Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
I grew up in fundamentalist Protestantism. Luther was adored, and Erasmus ignored. But as I tried to make the point in ZNP's "Was Witness Lee a False Prophet?" thread, history is not as "black and white" as we wish it were...
I was hoping to contrast Erasmus with Luther, not to show that one was "better" than another, but to demonstrate that history may not be as simplistic as we may have hoped. Only Jesus wears a white hat. We all have varying shades of gray, and our attempts at darkening others' only succeeds in besmirching our own. May we all see grace and mercy triumph over judgment.
|
I really don't have much to say on Erasmus vs. Luther. So I'll make my few points.
First, as I tried to demonstrate with a quote from his
Enchiridion, Erasmus had something to say about Jesus Christ, and our Christian experience. As a Protestant I never got exposed to people like Erasmus because how could a Catholic say anything of value to us? Yet as I said, Erasmus connected First Corinthians Six' warning on being joined with a lascivious woman with the Proverbs' similar warnings in a penetrating manner. Lee seems to have ignored the Proverbs. I argue that Lee was too shallow; Erasmus (like his great hero Origen) went deeper, and found spiritual 'water' for the thirsty.
Second, I cannot criticize Luther for his ex-communication and subsequent schism, and the violence which ensued. But it's worth noting that no troops marched forth behind Erasmus' writings. Nobody died. In contrast, when Luther was notified of thousands perishing in one of the failed "Peasant Rebellions", he merely shrugged and said, in effect, "To make omelets you have to break eggs." But no, Luther: these were human beings who were dying.
I cannot say that I prefer Erasmus to Luther, but I certainly prefer the non-violence which followed Erasmus to the violence following Luther (and the Calvinists, the Puritans, and so many others).
Thirdly, when it became apparent that Erasmus wouldn't join his cause, Luther, who had admired and been inspired by Erasmus, became his bitter foe. Erasmus, however, wouldn't reciprocate the antagonism, saying that he wasn't against anything, but rather
for Jesus Christ. I read a letter written by Luther shortly before his death, in which he tried to bury Erasmus under the most scandalous invective he could muster. Erasmus simply wrote back and said, "Luther, you are mad". In Erasmus' writing I could see both a love of truth and compassion for humans, including Martin Luther, his onetime protege. In Luther's letter I merely saw fury personified.
Having said all this, I have read some of Luther's writings on justification by faith and admit in them is the power of clear truth revealed. But I find his writings more "fundamental", more crude and simplistic, than those of Erasmus. Erasmus went further, deeper, higher. I think in Protestantism he's been ignored because a) he's not a hero of "the cause", and b) because those godless secular humanists admire him. And the Catholics mostly pretend Erasmus doesn't exist because he didn't respect the status quo, but rather held it up against the Bible, and Christ in particular. And this made a lot of powerful people very unhappy.
I have heard it said that a prophet is the one who speaks truth to power. I admire Erasmus tremendously for his conviction to present the truth, and for his efforts to trace it back to the Truth manifested to all by God in Jesus Christ, and which has been plainly revealed in scriptures.