Erasmus and Luther: Seemingly Similar, Decidingly Opposite

Desiderius Erasmus and Martin Luther both wrote extensively on theology. For
the last five hundred years, people have tried to understand their ideas on topics from
scriptural authority to ideal Christian piety. In order to do this, one must analyze the two
mens works together and compare their ideas on many topics. While the similarities
between Erasmus thoughts on Scripture, Church failings, and the ideal Christian Life
caused a misunderstanding in interpreting Luther, the differences between Erasmus and
Luther are more important to understanding both theologians.
Both Erasmus and Luther agree that Scripture should be widely read. This
similarity could cause some confusion for the masses. Both men were involved with
making the New Testament more readable Erasmus with his Greek and Latin
translation, Luther with his German translation and both men encouraged laymen to
read the Scriptures. Erasmus writes in Paraclesis in 1516:
I absolutely dissent from those people who dont want the holy scriptures to be
read in translation by the unlearned as if, forsooth, Christ taught such complex
doctrine that hardly anyone outside a handful of theologians could understand it,
or as if the chief strength of the Christian religion lay in peoples ignorance of it.
Perhaps the state secrets of kings have to be concealed, but Christ wanted his
mysteries to be disseminated as widely as possible. (Paraclesis, 121)
It is obvious that Erasmus is encouraging people to read Scripture because he shoots
down the idea that laymen cannot understand it. Erasmus further argues in his Forward
to Third Edition that hearers Christ attracted was it not an indiscriminate multitude,
1|Page

including the blind and the halt, beggars, publicans, centurions, artisans, women and
boys? Shall we prevent those people from reading the very ones by whom he wanted to
be heard (Forward to Third Edition, 130). He blatantly states that everyone should be
allowed access to the Bible. Luther offers his advice in Preface to New Testament with
The true kernel and marrow of all the books, those which should rightly be ranked first,
are the gospel of John and St. Pauls epistles, especially that to the Romans, together with
St. Peters first epistle. Every Christian would do well to read them first and most often,
and, by daily perusal, make them as familiar as his daily bread (Preface to New
Testament, 18). In Luthers mind, not only should one read Scripture, but they should
read Scripture daily. The idea that laymen should read Scripture was so radical that
people could believe that Erasmus and Luther were basically arguing the same thing.
Though Erasmus and Luther agreed that everyone should read Scripture, they
disagreed on how to interpret it. Erasmus writes in Discourse of Free Will that Holy
Scripture contains secrets into which God does not want us to penetrate too deeply,
because if we attempt to do so, increasing darkness envelopes us, so that we might come
to recognize in this manner both the unfathomable majesty of divine wisdom and the
feebleness of the human mind (Discourse on Free Will, 8). It seems he is contradicting
his own previous statement in Paraclesis, but it is clear that now he thinks that perhaps
laymen should not try to understand Scripture, as they may be delving to deep that it
offends God. Meanwhile, Luther responds to Erasmus with I admit that many passages
in Scriptures are obscure and abstruse. But that is due to our ignorance of certain terms
and grammatical particulars, and not to the majesty of the subject. This ignorance does
not in any way prevent our knowing all the contents of Scripture (Discourse on Free
2|Page

Will, 103). Luthers argument is that one does not need to know everything in Scripture
to understand Scripture. These differences are more obvious in direct discourse between
the two theologians. If one were just reading their separate works, it would be easy to see
their arguments as quite similar.
In a time when laymen were quite dissatisfied with the church due to practices
such as selling indulgences and benefices, Erasmus and Luther could easily be lumped
together as two more theologians who are critical of the church. Erasmus, though much
more mild in his criticisms of the church writes that in fact no men resisted Christ more
obstinately than these very men charged with guarding the books in which his coming is
foretold and represented (Forward to Third Edition, 128). He is critical of the clergy for
hiding the Bible and keeping the teachings of Christ to themselves. Luther is also critical
of the church, at first, in just administrative issues. In Luthers Appeal to the Ruling
Class, he lists several grievances. Similar to Erasmus criticism, Luther writes When the
Holy Scriptures have been used to reprove [Romanists], thy have responded that no one
except the pope was competent to expound Scripture (An Appeal to the Ruling Class,
407). Luther and Erasmus both fear that the clergy has become corrupted.
The similarities end near the time Luther is excommunicated. Erasmus still stays
with the church and therefore generally civil. Luther on the other hand, now a heretic, is
harshly critical of the church. Luther writes in the introduction of Freedom of a
Christian:
As you well know, there has been flowing from Rome these many years like a
flood covering the world nothing but a devastation of the worst of all things.
All this is clearer than day to all, and the Roman church, once the holiest of all,
3|Page

