The notion of freedom discussed in both Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince and Martin Luther’s The Freedom of a Christian is one that shares considerable likeness. While Machiavelli and Luther describe freedom in different contexts, one political and the other theological, both The Prince and The Freedom of a Christian preach that freedom is at the same time a marvelous gift and tool, for the wholeness of the state and for the individual. Moreover, freedom is to not be controlled or puppeteered by other men, and be free to exercise one’s own will, performing actions that are one’s own. Both Machiavelli and Luther recognized that freedom is an important component of essential work in society, of an explicitly political nature in The Prince and
…show more content…
Machiavelli argues that freedom, which he defines as political free will, contributes to half of our actions to oppose the misfortunes of circumstance. “None the less, so as not to rule out our free will, I believe that it is probably true that fortune is the arbiter of half the things we do, leaving the other half or so to be controlled by ourselves” (Machiavelli, The Prince, p. 79). He likens fortune without free will acting against it to “one of those violent rivers” (Machiavelli, p. 79), which “shows her potency where there is no well-regulated power to resist her” (Machiavelli, p. 79). Like a raging river requires barriers and other measures of controlling it, fortune requires the expression of free will by utilizing virtu to oppose its effects. As a ruler, one cannot simply sit and wait for things to happen and fortune to take over, or see it fit that when he finds himself successful through stratagem, that it should apply to every circumstance there after. Here, Machiavelli demonstrates that he sees that man’s nature, or failure to change his ways due to comfort in performing actions that are familiar, stands in the way of exercising free will. However, he believes that there is human autonomy and consequential choices in free will, and that we do not live in a world dominated by divine agencies and are merely swept up in its chaos. …show more content…
6)
God condemns those who have no faith and make the assumption that by doing good deeds, one may attain salvation and freedom. If a wicked person commits himself to doing righteous deeds, what good is it if he does not believe in the first place? “He needs neither laws nor good works but, on the contrary, is injured by them if he believes he is justified by them” (Luther, p. 11). Luther states that instead of being focused on performing righteous acts, which have no reflection on what matters, faith and the inner self, one should make certain that his heart is in the right place, that puts his faith in Christ. Given this freedom through faith, a Christian can then do meaningful work, actions that are of his own will. “Hence a man cannot be idle, for the need of his body drives him and he is compelled to do many good works to reduce it to subjection” (Luther, p.13). So as a Christian does good works, he should remember that he is not justified by works alone, “but he does the works out of spontaneous love in obedience to God and considers nothing except the approval of God” (Luther, p.13). To be a Christian is to freely be a servant to others, doing works only to gratify God and not to physically earn
Machiavelli argues that freedom, which he defines as political free will, contributes to half of our actions to oppose the misfortunes of circumstance. “None the less, so as not to rule out our free will, I believe that it is probably true that fortune is the arbiter of half the things we do, leaving the other half or so to be controlled by ourselves” (Machiavelli, The Prince, p. 79). He likens fortune without free will acting against it to “one of those violent rivers” (Machiavelli, p. 79), which “shows her potency where there is no well-regulated power to resist her” (Machiavelli, p. 79). Like a raging river requires barriers and other measures of controlling it, fortune requires the expression of free will by utilizing virtu to oppose its effects. As a ruler, one cannot simply sit and wait for things to happen and fortune to take over, or see it fit that when he finds himself successful through stratagem, that it should apply to every circumstance there after. Here, Machiavelli demonstrates that he sees that man’s nature, or failure to change his ways due to comfort in performing actions that are familiar, stands in the way of exercising free will. However, he believes that there is human autonomy and consequential choices in free will, and that we do not live in a world dominated by divine agencies and are merely swept up in its chaos. …show more content…
6)
God condemns those who have no faith and make the assumption that by doing good deeds, one may attain salvation and freedom. If a wicked person commits himself to doing righteous deeds, what good is it if he does not believe in the first place? “He needs neither laws nor good works but, on the contrary, is injured by them if he believes he is justified by them” (Luther, p. 11). Luther states that instead of being focused on performing righteous acts, which have no reflection on what matters, faith and the inner self, one should make certain that his heart is in the right place, that puts his faith in Christ. Given this freedom through faith, a Christian can then do meaningful work, actions that are of his own will. “Hence a man cannot be idle, for the need of his body drives him and he is compelled to do many good works to reduce it to subjection” (Luther, p.13). So as a Christian does good works, he should remember that he is not justified by works alone, “but he does the works out of spontaneous love in obedience to God and considers nothing except the approval of God” (Luther, p.13). To be a Christian is to freely be a servant to others, doing works only to gratify God and not to physically earn