Luther and Erasmus: The Controversy Concerning the Bondage of the Will

At the time of the Reformation, many hoped Martin Luther and Erasmus could unite against the errors of the Roman Catholic Church. Luther himself was tempted to unite with Erasmus because Erasmus was a great Renaissance scholar who studied the classics and the Greek New Testament. Examining the Roman Catholic Church, Erasmus was infuriated with the abuses in the Roman Catholic Church, especially those of the clergy. These abuses are vividly described in the satire of his book, The Praise of Folly. Erasmus called for reform in the Roman Catholic Church. Erasmus could have been a great help to the Reformation, so it seemed, by using the Renaissance in the service of the Reformation.

But a great chasm separated these two men. Luther loved the truth of God's Word as that was revealed to him through his own struggles with the assurance of salvation. Therefore Luther wanted true reformation in the church, which would be a reformation in doctrine and practice. Erasmus cared little about a right knowledge of truth. He simply wanted moral reform in the Roman Catholic Church. He did not want to leave the church, but remained supportive of the Pope.

This fundamental difference points out another difference between the two men. Martin Luther was bound by the Word of God. Therefore the content of the Scripture was of utmost importance to him. But Erasmus did not hold to this same high view of Scripture. Erasmus was a Renaissance rationalist who placed reason above Scripture. Therefore the truth of Scripture was not that important to him.

The two men could not have fellowship with each other, for the two movements which they represented were antithetical to each other. The fundamental differences came out especially in the debate over the freedom of the will.

From 1517 on, the chasm between Luther and Erasmus grew. The more Luther learned about Erasmus, the less he wanted anything to do with him. Melanchthon tried to play the mediator between Luther and Erasmus with no success. But many hated Erasmus because he was so outspoken against the church. These haters of Erasmus tried to discredit him by associating him with Luther, who was outside the church by this time. Erasmus continued to deny this unity, saying he did not know much about the writings of Luther. But as Luther took a stronger stand against the doctrinal abuses of Rome, Erasmus was forced either to agree with Luther or to dissociate himself from Luther. Erasmus chose the latter.

Many factors came together which finally caused Erasmus to wield his pen against Luther. Erasmus was under constant pressure from the Pope and later the king of England to refute the views of Luther. When Luther became more outspoken against Erasmus, Erasmus finally decided to write against him. On September 1, 1524, Erasmus published his treatise On the Freedom of the Will. In December of 1525, Luther responded with The Bondage of the Will.

Packer and Johnston call The Bondage of the Will "the greatest piece of theological writing that ever came from Luther's pen."1 Although Erasmus writes with eloquence, his writing cannot compare with that of Luther the theologian. Erasmus writes as one who cares little about the subject, while Luther writes with passion and conviction, giving glory to God. In his work, Luther defends the heart of the gospel over against the Pelagian error as defended by Erasmus. This controversy is of utmost importance.

In this paper, I will summarize both sides of the controversy, looking at what each taught and defended. Secondly, I will examine the biblical approach of each man. Finally, the main issues will be pointed out and the implications of the controversy will be drawn out for the church today.

Erasmus defines free-will or free choice as "a power of the human will by which a man can apply himself to the things which lead to eternal salvation or turn away from them." By this, Erasmus means that man has voluntary or free power of himself to choose the way which leads to salvation apart from the grace of God.

Erasmus attempts to answer the question how man is saved: Is it the work of God or the work of man according to his free will? Erasmus answers that it is not one or the other. Salvation does not have to be one or the other, for God and man cooperate. On the one hand, Erasmus defines free-will, saying man can choose freely by himself, but on the other hand, he wants to retain the necessity of grace for salvation. Those who do good works by free-will do not attain the end they desire unless aided by God's grace. Therefore, in regard to salvation, man cooperates with God. Both must play their part in order for a man to be saved. Erasmus expresses it this way: "Those who support free choice nonetheless admit that a soul which is obstinate in evil cannot be softened into true repentance without the help of heavenly grace." Also, attributing all things to divine grace, Erasmus states,

And the upshot of it is that we should not arrogate anything to ourselves but attribute all things we have received to divine grace … that our will might be synergos (fellow-worker) with grace although grace is itself sufficient for all things and has no need of the assistance of any human will."

In his work On the Freedom of the Will, Erasmus defends this synergistic view of salvation. According to Erasmus, God and man, nature and grace, cooperate together in the salvation of a man. With this view of salvation, Erasmus tries to steer clear of outright Pelagianism and denies the necessity of human action which Martin Luther defends.

On the basis of an apocryphal passage (Ecclesiasticas 15:14-17), Erasmus begins his defense with the origin of free-will. Erasmus says that Adam, as he was created, had a free-will to choose good or to turn to evil. In Paradise, man's will was free and upright to choose. Adam did not depend upon the grace of God, but chose to do all things voluntarily. The question which follows is, "What happened to the will when Adam sinned; does man still retain this free-will?" Erasmus would answer, "Yes." Erasmus says that the will is born out of a man's reason. In the fall, man's reason was obscured but was not extinguished. Therefore the will, by which we choose, is depraved so that it cannot change its ways. The will serves sin. But this is qualified. Man's ability to choose freely or voluntarily is not hindered.

By this depravity of the will, Erasmus does not mean that man can do no good. Because of the fall, the will is "inclined" to evil, but can still do good. Notice, he says the will is only "inclined" to evil. Therefore the will can freely or voluntarily choose between good and evil. This is what he says in his definition: free-will is "a power of the human will by which a man can apply himself to the things which lead to eternal salvation." Not only does the human will have power, although a little power, but the will has power by which a man merits salvation.

This free choice of man is necessary according to Erasmus in order for there to be sin. In order for a man to be guilty of sin, he must be able to know the difference between good and evil, and he must be able to choose between doing good and doing evil. A man is responsible only if he has the ability to choose good or evil. If the free-will of man is taken away, Erasmus says that man ceases to be a man.

For this freedom of the will, Erasmus claims to find much support in Scripture. According to Erasmus, when Scripture speaks of "choosing," it implies that man can freely choose. Also, whenever the Scripture uses commands, threats, exhortations, blessings, and cursings, it follows that man is capable of choosing whether or not he will obey.

Erasmus defines the work of man's will by which he can freely choose after the fall. Here he makes distinctions in his idea of a "threefold kind of law" which is made up of the "law of nature, law of works, and law of faith." First, this law of nature is in all men. By this law of nature, men do good by doing to others what they would want others to do to them. Having this law of nature, all men have a knowledge of God. By this law of nature, the will can choose good, but the will in this condition is useless for salvation. Therefore more is needed. The law of works is man's choice when he hears the threats of punishment which God gives. When a man hears these threats, he either continues to forsake God, or he desires God's grace. When a man desires God's grace, he then receives the law of faith which cures the sinful inclinations of his reason. A man has this law of faith only by divine grace.

