apply themselves to spiritual concerns are rewarded with the gift of internal or saving grace.

Luther disagreed. All ideas of merit come to the same thing – man performs some action independently of God which elicits a reward from God. On this basis salvation comes to man through God's response to what man has done. Man, in the final analysis, saves himself. This, of course, is at bottom Pelagianism, the same error that Augustine had to combat in his day and which our Reformed fathers had to deal with in the Arminian controversy in the seventeenth century.

Luther, however, believed that man's will is in bondage to sin so that he cannot but act according to his sinful nature. He is in the devil's kingdom and can do nothing but choose to remain there; it is not in his nature to do anything else. As a creature he is in the hand of God Who either leaves him under the power of sin, or rescues him from its clutches by renewing his nature, according to His own free and sovereign will.

How can God condemn helpless slaves of Satan and sin and still be just? If fallen man cannot do anything towards his salvation, is it right to blame him?

For Luther there is only one answer: Where we cannot understand we must believe. The highest degree of faith is to believe that God is both merciful and just, merciful in saving some, and just in condemning others, though both are equally deserving of divine retribution. If I could understand this, Luther said, there would be no need for faith. But as it is, the impossibility of understanding makes room for the exercise of faith.

Luther also warned against specula­tion. Never speculate about or inquire into the hidden purposes of God, he said. Rather, confine yourself to what God has clearly revealed in His Word. Wherever God hides Himself and wills to remain un­known to us, there we have no concern. We must keep His Word in view and leave His secret will alone; for it is by His revealed Word, and not by His secret will, that we must be guided.

We must listen to, and deal with, God as He speaks to us in Christ and not at­tempt to approach or deal with Him apart from Christ. Let us occupy ourselves then with God Incarnate, that is, with Christ and Him crucified, in whom, Paul says, are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. In Christ, God comes seeking the salvation of all men; He offers Himself to all; He weeps over Jerusalem because Jerusalem rejects Him. Hear Him; rest on His Word without fear; for those who trust Him always find Him true. Shelve your problems about providence and predestination; be humble enough to receive as God's Word the word which God speaks to you in Christ, and to trust yourself to Christ on the basis of it, however unable you may be to square that word with what you know, or think you know, of God's dreadful hidden purposes.

These few excerpts from Luther's Bondage of the Will, will suffice, I trust, to show a side of the Reformer with which many people are not familiar. They are amazed to find that the doctrines set forth here are indeed Luther's. Total depravity and its corollary: the bondage of the will, are usually associated with the name of John Calvin and especially his successors, Beza and the men of Dort.

Many Lutherans are even unaware that their great leader held these views. The reason for this is that soon after Luther's death his followers chose to forget this part of the Reformer's teaching. At least, they did not nearly give it the same emphasis as he did. Everybody knows that the key doctrine of the Reformation was justification by faith alone. What most people do not realize is that for the Reformers (Luther, Calvin and all the rest) the doctrine of the bondage of the will was just as important or even more so. Why? Because they were concerned first and foremost with the sovereignty of God in salvation.

The doctrine of Justification by Faith, precious as it is, is a doctrine that needs to be interpreted. The principle of Sola Fide is not rightly understood unless we view it as anchored in the broader prin­ciple of Sola Gratia. To the Reformers the question was not simply whether God justifies believers without works of the law. It was the broader question, whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin, and whether God saves them by free and unconditional grace. By justification, therefore, they did not just understand that God declares sinners righteous on the basis of Christ's finished work when they come to faith, but also that God raises them from the death of sin by His life-giving Spirit In order to bring them to faith.

Here then was the crucial issue: whether God is the Author, not merely of justification, but also of faith; whether, in the last analysis, Christianity is a religion of complete reliance on God for salvation and all things necessary to it, or of self-reliance and self-effort. It is not enough to say we are saved by faith. We must ask also what is the source of faith and what is its status and function.

Historically two answers have been given to these questions. Luther and all the Reformers said: faith is the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received. Erasmus and Arminius and many evangelicals today reply: faith is the condition of justification which is required from man and therefore is able to fulfil, be it with some assistance from God.

I am afraid that much of our modern Protestantism would neither be owned nor even recognized by the Reformers of the sixteenth century. If Luther's Bondage of the Will is a fair representation of what he and his fellow Reformers believed, it is clear that many in Lutheran and Reformed churches today have tragically sold their birthright and they espouse a theology that is more Erasmian than Lutheran.

What about us Free Reformed people? We are concerned about orthodoxy and we love the doctrines of grace. But have we ever felt the power of these doctrines in our lives? Are these truths, including the one Luther deals with here, experiential realities for us? Do we understand our plight as sinners?

Luther's diagnosis of that plight is both clear and sharp. His message is basically this: you are hopelessly and helplessly lost in sin, bound in Satan's chains, at enmity with God, blind and dead to the things of the Spirit.

But his remedy is also clear: acknowledge that you are lost, confess your enslavement to Satan as your sin, and cast yourself as a helpless sinner upon the mercy of God in Christ. Admit that your salvation depends totally on God's unconditional and sovereign grace and ask Him to give you that grace – the grace of regeneration, the grace of repentance and faith as well as the grace to live a holy life according to His commandments. The Lord will answer such a prayer and grant such a request. As our Saviour has promised when He said, "Ask and it shall be given you; seek and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." All who believe that promise will be saved, by grace through faith; and that not of ourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.

Sola fides, sola gratia, sola scriptura, SOLI DEO GLORIA!