has become the most licentious den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels,
the kingdom of sin, death, and hell. It is so bad that even Antichrist himself, if he
should come, could think of nothing to add to its wickedness. (Freedom of a
Christian, 46)
This vicious attack those surrounding the papacy is a thinly veiled attack on the pope
himself. There can be little that is harsher than the Antichrist being unable to think of any
more evils for the church to participate in.
Luther could have been misinterpreted as sharing the same view as Erasmus of
the Christian Life because both had such a similar end result. Erasmus writes in
Paraclesis:
The first step is to know what [Christ] taught, the second to put it in practice. I
dont think anyone should consider himself a Christian simply because he can
carry on a dispute about instances, relations, quiddities, and formalities involving
the question in a thicket of thorny abstractions but only if he holds to the lessons
that Christ taught and exemplified, holds to them, and exemplifies them himself.
(Paraclesis, 124)
The outward appearance of a pious Christian would be someone doing good works. It is
the action that the laymen will see. Luther writes in Freedom of a Christian:
We must, however, realize that these works reduce the body to subjection and
purify it of its evil lusts, and our whole purpose is to be directed only toward the
driving out of lusts. Since by faith the soul is cleansed and made to love God, it
desires that all things, and especially its own body, shall be purified so that all
things may join with it in loving and praising God. Hence a man cannot be idle,
4|Page

for the need of his body drives him and he is compelled to do many good works to
reduce it to subjection. (Freedom of a Christian, 68)
While the fundamental idea is essentially reversed, the end result is still a Christian doing
good works. This is what people see, and so this is why Luther and Erasmus could be
considered similar in their idea of Christian piety.
However, Erasmus and Luther differ on how the Christian Life is obtained. For
Erasmus, the Christian Life is obtained through actions. In Discourse on Free Will,
Erasmus writes:
If we are on the road to piety, we should continue to improve eagerly and forget
what lies behind us; if we have become involved in sin, we should make every
effort to extricate ourselves, to accept the remedy of penance, and to solicit the
mercy of the Lord, without which neither the human will nor its striving is
effective; for all evil let us consider ourselves responsible, but let us ascribe all
good to Divine Benevolence alone, for to It we own even what we are; and in all
things must we believe that whatever delightful or sad happens to us during life,
God has caused it for our salvation, and that no injustice can come from Him who
is by nature just, even if something should befall us which we deem undeserved;
nobody should despair of forgiveness by a God who is nature merciful.
(Discourse on Free Will, 9)
Here, it is the person that achieves the Christian Life on their own. Luther, however,
writes that It is evident that no external thing has any influence in producing Christian
righteousness or freedom, or in producing unrighteousness or servitude (Freedom of a
Christian, 54). It is the grace and will of God if someone leads a Christian Life. If one is
5|Page

not in Gods grace, no matter how many good works one does, one cannot get into Gods
grace except for Gods will alone.
Desiderius Erasmus and Martin Luther in some respects held seemingly similar
views on issues. They both wanted more people to become scripturally literate, they both
say flaws in the Catholic Church, and they both envisioned a Christian Life that to an
outsider would look quite similar. These similarities resulted in a misunderstanding
among some that the two theologians were indeed arguing the same thing. However, to
truly understand Erasmus and Luthers views, it is imperative that one analyses the
differences as well as the similarities.

6|Page