In connection with this threefold kind of law, Erasmus distinguishes between three graces of God. First, in all men, even in those who remain in sin, a grace is implanted by God. But this grace is infected by sin. This grace arouses men by a certain knowledge of God to seek Him. The second grace is peculiar grace which arouses the sinner to repent. This does not involve the abolishing of sin or justification. But rather, a man becomes "a candidate for the highest grace." By this grace offered to all men, God invites all, and the sinner must come desiring God's grace. This grace helps the will to desire God. The final grace is the concluding grace which completes what was started. This is saving grace only for those who come by their free-will. Man begins on the path to salvation, after which God completes what man started. Along with man's natural abilities according to his will, God works by His grace. This is the synergos, or cooperation, which Erasmus defends.

Erasmus defends the free-will of man with a view to meriting salvation. This brings us to the heart of the matter. Erasmus begins with the premise that a man merits salvation. In order for a man to merit salvation, he cannot be completely carried by God, but he must have a free-will by which he chooses God voluntarily. Therefore, Erasmus concludes that by the exercise of his free-will, man merits salvation with God. When man obeys, God imputes this to his merit. Therefore Erasmus says, "This surely goes to show that it is not wrong to say that man does something…." Concerning the merit of man's works, Erasmus distinguishes with the Scholastics between congruent and condign merit. The former is that which a man performs by his own strength, making him a "fit subject for the gift of internal grace." This work of man removed the barrier which keeps God from giving grace. The barrier removed is man's unworthiness for grace, which God gives only to those who are fit for it. With the gift of grace, man can do works which before he could not do. God rewards these gifts with salvation. Therefore, with the help or aid of the grace of God, a man merits eternal salvation.

Although he says a man merits salvation, Erasmus wants to say that salvation is by God's grace. In order to hold both the free-will of man and the grace of God in salvation, Erasmus tries to show the two are not opposed to each other. He says, "It is not wrong to say that man does something yet attributes the sum of all he does to God as the author." Explaining the relationship between grace and free-will, Erasmus says that the grace of God and the free-will of man, as two causes, come together in one action "in such a way, however, that grace is the principle cause and the will secondary, which can do nothing apart from the principle cause since the principle is sufficient in itself." Therefore, in regard to salvation, God and man work together. Man has a free-will, but this will cannot attain salvation of itself. The will needs a boost from grace in order to merit eternal life.

Erasmus uses many pictures to describe the relationship between works and grace. He calls grace an "advisor," "helper," and "architect." Just as the builder of a house needs the architect to show him what to do and to set him straight when he does something wrong, so also man needs the assistance of God to help him where he is lacking. The free-will of man is aided by a necessary helper: grace. Therefore Erasmus says, "as we show a boy an apple and he runs for it ... so God knocks at our soul with His grace and we willingly embrace it." In this example, we are like a boy who cannot walk. The boy wants the apple, but he needs his father to assist him in obtaining the apple. So also, we need the assistance of God's grace. Man has a free-will by which he can seek after God, but this is not enough for him to merit salvation. By embracing God's grace with his free-will, man merits God's grace so that by his free-will and the help of God's grace he merits eternal life. This is a summary of what Erasmus defends.

Erasmus also deals with the relationship of God's foreknowledge and man's free-will. On the one hand, God does what he wills, but, on the other hand, God's will does not impose anything on man's will, for then man's will would not be free or voluntary. Therefore God's foreknowledge is not determinative, but He simply knows what man will choose. Men deserve punishment from eternity simply because God knows they will not choose the good, but will choose the evil. Man can resist the ordained will of God. The only thing man cannot resist is when God wills in miracles. When God performs some "supernatural" work, this cannot be resisted by men. For example, when Jesus performed a miracle, the man whose sight returned could not refuse to be healed. According to Erasmus, because man's will is free, God's will and foreknowledge depend on man's will except when He performs miracles.

This is a summary of what Erasmus taught in his treatise On the Freedom of the Will. In response to this treatise, Luther wrote The Bondage of the Will. We turn to this book of Luther.

Martin Luther gives a thorough defense of the sovereign grace of God over against the "semi-Pelagianism" of Erasmus by going through much of Erasmus' On the Freedom of the Will phrase by phrase. Against the cooperating work of salvation defended by Erasmus, Luther attacks Erasmus at the very heart of the issue. Luther's thesis is that "free-will is a nonentity, a thing consisting of name alone" because man is a slave to sin. Therefore salvation is the sovereign work of God alone.

In the "Diatribe," Luther says, Erasmus makes no sense. It seems Erasmus speaks out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, he says that man's will cannot will any good, yet on the other hand, he says man has a free-will. Other contradictions also exist in Erasmus' thought. Erasmus says that man has the power to choose good, but he also says that man needs grace to do good. Opposing Erasmus, Luther rightly points out that if there is free-will, there is no need for grace. Because of these contradictions in Erasmus, Luther says Erasmus "argues like a man drunk or asleep, blurting out between snores, 'Yes,' 'No.' " Not only does this view of Erasmus not make sense, but this is not what Scripture says concerning the will of man and the grace of God.

According to Luther, Erasmus does not prove his point, namely, the idea that man with his free-will cooperates in salvation with God. Throughout his work, Luther shows that Erasmus supports and agrees with the Pelagians. In fact, Erasmus' view is more despicable than Pelagianism because he is not honest and because the grace of God is cheapened. Only a small work is needed in order for a man to merit the grace of God.

Because Erasmus does not take up the question of what man can actually do of himself as fallen in Adam, Luther takes up the question of the ability of man. Here, Luther comes to the heart of his critique of the Diatribe in which he denies free-will and shows that God must be and is sovereign in salvation. Luther's arguments follow two lines: first, he shows that man is enslaved to sin and does not have a free-will; secondly, he shows that the truth of God's sovereign rule, by which He accomplishes His will according to His counsel, is opposed to free-will.

First, Luther successfully defends the thesis that there is no such entity as free-will because the will is enslaved to sin. Luther often says there is no such thing as free-will. The will of man without the grace of God "is not free at all, but is the permanent prisoner and bondslave of evil since it cannot turn itself to good." The free-will lost its freedom in the fall so that now the will is a slave to sin. This means the will can will no good. Therefore man does and wills sin "necessarily." Luther further describes the condition of man's will when he explains a passage from Ezekiel: "It cannot but fall into a worse condition, and add to its sins despair and impenitence unless God comes straightway to its help and calls it back and raises it up by the word of His promise."

Luther makes a crucial distinction in explaining what he means when he says man sins "necessarily." This does not mean "compulsion." A man without the Spirit is not forced, kicking and screaming, to sin but voluntarily does evil. Nevertheless, because man is enslaved to sin, his will cannot change itself. He only wills or chooses to sin of himself. He cannot change this willingness of his: he wills and desires evil. Man is wholly evil, thinking nothing but evil thoughts. Therefore there is no free-will.

Because this is the condition of man, he cannot merit eternal life. The enslaved will cannot merit anything with God because it can do no good. The only thing which man deserves is eternal punishment. By this, Luther also shows that there is no free-will.

