Theological Origins of Modernity

the contradictions of premodernity 147
their claims leave considerable room for disagreement. Erasmus clearly
prefers the earlier anti-Manichean Augustine and Luther the later anti-
Pelagian Augustine, but neither stops there. Erasmus, like his humanist
predecessors, wants to interpret the earlier Augustine’s notion of the free
will in a Neoplatonic fashion, drawing on church fathers such as Origen
and Jerome. He also adopts a skeptical position on matters open to interpretation
and employs a skeptical strategy in his attempts to draw Luther into
discussion. Luther, by contrast, does not rely on the other church fathers
or on any philosopher for support but turns instead to Scripture, which in
his view speaks directly and indubitably to the individual Christian. His
experience of Scripture and his assertion of its absolute certainty, however,
are essentially Stoic. 45 Similarly, he resists being drawn into a discussion
and insists upon a more judicial proceeding because he understands the
skeptical trap that Erasmus has set for him. He also recognizes Erasmus’s
attempt to make use of this earlier debate to portray himself as a moderate,
but he is convinced that Erasmus is disingenuous, concealing his true
Pelagian position. He seeks to bring this out in his response. In light of the
position Luther takes in Bondage of the Will, Erasmus comes to believe that
Luther is not merely a Stoicizing Augustinian but a Manichean, a fatalist,
and an antinomian. Each thus tries to occupy an Augustinian position,
modifi ed somewhat in one direction or the other. Each, however, also suspects
that the other is disingenuously trying to portray himself as more
moderate than he actually is, and in their ripostes each thus portrays the
other as more radical than he actually was.
erasmus’s diatribe
Th e debate began with the publication of Erasmus’s On the Free Will: Diatribe
or Discussion. As its title suggests, the work is a diatribe, which classically
is a form of deliberative and not epidictic rhetoric, thus not a form
of attack but of discussion. 46 Erasmus adopts this mode in part to derail
the public inquisition of Luther, but also in an eff ort to turn the matter in
a more philosophical direction. 47 Substantively, Erasmus seeks to engage
Luther on the issue that lies at the heart of his diff erences with the humanists
and in a very real sense at the heart of Christianity—the question of
the relationship of the divine and human wills. 48
Erasmus begins by stating that he does not want to engage in a debate
and prefers instead a friendly discussion about a question that he himself
fi nds very puzzling, the question of free will. Th is beginning, as Luther and
many others have recognized, is disingenuous, an example of the Socratic