Theological Origins of Modernity

the contradictions of premodernity 149
in trouble and the latter two already condemned as heretics? 53 Here again
Erasmus falls back on a skeptical mode of questioning, seeking to draw
Luther into discussion. What Luther needs, according to Erasmus, are fi rm
arguments when all that he has are assertions, which themselves rest only
on the fundamental claim that “I have the Spirit of Christ, which enables
me to judge everyone but no one to judge me; I refuse to be judged, I require
compliance.” 54
Th e crucial issue in the debate, however, is not epistemological and
methodological but substantive. It is the question of the relationship of
God and man. Luther had argued in his Assertion that God was responsible
both before and aft er the Fall for everything, that there never was and
never would be free will. Erasmus argues in opposition that “mankind was
created so as to have free will; the tyrant Satan took it away as a captive,
grace restored and augments it.” 55 Before the Fall man was free and aft er
the Fall his natural liberty was vitiated but not extinguished, and a spark
of reason and virtue remained although it could not be eff ective without
further grace. 56 Th e Fall was thus much less severe than Luther claimed.
In opposition to Luther’s assertion of the utter nullity of man, Erasmus
remarks: “You make lost health into death.” 57
Erasmus in this way sees Luther, like the Stoics, relying on an absolute
standard of truth in a world in which there is no infallible standard or
criterion. He knows that Luther believes that Scripture is such a criterion,
but he knows it cannot serve this function. Scripture is fi lled with contradictions
and obscurities. In part this is because God wants some things to
remain unknown, but it is also the result of the fact that diff erent people
read Scripture diff erently depending on the goal they have in view. 58 Many
of the apparent contradictions in Scripture are thus not in the text but in
the exegesis of the text. Coming to terms with Scripture requires not the
uncompromising assertion of what one believes Scripture to mean, but a
broad, communal discussion that refl ectively compares the multiple views
of one’s contemporaries and one’s predecessors. It is on these issues that
Erasmus believes we must act like skeptics and suspend judgment, not on
basic Christian doctrine.
Th e core issue for Erasmus is Luther’s unequivocal assertion that God
is responsible for everything and that anything man does on his own is
sin. For Erasmus this unnecessarily denigrates human beings and removes
all the traditional religious incentives for moral behavior. Erasmus recognized
Luther’s concern with Pelagianism, but he believed that Luther’s
critique so exaggerated the eff ects of original sin and the Fall that he came
close to Manicheanism. 59