In connection with man's merit, Luther describes the true biblical uses of the law. The purpose of the law of God is not to show men how they can merit salvation, but the law is given so that men might see their sinfulness and their own unworthiness. The law condemns the works of man, for when he judges himself according to the law, man sees that he can do no good. Therefore, he is driven to the cross. The law also serves as a guide for what the believer should do. But the law does not say anything about the ability of man to obey it.

Not only should the idea of free-will be rejected because man is enslaved to sin, but also because of who God is and the relationship between God and man. A man cannot act independently of God. Analyzing what Erasmus said, Luther says that God is not God, but He is an idol, because the freedom of man rules. Everything depends on man for salvation. Therefore man can merit salvation apart from God. A God that depends on man is not God.

Denying this horrible view of Erasmus, Luther proclaims the sovereignty of God in salvation. Because God is sovereign in all things and especially in salvation, there is no free-will.

Luther begins with the fact that God alone has a free-will. This means only God can will or not will the law, gospel, sin, and death. God does not act out of necessity, but freely. He alone is independent in all He decrees and does. Therefore man cannot have a free-will by which he acts independently of God, because God is immutable, omnipotent, and sovereign over all. Luther says that God is omnipotent, knowing all. Therefore we do nothing of ourselves. We can only act according to God's infallible, immutable counsel.

The great error of free-willism is that it ascribes divinity to man's free-will. God is not God anymore. If man has a free-will, this implies God is not omnipotent, controlling all of our actions. Free-will also implies that God makes mistakes and changes. Man must then fix the mistakes. Over against this, Luther says there can be no free-will because we are under the "mastery of God." We can do nothing apart from God by our own strength because we are enslaved to sin.

Luther also understands the difficulties which follow from saying that God is sovereign so that all things happen necessarily. Luther states: "If God foreknows a thing, it necessarily happens." The problem between God's foreknowledge and man's freedom cannot be completely solved. God sovereignly decrees all things that happen, and they happen as He has decreed them necessarily. Does this mean that when a man sins, he sins because God has decreed that sin? Luther would answer, Yes. But God does not act contrary to what man is. Man cannot will good, but he only seeks after sinful lusts. The nature of man is corrupted, so that he is turned from God. But God works in men and in Satan according to what they are. The sinner is still under the control of the omnipotent God, "which means, since they are evil and perverted themselves, that when they are impelled to action by this movement of Divine omnipotence they do only that which is perverted or evil." When God works in evil men, evil results. But God is not evil. He is good. He does not do evil, but He uses evil instruments. The sin is the fault of those evil instruments and not the fault of God.

Luther asks himself the question, Why then did God let Adam fall so all men have his sin? The sovereignty of God must not be questioned, because God's will is beyond any earthly standard. Nothing is equal to God and His will. Answering the question above, Luther replies, "What God wills is not right because He ought or was bound, so to will, on the contrary, what takes place must be right because He so wills it." This is the hidden mystery of God's absolute sovereignty over all things.

God is sovereign over all things. He is sovereign in salvation. Is salvation a work of God and man? Luther answers negatively. God alone saves. Therefore salvation cannot be based on the merits of men's works. Man's obedience does not obtain salvation, according to Luther. Some become the sons of God "not by carnal birth, nor by zeal for the law, nor by any other human effort, but only by being born of God." Grace does not come by our own effort, but by the grace of Jesus Christ. To deny grace is to deny Jesus Christ. For Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Free-will says that it is the way, the truth, and the life. Therefore free-will denies Jesus Christ. This is a serious error.

God saves by His grace and Spirit in such away that the will is turned by Him. Only when the will is changed can it will and desire the good. Luther describes a struggle between God and Satan. Erasmus says man stands between God and Satan, who are as spectators waiting for man to make his choice. But Luther compares this struggle to a horse having two riders. "If God rides, it wills and goes where God goes…. If Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan goes." The horse does not have the choice of which rider it wants. We have Satan riding us until God throws him off. In the same way, we are enslaved to sin until God breaks the power of sin. The salvation of a man depends upon the free work of God, who alone is sovereign and able to save men. Therefore this work in the will by God is a radical change whereby the willing of the soul is freed from sin. This beautiful truth stands over against Erasmus' grace, which gives man a booster shot in what he can do of himself.

This truth of the sovereignty of God in salvation is comforting to us. When man trusts in himself, he has no comfort that he is saved. Because man is enslaved to sin and because God is the sovereign, controlling all things according to His sovereign, immutable will, there is no free-will. The free-will of man does not save him. God alone saves.

The battle begins with the fundamental difference separating Luther and Erasmus in regard to the doctrine of Scripture. Erasmus defends the obscurity of Scripture. Basically, Erasmus says man cannot know with certainty many of the things in Scripture. Some things in God's Word are plain, while many are not. He applies the obscurity of Scripture to the controversy concerning the freedom of the will. In the camp of the hidden things of God, which include the hour of our death and when the last judgment will occur, Erasmus places "whether our will accomplishes anything in things pertaining to salvation." Because Scripture is unclear about these things, what one believes about these matters is not important. Erasmus did not want controversy, but he wanted peace. For him, the discussion of the hidden things is worthless because it causes the church to lose her love and unity.

Against this idea of the obscurity of Scripture, Luther defends the perspicuity of Scripture. Luther defines perspicuity as being twofold. The external word itself is clear, as that which God has written for His people. But man cannot understand this word of himself. Therefore Scripture is clear to God's people only by the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts.

The authority of Scripture is found in God Himself. God's Word must not be measured by man, for this leads to paradoxes, of which Erasmus is a case in point. By saying Scripture is paradoxical, Erasmus denies the authority of God's Word.

Luther does not deny that some passages are difficult to understand. This is not because the Word is unclear or because the work of the Holy Spirit is weak. Rather, we do not understand some passages because of our own weakness.

If Scripture is obscure, then this opposes what God is doing in revelation. Scripture is light which reveals the truth. If it is obscure, then why did God give it to us? According to Luther, not even the difficult to understand doctrines such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the unpardonable sin are obscure. Therefore the issue of the freedom of the will is not obscure. If the Scripture is unclear about the doctrine of the will of man, then this doctrine is not from Scripture.

Because Scripture is clear, Luther strongly attacks Erasmus on this fundamental point. Luther says, "The Scriptures are perfectly clear in their teaching, and that by their help such a defense of our position may be made that our adversaries cannot resist." This is what Luther hoped to show to Erasmus. The teaching of Scripture is fundamental. On this point of perspicuity, Luther has Erasmus by the horns. Erasmus says Scripture is not clear on this matter of the freedom of the will, yet he appeals to the church fathers for support. The church fathers base their doctrine of the free-will on Scripture. On the basis of the perspicuity of Scripture, Luther challenges Erasmus to find even one passage that supports his view of free-will. Luther emphasizes that not one can be found.

