End of Luther-Erasmus Study: A Comparison
Original topic subject: End of Luther-Erasmus Study
Talk Reformation Era: History and Literature
Join LibraryThing to post.
1geoffreymeadows
Finally, I’ve finished my year-long study of Erasmus and Luther. In the beginning, I simply stumbled into the study, having read Michael Massing’s Fatal Discord: Erasmus, Luther, and the Fight for the Western Mind. It was helpful to do my own study and to compare these two men over the course of more than a year.
A study of both men, Erasmus of Rotterdam and Martin Luther, is good for looking at some of the similarities and differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. The compromises made between Catholics and Protestants at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, though not in the end agreed to, still sticks in my mind from these readings. (See Lyndal Roper’s Martin Luther: Renegade and Prophet). In the beginning, Michael Massing’s Fatal Discord seemed to put it all out there for me, questioning whether Western Civ (especially in America) has taken the right path (by siding with Luther); but unlike Massey, I now don’t think a consideration of both men would necessarily involve a subordination of Luther to Erasmus, or, on the contrary, Erasmus to Luther. I think they both have their pluses and minuses. Being able to see those pluses and minuses more clearly has been the subconscious goal of this whole process. I’m encouraged that I have seen some of those pluses and minuses, in some cases quite clearly.
For instance, one theory I came away with is how the two men, Luther and Erasmus, experienced God differently and how those experiences affected how they saw the essentials of Christian belief. Luther’s experience was dominated by his conversion-like decision to join the monastic orders. I see him taking this fiery, decisive approach and applying that to many of his other decisions and even interpretations of Scripture. He is constantly re-applying that experience when he is deciding what the Church should believe, its doctrines, and how to deal with conflicts in the church, for instance, the Popes. Once he decides something that’s pretty much it, he doesn’t change his mind after that. Theologically, he is nearer to Augustine in his approach, who also had a decisive conversion experience. (He certainly sees, along with Augustine, no merit in human character and a humbling experience as necessary for any communication with God). On the other hand, Erasmus’ experience was shaped by the piety of the Christian Brethren of the Common Life from whom he learned the gospel message. This was a gentler yoke and not as dramatic an event as Luther’s experience and focusing more on the ideals of church life. I admit I don’t know as much about Erasmus’ background as about Luther’s, perhaps mostly because Erasmus didn’t share his own history while he was alive. Of course, to analyze the two men in this way may seem obvious to some, but it does have applications in the church today. Some people in the church today come to God through a fiery experience much like Luther’s, and others have lived in churches and adhered to the church’s teachings all their lives. People’s experiences of God shape their theology and doctrines - even the way they respond to the gospel itself. This is one reason why I’d say that looking at both men could benefit the church.
Also, on the theme of differences, Johan Huizinga’s Erasmus and the Age of Reformation finds fault with Erasmus for not weighing in on the issues of his time, and not intervening to bring the Lutherans and the Catholics back together. Erasmus was one of the most highly respected leaders of his generation, able to advocate for both the Lutheran and the Catholic sides of the debate. Maybe if Erasmus had made a concerted effort during critical negotiations, the two churches could have reconciled. This is Huizinga’s idea, anyway.
One of the biggest differences between Luther and Erasmus was that Martin Luther was always ready for a fight. Erasmus just wasn’t that way. One gets the idea that not only did Erasmus not like conflict, he would go to considerable lengths to avoid it. If you read his The Colloquies, though, he does shake things up a bit. Nevertheless, Luther was much more adept at conflict than Erasmus was.
Which leads to another difference between the two men. Erasmus was, first and foremost, a scholar. All Erasmus’ ideas come through the learned lense of ancient languages. Luther was, on the other hand, as Huizinga pointedly argues, a prophet. He was just as smart as Erasmus, but he was also practically created to do battle on behalf of the church. You might say that whereas Erasmus sought to educate people, Luther sought to correct them.
