Luther-Erasmus Controversy (1524-1526)

Freedom of the will: the power of the human will whereby man can apply to or turn away from that which leads unto eternal salvation (E, 20)

PELAGIUS 

• denied the primitive state in paradise and original sin (cf. P. L., XXX, 678, "Insaniunt, qui de Adam per traducem asserunt ad nos venire peccatum")
• ascribed the actual existence and universality of sin to the bad example which Adam set by his first sin.
• value of Christ's redemption limited mainly to instruction (doctrina) and example (exemplum) as a counterweight against Adam's. 
• We retain the ability to conquer sin and to gain eternal life even without the aid of grace.

Sola fide approach (occasionally adopted by Pelagius as well and some early Christians), and eventually by Luther.

St. Augustine searches for a middle way, followed by medieval and renaissance theologians with different systems of grace among big controversy.

ERASMUS

E's argt's for existence of free will:

• Moral reasons: God would not damn people who are not morally responsible, and responsibility presupposes free will (E, 34).
• Scriptural reasons: exhortations, commands, choice, reward and punishment, all present in scriptures with respect to salvation, would be meaningless in the absence of free will.

Problems:

• Apparent contrary passages (e.g., god hardening the pharaoh's heart).  These can be read away: pharaoh, having of his own already irrevocably chosen evil, is hardened in his error by God.
• Divine foreknowledge: knowing per se has no causal import on the thing known.
• Predestination: God knows and wants what will happen, but does not force pharaoh to sin; god just places pharaoh in a situation such that pharaoh will sin.

Roles of grace and free will: all things have a beginning, a continuation and an end:  human free will plays a minor role in the middle.  Details left out.  The father-child-apple parable. (E, 86)

By denying free will, Luther opens the floodgates of iniquity b/e incentive to virtue is taken away.

LUTHER

• General disparagement of Scholastic theology.  Sola Scriptura.  Scriptures clear; obscurity of some passage due to expression and grammar, not to subject matter. 
• Sola fide; if this leads to opening the floodgates of iniquity, so be it, since this also shows the way to salvation.
• Exhortations in scriptures are only to animate the chosen (the justified) in order to bear possible tribulations (126).  Any attempt to infer more is judging God's words by the customs and things of man (125).
• The will as a beast of burden: if God leads it, it follows God; if Satan, it follows Satan.  It has no choice on which rider it has. (L, 112).  Man has no free will with respect to salvation or damnation: he is a slave (113) or like an ax in the hands of a carpenter (127).
• E's concedes that we cannot gain salvation on our own; hence, free will with relation to salvation is non-existent (112-13).
• Free will exists only in civil and moral issues (e.g., in following morality), but that irrelevant to salvation (135).

Personal comfort in doctrine of bondage:

• Not having to fight the devils.
• Not having the responsibility for salvation (how much is enough?) and trusting in God's mercy and grace (136).