Luther also attacks Erasmus when he says what one believes concerning the freedom of the will does not matter. Luther sums up Erasmus' position this way: "In a word, what you say comes to this: that you do not think it matters a scrap what any one believes anywhere, as long as the world is at peace." Erasmus says the knowledge of free-will is useless and non-essential. Over against this, Luther says, "then neither God, Christ, Gospel, faith, nor anything else even of Judaism, let alone Christianity, is left!" Positively, Luther says about the importance of the truth: "I hold that a solemn and vital truth, of eternal consequences, is at stake in the discussion." Luther was willing to defend the truth even to death because of its importance as that which is taught in Scripture.

A word must also be said about the differing views of the interpretation of Scripture. Erasmus was not an exegete. He was a great scholar of the languages, but this did not make him an able exegete. Erasmus does not rely on the Word of God of itself, but he turns to the church fathers and to reason for the interpretation of Scripture. In regard to the passage out of Ecclesiasticas which Erasmus uses, Luther says the dispute there is not over the teaching of Scripture, but over human reason. Erasmus generalizes from a particular case, saying that since a passage mentions willing, this must mean a man has a free-will. In this regard, Luther also says that Erasmus "fashions and refashions the words of God as he pleases." Erasmus was concerned not with what God says in His Word, but with what he wanted God to say.

Not only does Erasmus use his own reason to interpret Scripture, but following in the Roman Catholic tradition he goes back to the church fathers. His work is filled with many quotes from the church fathers' interpretation of different passages. The idea is that the church alone has the authority to interpret Scripture. Erasmus goes so far in this that Luther accuses Erasmus of placing the fathers above the inspired apostle Paul.

In contrast to Erasmus, Luther interprets Scripture with Scripture. Seeing the Word of God as inspired by the Holy Spirit, Luther also trusts in the work of the Holy Spirit to interpret that Word. One of the fundamental points of Reformed hermeneutics is that Scripture interprets Scripture. Luther follows this. When Luther deals with a passage, he does not take it out of context as Erasmus does. Instead, he examines the context and checks other passages which use the same words.

Also, Luther does not add figures or devise implications as Erasmus does. But rather, Luther sticks to the simple and plain meaning of Scripture. He says, "Everywhere we should stick to just the simple, natural meaning of the words, as yielded by the rules of grammar and the habits of speech that God has created among men." In the controversy over the bondage of the will, both the formal and material principles of the Reformation were at stake.

Now we must examine some of the important passages for each man. This is a difficult task because they both refer to so many passages. We must content ourselves with looking at those which are fundamental for the main points of the controversy.

Showing the weakness of his view of Scripture, Erasmus begins with a passage from an apocryphal book: Ecclesiasticas 15:14-17. Erasmus uses this passage to show the origin of the free will and that the will continues to be free after the fall.

Following this passage, Erasmus looks at many passages from the Old Testament to prove that man has a free-will. He turns to Genesis 4:6, 7, which records God speaking to Cain after he offered his displeasing sacrifice to God. Verse 7 says, "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door." Erasmus says that God sets before Cain a reward if he chooses the good. But if he chooses the evil, he will be punished. This implies that Cain has a will which can overcome evil and do the good.

From here, Erasmus looks at different passages using the word "choose." He says Scripture uses the word "choose" because man can freely choose. This is the only way it makes sense.

Erasmus also looks at many passages which use the word "if" in the Old Testament and also the commands of the Old Testament. For example, Isaiah 1:19,20 and 21:12 use the words "if … then." These conditions in Scripture imply that a man can do these things. Deuteronomy 30:14 is an example of a command. In this passage, Israel is commanded to love God with all their heart and soul. This command was given because Moses and the people had it in them to obey. Erasmus comes to these conclusions by implication.

Using a plethora of New Testament texts, Erasmus tries to support the idea of the freedom of the will. Once again, Erasmus appeals to those texts which speak of conditions. John 14:15 says, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." Also, in John 15:7 we read, "If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you." These passages imply that man is able to fulfill the conditions by his free-will.

Remarkably, Erasmus identifies Paul as "the champion of free choice." Referring to passages in which Paul exhorts and commands, Erasmus says that this implies the ability to obey. An example is I Corinthians 9:24,25: "Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible." Man is able to obey this command because he has a free-will.

These texts can be placed together because Luther responds to them as a whole. Luther does treat many of these texts separately, but often comes back to the same point. Luther's response to Genesis 4:7 applies to all of the commands and conditions to which Erasmus refers: "Man is shown, not what he can do, but what he ought to do." Similarly, Luther responds to Deuteronomy 30:19: "It is from this passage that I derive my answer to you: that by the words of the law man is admonished and taught, not what he can do, but what he ought to do; that is, that he may know sin, not that he may believe that he has any strength." The exhortations and commands of the New Testament given through the apostle Paul are not written to show what we can do, but rather, after the gospel is preached, they encourage those justified and saved to live in the Spirit.

From these passages, Erasmus also taught that man merited salvation by his obedience or a man merited punishment by his disobedience, all of which was based on man's ability according to his free-will. Erasmus jumps from reward to merit. He does this in the conditional phrases of Scripture especially. But Luther says that merit is not proved from reward. God uses rewards in Scripture to exhort us and threaten us so that the godly persevere. Rewards are not that which a man merits.

The heart of the battle of the biblical texts is found in their treatment of passages from the book of Romans, especially Romans 9. Here, Erasmus treats Romans 9 as a passage which seems to oppose the freedom of the will but does not.

Erasmus begins his treatment of Romans 9 by considering the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. He treats this in connection with what Romans 9:18 says, "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will, he hardeneth." To interpret this passage, Erasmus turns to Jerome, who says, "God hardens when he does not at once punish the sinner and has mercy as soon as he invites repentance by means of afflictions." God's hardening and mercy are the results of what man does. God has mercy "on those who recognize the goodness of God and repent…." Also, this hardening is not something which God does, but something which Pharaoh did by not repenting. God was longsuffering to Pharaoh, not punishing him immediately, during which Pharaoh hardened his heart. God simply gave the occasion for the hardening of his heart. Therefore the blame can be placed on Pharaoh.

Although Erasmus claims to take the literal meaning of the passage, Luther is outraged at this interpretation. Luther objects:

Positively, Luther explains this hardening of the heart of Pharaoh. God does this, therefore Pharaoh's heart is necessarily hardened. But God does not do something which is opposed to the nature of Pharaoh. Pharoah is enslaved to sin. When he hears the word of God through Moses which irritates his evil will, Pharaoh's heart is hardened. Luther explains it this way:

Once again, Luther objects. Luther defends the necessity of consequence to what God decrees. Luther says, "If God foreknows a thing, it necessarily takes place." Therefore, in regard to Jacob and Esau, they did not attain their positions by their own free-will. Romans 9 emphasizes that they were not yet born and that they had not yet done good or evil. Without any works of obedience or disobedience, the one was master and the other was the servant. Jacob was rewarded not on the basis of anything he had done. Jacob was loved and Esau was hated even before the world began. Jacob loved God because God loved him. Therefore the source of salvation is not the free-will of man, but God's eternal decree. Paul is not the great champion of the freedom of the will.