I’ve mentioned elsewhere that Luther’s view of the church was that it is a sacrificial community. Erasmus’ view of the church had more to do with the traditions of the church and its history. To Erasmus, the church is an ideal society, a society healed of all its sins and flaws. Luther’s church is an army, fighting for the gospel and for souls.
Both men, in their own ways, made enormous contributions to the church. People who have read one, should read the other also.
A study of both men, Erasmus of Rotterdam and Martin Luther, is good for looking at some of the similarities and differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. The compromises made between Catholics and Protestants at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, though not in the end agreed to, still sticks in my mind from these readings. (See Lyndal Roper’s Martin Luther: Renegade and Prophet). In the beginning, Michael Massing’s Fatal Discord seemed to put it all out there for me, questioning whether Western Civ (especially in America) has taken the right path (by siding with Luther); but unlike Massey, I now don’t think a consideration of both men would necessarily involve a subordination of Luther to Erasmus, or, on the contrary, Erasmus to Luther. I think they both have their pluses and minuses. Being able to see those pluses and minuses more clearly has been the subconscious goal of this whole process. I’m encouraged that I have seen some of those pluses and minuses, in some cases quite clearly.
For instance, one theory I came away with is how the two men, Luther and Erasmus, experienced God differently and how those experiences affected how they saw the essentials of Christian belief. Luther’s experience was dominated by his conversion-like decision to join the monastic orders. I see him taking this fiery, decisive approach and applying that to many of his other decisions and even interpretations of Scripture. He is constantly re-applying that experience when he is deciding what the Church should believe, its doctrines, and how to deal with conflicts in the church, for instance, the Popes. Once he decides something that’s pretty much it, he doesn’t change his mind after that. Theologically, he is nearer to Augustine in his approach, who also had a decisive conversion experience. (He certainly sees, along with Augustine, no merit in human character and a humbling experience as necessary for any communication with God). On the other hand, Erasmus’ experience was shaped by the piety of the Christian Brethren of the Common Life from whom he learned the gospel message. This was a gentler yoke and not as dramatic an event as Luther’s experience and focusing more on the ideals of church life. I admit I don’t know as much about Erasmus’ background as about Luther’s, perhaps mostly because Erasmus didn’t share his own history while he was alive. Of course, to analyze the two men in this way may seem obvious to some, but it does have applications in the church today. Some people in the church today come to God through a fiery experience much like Luther’s, and others have lived in churches and adhered to the church’s teachings all their lives. People’s experiences of God shape their theology and doctrines - even the way they respond to the gospel itself. This is one reason why I’d say that looking at both men could benefit the church.
Also, on the theme of differences, Johan Huizinga’s Erasmus and the Age of Reformation finds fault with Erasmus for not weighing in on the issues of his time, and not intervening to bring the Lutherans and the Catholics back together. Erasmus was one of the most highly respected leaders of his generation, able to advocate for both the Lutheran and the Catholic sides of the debate. Maybe if Erasmus had made a concerted effort during critical negotiations, the two churches could have reconciled. This is Huizinga’s idea, anyway.
One of the biggest differences between Luther and Erasmus was that Martin Luther was always ready for a fight. Erasmus just wasn’t that way. One gets the idea that not only did Erasmus not like conflict, he would go to considerable lengths to avoid it. If you read his The Colloquies, though, he does shake things up a bit. Nevertheless, Luther was much more adept at conflict than Erasmus was.
Which leads to another difference between the two men. Erasmus was, first and foremost, a scholar. All Erasmus’ ideas come through the learned lense of ancient languages. Luther was, on the other hand, as Huizinga pointedly argues, a prophet. He was just as smart as Erasmus, but he was also practically created to do battle on behalf of the church. You might say that whereas Erasmus sought to educate people, Luther sought to correct them.
I’ve mentioned elsewhere that Luther’s view of the church was that it is a sacrificial community. Erasmus’ view of the church had more to do with the traditions of the church and its history. To Erasmus, the church is an ideal society, a society healed of all its sins and flaws. Luther’s church is an army, fighting for the gospel and for souls.
Both men, in their own ways, made enormous contributions to the church. People who have read one, should read the other also.