In defense of the literal meaning of Romans 9:21-23, Luther shows that these verses oppose free-will as well. Luther examines the passage in the context of what Paul is saying. The emphasis in the earlier verses is not man, but what God does. He is sovereign in salvation. Here also, the emphasis is the potter. God is sovereign, almighty, and free. Man is enslaved to sin and acts out of necessity according to all God decrees. Luther shows that this is the emphasis of Romans 9 with sound exegetical work.

After refuting the texts to which Erasmus refers, Luther continues to show that Scripture denies the freedom of the will and teaches the sovereignty of God in salvation. He begins with Romans 1:18 which says, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness." Luther says this means all men are ungodly and are unrighteous. Therefore, all deserve the wrath of God. The best a man can do is evil. Referring to Romans 3:9, Luther proves the same thing. Both Jews and Greeks are all under sin. They will and do nothing but evil. Man has no power to seek after good because there is none that doeth good (Ps. 14:3). Therefore, men are "ignorant of and despise God! Here is unbelief, disobedience, sacrilege, blasphemy towards God, cruelty and mercilessness towards one's neighbors and love of self in all things of God and man." Luther's conclusion to the matter is this: man is enslaved to sin.

Man cannot obtain salvation by his works. Romans 3:20 says that by the works of the law no man can be justified in God's sight. It is impossible for a man to merit salvation by his works. Salvation must be the sovereign work of God.

Luther thunders against free-will in connection with Romans 3:21-16 which proclaims salvation by grace alone through faith.58 Free-will is opposed to faith. These are two different ways of salvation. Luther shows that a man cannot be saved by his works, therefore it must be by faith in Jesus Christ. Justification is free, of grace, and without works because man possesses no worthiness for it.

Finally, we notice that Luther points out the comprehensive terms of the apostle Paul to show that there is no free-will in man. All are sinners. There is none that is righteous, and none that doeth good. Paul uses many others also. Therefore, justification and salvation are without works and without the law.

Over against the idea of free-will stands the clear teaching of Scripture. Luther clearly exegetes God's Word to show this. In summary, the truth of predestination denies the free-will of man. Because salvation is by grace and faith, salvation is not by works. Faith and grace are of no avail if salvation is by the works of man. Also, the only thing the law works is wrath. The law displays the unworthiness, sinfulness, and guilt of man. As children of Adam we can do no good. Luther argues along these lines to show that a free-will does not exist in man. Salvation is by grace alone.

Luther is not interested in abstract theological concepts. He does not take up this debate with Erasmus on a purely intellectual level. The main issue is salvation: how does God save? Luther himself defines the issue on which the debate hinges:

So it is not irreligious, idle, or superfluous, but in the highest degree wholesome and necessary, for a Christian to know whether or not his will has anything to do in matters pertaining to salvation…. This is the hinge on which our discussion turns, the crucial issue between us.

Luther finds it necessary to investigate from Scripture what ability the will of man has and how this is related to God and His grace. If one does not know this, he does not know Christianity. Luther brings this against Erasmus because he shows no interest in the truth regarding how it is that some are saved.

Although the broad issue of the debate is how God saves, the specific issue is the sovereignty of God in salvation. The main issue for Luther is that man does not have a free-will by which he merits eternal life, but God sovereignly saves those whom He has chosen.

Luther is pursuing the question, "Is God, God?" This means, is God the omnipotent who reigns over all and who sovereignly saves, or does He depend on man? If God depends on man for anything, then He is not God. Therefore Luther asks the question of himself: Who will try to reform his life, believe, and love God? His answer, "Nobody." No man can do this of himself. He needs God. "The elect, who fear God, will be reformed by the Holy Spirit; the rest will perish unreformed." Luther defends this truth so vigorously because it is the heart of the gospel. God is the sovereign God of salvation. If salvation depends on the works of man, he cannot be saved.

Certain implications necessarily follow from the views of salvation defended by both men. First, we must consider the implications which show the falsehood of Erasmus' view of salvation.

When Erasmus speaks of merit, he is really speaking as a Pelagian. This was offensive to Erasmus because he specifically claimed that he was not a Pelagian. But Luther rightly points out that Erasmus says man merits salvation. According to the idea of merit, man performs an act separate from God, which act is the basis of salvation. He deserves a reward. This is opposed to grace. Therefore, if merit is at all involved, man saves himself. This makes Erasmus no different from the Pelagians except that the Pelagians are honest. Pelagians honestly confess that man merits eternal life. Erasmus tries to give the appearance that he is against the Pelagians although he really is a Pelagian. Packer and Johnston make this analysis:

Another implication of the synergistic view of salvation held to by Erasmus is that God is not God. Because salvation depends upon the free-will of man according to Erasmus, man ascribes divinity to himself. God is not God because He depends upon man. Man himself determines whether or not he will be saved. Therefore the study of soteriology is not the study of what God does in salvation, but soteriology is a study of what man does with God to deserve eternal life.

This means God's grace is not irresistible, but man can reject the grace of God. Man then has more power than God. God watches passively to see what man will do.

Finally, a serious implication of the view of Erasmus is that he denies salvation is found in Jesus Christ alone. In his Diatribe, Erasmus rarely mentions Jesus Christ. This shows something is wrong. This does follow from what Erasmus says. The emphasis for Erasmus is what man must do to be saved and not on what God has done in Jesus Christ. Therefore Jesus Christ is not the only way of salvation and is not that important.

Over against the implications of Erasmus' view are the orthodox implications of Luther's view. God is sovereign in salvation. God elects His people, He sent Jesus Christ, and reveals Jesus Christ only to His people. It is God who turns the enslaved wills of His people so that they seek after Him. Salvation does not depend upon the work of man in any sense.

The basis of salvation is Jesus Christ alone. Because man is enslaved to sin, He must be turned from that sin. He must be saved from that sin through the satisfaction of the justice of God. A man needs the work of Jesus Christ on the cross to be saved. A man needs the new life of Jesus Christ in order to inherit eternal life. The merits of man do not save because he merits nothing with God. A man needs the merits of Jesus Christ for eternal life. A man needs faith by which he is united to Christ.

The source of this salvation is election. God saves only those whom He elects. Those who receive that new life of Christ are those whom God has chosen. God is sovereign in salvation.

Because God is sovereign in salvation, His grace cannot be resisted. Erasmus says that the reason some do not believe is because they reject the grace which God has given to them. Luther implies that God does not show grace to all men. Instead, He saves and shows favor only to those who are His children. In them, God of necessity, efficaciously accomplishes His purpose.

Because man cannot merit eternal life, saving faith is not a work of man by which he merits anything with God. Works do not justify a man. Salvation is the work of God alone in Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit. Faith is a gift of God whereby we are united to Jesus Christ and receive the new life found in Him. Even the knowledge and confidence as the activity of faith are the gifts of faith.

Finally, only with this view of salvation that God is sovereign can a man have comfort that he will be saved. Because God is sovereign in salvation and because His counsel is immutable, we cannot fall from the grace of God. He preserves those who are His children. Erasmus could not have this comfort because he held that man determines his own salvation.

Although this controversy happened almost five hundred years ago, it is significant for the church today. The error of "semi-Pelagianism" is still alive in the church today. Much of the church world sides with Erasmus today, even among those who claim to be "Reformed." If a "Reformed" or Lutheran church denies what Luther says and sides with Erasmus, they despise the reformation of the church in the sixteenth century. They might as well go back to the Roman Catholic Church.

This controversy is important today because many deny that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation. A man can worship heathen gods and be saved. This follows from making works the basis of salvation. Over against this error, Martin Luther proclaimed the sovereignty of God in salvation. He proclaimed Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation. We must do the same.

The error of Pelagianism attacks the church in many different forms. We have seen that in the history of the Protestant Reformed Churches. The sovereignty of God in salvation has been attacked by the errors of common grace and a conditional covenant. Over against these errors, some in the church world have remained steadfast by the grace of God. God does not love all. Nor does He show favor to all men in the preaching of gospel. Erasmus himself said that God showed grace to all men and God does not hate any man. The Arminians said the same thing at the time of the Synod of Dordt. Yet, men who defend common grace claim to be Reformed. They are not.

Also, in this synergistic view of salvation, we see the principles of the bilateral, conditional covenant view which is in many "Reformed" churches. If God and man work together in salvation, then the covenant must be a pact in which both God and man must hold up each one's end of the agreement. Over against this we must proclaim the sovereignty of God in salvation especially in regard to the covenant. The covenant is not conditional and bilateral. God works unconditionally and unilaterally in the covenant of grace.

Finally, we must apply the truth of the sovereignty of God defended by Luther to ourselves. We could say there is a Pelagian in all of us. We know God sovereignly saves, but we often show by our practice that we proudly want to sneak a few of our works in the back door. We must depend upon God for all things.

May this truth which Martin Luther defended, the truth of the sovereignty of God in salvation, be preserved in the church.

Does God move people to pray to not Him, but rather to a dead person for intercession between the one who is praying and God?

Apparently he does. This is, I speculate, why. The saints are people we can become ourselves. We cannot become the Third Person of the Trinity. For examples, many saints are martyrs for the faith. The martyrdom os St. Stephen is described in the Acts; other, numerous cases are known from solid historical records, and some from tradition. Other saints had extreme intellectual fortitude of conviction and knowledge, or extreme strength of character. But these are qualities we can develop ourselves. As we focus a prayer on a Christian martyr, for example, we make his example vibrant for us in our own situation.

A classic intercessory prayer is Hail Mary:

Hail Mary, full of grace
The Lord is with you
Blessed art thou among women
And blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus
Holy Mary, Mother of God
Pray for us sinners
Now and in the hour of our death
Amen

What is happening here? First we honor Mary as mother of our Lord and the divinely chosen to bring Him forth. We marvel over the miracle of Incarnation, and we praise Jesus. This allows us to contemplate moments in our life where we had agreed to follow God's will like Mary did; or perhaps the moments that we regret when we did not. The entire sections from the Gospel of Luke, the Annunciation and the Visitation, are compressed in the first part of the prayer (less so if you are only familiar with the Protestant translations that all mangle Luke 1:28). The second part is intercessory. In it we recall that as Christ was dying on the cross he asked Mary to adopt his beloved disciple St. John the Theologian. Being disciples of Christ ourselves, we place ourselves in the person of St. John and consider ourselves children of Mary. We imagine our own death an ask her to be present at the time of our death just like she was present at the time of Christ's death. We fear that at that moment, like the Evil Thief, we would fail to turn to Christ, perhaps wracked with pain. We know that we want to be like the Good Thief, and we ask Mary to ask Christ to have mercy for our sins. The most memorable scenes from two gospels, the story of the Incarnation and the Good Friday, race through our mind as we say Hail Mary. It is a profound experience.

it is not even clear that Mary fully knew the divinity of Jesus at that time because of her language, and also that it may not have been an intercession by Mary at all.

Mary knew the divinity of Jesus because the archangel told her. We can of course speculate that she merely observed the lack of wine, rather than was asked for help, but even so she still interceded, moved by a human want. It is significant that her intercession did not take a form of a command, but rather left it to her Son to exercise -- or not -- His divine power. This is what any intercession of a saint is, -- a humble request for help, tha thumility illustrated by the evangelist by meek and faith-filled "do as He tells you". In case you are wondering if she even meant her remark to be a request, evidently it was understood as a request by Jesus, and indeed in a context of a wedding running out of wine is the worst embarrassment, so not much needed to be said.

Is there a Church-decreed structural difference along this line in how you pray to a saint and how you pray to God directly?

A good form is to begin and end the prayers with "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit". I don't know if there is any difference depending on the content. A short prayer, for example, a single Hail Mary or "Christ have mercy" would often be said without the necessary preambles. I don't think there is any mandated form of prayer, generally, although as you know Catholics are big on memorized and poeticized prayers, such as the Rosary.

The whole thing was Jesus' answer to Peter's question of how often should he forgive. I don't see how a purgatory extension is reasonably drawn here.

The answer to the question is short, "seventy times seven". The parable is preceded by "Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened to a king, who ..., etc.", so it is clear that it gives us an extensive explanation about the Kingdom of Heaven.

He didn't show any sort of faith, how is this salvation?

To humbly ask for mercy is the foundation of faith. He also promised to pay back the debt, that is to repent. He did all the essentials.

why do you think the second condemnation was only temporary?

Because the parable concludes (Matthew 18:34) "And his lord being angry, delivered him to the torturers until he paid all the debt". It expressly says that the punishment was temporary. Also, in v. 25 repayment is made a part of the condemnation, and in v. 26 it is promised. The fact that the payment is to be made out of prison indicates that the time to make material payments in goods and money is past, and this time the payment is made through suffering.

It is of course true that the parable teaches forgiveness, but the elaborate story with the debtor being called two times, and two punishments being meted out, tells us much more than verse 22, "I say not to thee, till seven times; but till seventy times seven times" would have told alone.

It is one who is reasonably believed by the Church to be worthy of emulation and is by virtue of his or her exemplary faith enjoying the beatific vision in heaven.

Broadly speaking, a saint is one who is living in sanctifying grace, whether here on earth, in purgatory, or in heaven. A canonized saint is one who God has chosen to work a minimum of two miracles through as a result of intercessionary prayer from a believer on earth - and subject to the Church's scrutiny. Also, the Church will explore the writings of the person under consideration (no heretical saints!) as well as their life here on earth - by their fruits, they shall be known. But it is only by miraculous intervention does the Church know for sure if someone is truly enjoying the beatific vision.

I do not think prayers for intercession to men we personally believe to be saintly are forbidden, but only prayers to canonized saints are encouraged.

I believe that since we are ALL part of the Body of Christ (Church Militant, Suffering, and Triumphant) and death cannot separate us from Christ or the Body, we CAN ask for the intercessionary prayers of the souls in Purgatory.

"The Provincial Synods of Vienna (1858) and of Utrecht (1865) teach that the poor souls can help us by THEIR intercessions. Pope Leo XIII in 1889 ratified an indulgenced prayer in which the poor souls are appealed to in dangers to body and soul... (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ott, pg 323)

While St. Thomas Aquinas argued against this, the Church never frowned on the invocation of the poor souls - a practice widespread among the Faithful, and which has been advocated by many theologians. It is possible that the poor souls may acquire knowledge of the invocations of the Faithful by Divine Revelation.

"The veneration of dulia may not be offered to the suffering souls." (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogman, Ott, pg 323)

Regards

So, the citizens of Nineveh were able to change their pre-ordained destiny.

That sentence is an oxymoron.

Destiny, by definition, is preordained, and by this same definition, cannot be changed.

Hence, you prove that there is free will. If there was such a thing as destiny, then the people of Nineveh could not have repented and God could not have changed His plan to destroy them. There would have been no chance of God changing his mind.

Whatever occurs has been preordained by God and as such, is unchangeable from His decree.

Including the fact that you or I sin? So God says Doc E and Cronos would sin in this way and that and Hitler in this way and that and because of these sins, some will go to Heck. So, God says -- ok, let's plan this person's life to sin and go to heck.

Or else the world is open-ended and up for grabs with God watching from the sidelines while He ponders our next steps right along with us.

"Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it?" -- Lamentations 3:37

No, the fact that God has not already decided who will sin and go to heck and who won't does not render God impotent, rather, forcing God to be a slave to a Plan is rendering God impotent. God is not watching from the sidelines -- He can choose to act, as He did by chasing Jonah or by parting the waters of the Red Sea. He chooses not to control us like puppets because that is His will.

Thanks for your post, and I appreciate what you're saying. I'm sorry I don't have much new on this one, I think I've covered some of it on other posts.

Read Numbers 16. To our modern ears, Korah makes sense: ...

Well, that's a nice story. LOL! Since the intent was to compare Protestants to Korah and his merry band, then at least God has spared us for 500 years and counting. :)

Why do we question God's ways of worshiping Him? Why do we question the Holy Spirit's ways of reading His Book, His practices? Is it a religion of man or of God? That is the question you must ask yourself. If it is FROM God, we OBEY. We don't question!

"We" don't question God's ways, we question man's. The same goes for the Holy Spirit's ways of reading His book, and practices. You appear to define some truth by the opinions of men you agree with. Peter and the other apostles were human, were sinners, and were subject to error. Jesus himself proved that. I do not accept that Peter was infallible. As an apostle, he had a special closeness with Jesus, but he remained human and subject to human failing. His writings in the Bible were inspired, and thus perfect, but I don't see what made him a perfect man after Pentacost. Were he so, he would either be part God, or cease to be human. I agree that if the faith is from God, we should not question. We just don't put our trust in men.

What will be the excuse for those who refuse to follow the claims of the ONLY Church that traces back to Christ? The SAME Church that claims to have the guidance of God Himself - as written in Divine Scriptures? "Well, God, I did it my way"

You seem to say that your Church has "the keys" to truth because you trace it back to the apostles. You might also say that the millions of men who have been in its charge ever since cannot error as a group over time. Of course, you would admit that certain Catholic clergy have proven themselves unworthy, either through commission or omission. Why would I trust a priest who could be among those who commit such and such a sin habitually, 100% in defiance of the core of "Christian in general"/Catholic teachings? There certainly are ministers of my faith who commit such and such a sin habitually, and are thus outside the faith, too. I wouldn't trust them either. My point is only that men sin, whether they are in the clergy or not, of any faith. I do not trust my own pastor, whom I love, just because he is my pastor. I trust in God, prayer, and the word.

God has shown that He saves people through other people. Moses, the Prophets, the Apostles, and your pastor.

If God wants people to follow Him, He will go to them in whatever way He decides to take be that through someone or acting on His own accord. But it is always God acting just as He did with Nathanael.

Joh 1:48 Nathanael *said to Him, "How do You know me?" Jesus answered and said to him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you."

They are "made" in such a way that their free will chooses God. Even Jeremiah was given the choice.

God wants all men saved AND He wants all men to freely come to Him.

Why didn't God just "zap" it into our beings? Apparently, that was not God's ways. He loves us and chooses to allow us to participate in His work of redeeming others.

On the contrary, it is precisely God's way. He does zap everyone that He so chooses. He didn't make an exception for Paul and ignored Joe. Paul was elect. Joe was not. If God wanted Joe, then God would go up to Joe and say, "Come follow me" and Joe would drop everything he was doing and follow. That's the way it works. God ordains our steps.

The Church clearly limits WHAT the Spirit will protect infallibly.

In this truly simple and truly innocent statement lies a cornerstone of my protestation.

"The Church limits the Spirit."

I believe you innocently just said this to begin a point. It was so natural, you didn't give it a second thought. This is exactly what scares the heck out of me about trusting in men. :)

By becoming MAN, what JESUS did on earth was done by God AND man. When God forgave sins, the "man" part didn't recede into the background while His divinity took over. Jesus' divinity and manhood are within His person. What the person does applies to both natures. Thus, Christianity believes that the dignity of man has been raised and God has humbled Himself through the incarnation.

On your first statement I'm afraid we will never agree. When Jesus did His Father's work, it was all from the "God side". When Jesus went to the bathroom, it was all from the "human side". You are transferring attributes from the ONE AND ONLY GOD-MAN to mankind in general. How? Why? Because Jesus did something and He was in the form of a man, then Catholic clerics should be able to do it too?

You said: "What the person does applies to both natures."

In this case, does it really? What were the two natures of Christ? Surely He is divine. But, what of this human nature of His? To me, it seems rather unique because Jesus was without sin. That leaves in the dust every other human who has ever lived (putting the Mary argument aside). So, I don't think you can translate the condition of Jesus to that of ordinary men. And, I don't think God humbles Himself for the purpose of honoring man, but rather to cause glory to Himself. God created us from nothing. Why should He honor us? He loves us, yes, but we are not worthy of honor from God from the choices we make on our own.

[Regarding the opening passages of Matt. 9] The people did NOT KNOW Jesus was God. ... They saw a man in Jesus, not God. They considered Him a great prophet, but they had no concept of God incarnate while He was performing these works. Thus, a man, perhaps a prophet, was forgiving sins. They proclaimed that it was wonderful that men (note, plural) had been given power and authority to forgive sins. And of course, I again point to John 20:23. Did the Apostles say "no, Lord, we are merely men, we do not or cannot have the power to forgive sins"?

So, in this case you're putting your money behind what the crowd thought when you admit that they did not even know who Jesus was? The crowd was right that multiple men could forgive sins, but the crowd was wrong on the identity of Jesus? Interesting crowd.

John 20:23 : "23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

I admit this is a difficult passage to interpret. My standard line would be to say that it is a declarative statement giving them the authority to state what God has already done. You might say that it confers authority. By my own standards, this is a tough one.

They [early Christians], too, believed that God had given certain men the authority to forgive sin in God's name - Baptism is for the remission of sins, is it not? Through men, Baptism is administered to other men. Thus, through Baptism, we already begin to see that men CAN forgive sins.

According to my beliefs, Baptism is NOT for the remission of sins at all. Believers' Baptism is an obedience to God, and is symbolic of a salvation that has already occurred. Forgiveness of sin has nothing to do with Baptism in any SB church of which I am aware.

I am not sure what you are asking regarding the truth of the error of Mark 2:7. Could you please explain?

I agree that I may not have been real clear on this, so I'll try to be more focused. Here is the passage:

Mark 2:6-11 "6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? 10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, 11 "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home."

In verse 7, the people said that only God has the power to forgive sin. In verse 8, Jesus knew their thinking and asked why. Then, in verse 9, Jesus compares a statement by any man "your sins are forgiven" to a command (by Jesus) "get up and walk". Jesus is showing that the true authority is shown by the power of the causing of the latter. Any man can say "your sins are forgiven". But Jesus appears to be saying that is worthless. Only Jesus has the authority to forgive sin. Jesus was demonstrating His authority. Sure, later, Jesus gave the authority to men to heal physical ailments, but nothing here shows that He also delegated the authority to forgive sin.

The whole point was to show that Jesus was acting on His authority as God, regardless of whom in the crowd understood it completely. In making His point, Jesus did not challenge the truth of the assertion by the people (that only God could forgive sins). To make His point, Jesus did just the opposite, He relied on that assertion to prove He was God. In effect, Jesus said "assuming [correctly] that only God can forgive sins, which is easier to say...?" Jesus actively uses the premise (that only God can forgive sin) to prove that He is God. I was asking why Jesus would rely on the truth of a lie (if the premise is false) to prove a point.

Only God will judge our "ignorance" on the matter. "He who rejects you (Apostles and their successors) rejects Me".

Someone finally said it. If I reject the Pope as authority, I am rejecting Christ. A very strong statement.

So what are you protesting, then?! Why haven't you returned home yet?!

Because, I can't give up my invincibly ignorant status or else I'm toast. :)

God bless.

Well, that's a nice story. LOL! Since the intent was to compare Protestants to Korah and his merry band, then at least God has spared us for 500 years and counting. :)

I think the story is in the Bible to teach future generations that God has put people into positions of authority and men should not usurp what God has established. I don't think it is meant to tell us that all people who disobey authority will be condemned to die, or to eternal death. It is a precedent for the attitude of humility that is demanded of us.

You appear to define some truth by the opinions of men you agree with.

Not at all. I came to the faith by first exploring the claims of Christianity, as I did for all religions. I searched for the truth, not taking for granted that the Bible was the inspired word of God. I took it to be just another historical book with religious writings, no different than any other "holy" book. I believed that there was a God, and so I explored whether we could see if He has spoken to man or a select group of men. Once I found that Catholicism had a legitimate claim, that its book WAS inspired by God, then naturally, I submitted to their authority. If this Church was established by God (which I believe it was, historically), then I follow ITS interpretations of its holy book, not my own. I didn't come up with my own theology, and then decide who was closest, and then followed them. I came a different route to Christianity. I was open to the truth, wherever I found it, wherever God led me. The points of convergence end in the Catholic Church.

Peter and the other apostles were human, were sinners, and were subject to error. Jesus himself proved that. I do not accept that Peter was infallible. As an apostle, he had a special closeness with Jesus, but he remained human and subject to human failing. His writings in the Bible were inspired, and thus perfect, but I don't see what made him a perfect man after Pentacost.

You misunderstand what the charism of infallibility is. It has nothing to do with a PERSON, but the person's OFFICE. Peter was not infallible. Galatians makes that clear. BUT when Peter was teaching the faith, he WAS infallible by nature of the Holy Spirit's protection. Paul ALSO thought HE was infallible:"

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Gal 1:8

As an Apostle of Christ, Paul KNEW that the Gospel he taught could NOT be incorrect - it was from God (not because Paul was perfect). The Church teaches that it is infallible ONLY when it makes a solemn definition of faith or morals. Individual bishops are not infallible, with the exception of the Bishop of Rome - and this is considered an extraordinary charism (not normal). This particular infallibility was only used twice in 150 years, for example. Ordinarily, though, the Church is considered infallible when it has taught something "all the time, everywhere, in every age". Again, don't confuse infalliblity with impeccability. Popes sin. But the doctrines that they teach, the Gospel, cannot be in error, because they are guided by the Spirit of Truth. Christ will not allow His Church to teach error.

We just don't put our trust in men.

You seem to be trusting your own interpretations above and beyond what the Church has taught for 2000 years on particular subjects. Why are you right and the Church has been wrong for so long? So the Christians of pre-100 AD who believed that the Eucharist was the REAL presence of Christ were wrong, all the way up to today? See where private interpretation leads you? You place your trust in yourself. The Spirit guides the Church on such matters, not ourselves. We are wounded charecters and cannot be relyed upon to agree on doctrine. Doesn't thousands of denominations make this clear?

You seem to say that your Church has "the keys" to truth because you trace it back to the apostles.

The Apostles were given special protection to not teach error, not me. By their conveyance of the Holy Spirit upon their successors through the laying on of hands, they continued Apostolic Succession, the guarantee that Christ's doctrine would not be corrupted. The Church teaches what was handed down, not what they make up.

Of course, you would admit that certain Catholic clergy have proven themselves unworthy, either through commission or omission. Why would I trust a priest who could be among those who commit such and such a sin habitually, 100% in defiance of the core of "Christian in general"/Catholic teachings?

Yes, some have been a source of scandal to the faithful. Again, we place our trust in the fact that the Spirit guides the Church as a whole, not individual priests or bishops. Christ said that there would be weeds within the Church, wolves in sheep's clothing. Christ said these would be...

"...better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." Luke 17:2

To whom much is given, more will be expected. Thus, those priests will be judged accordingly. Bishops who were lax with their charge. Priests who were perverts or taught heresy. Christ promised we'd see such things. But He also promised that He would guard His Church from error. The teachings of the Church, not the individual priest or bishop, is guarded. The Sacred Deposit of the Faith cannot be corrupted by men. We believe that DESPITE man, Christ will continue to have the Word presented to future generations - the Kingdom of God must go out to all the world.

When I hear a priest or bishop who teaches heterodoxy, or is lax in his morals, I pray for them. I pray for those who hear their incorrect teachings or witness their un-Christ-like life. But it is not our place to lead the Church. We have confidence that Christ will provide new men to lead His sheep. We trust in God that He will provide a way to cleanse His Church. If we relyed on unguided men, the Church would have fallen hundreds of years ago. Its existence throughout its checkered history is proof that it is guided by God, despite the devil's efforts to destroy it.

My point is only that men sin, whether they are in the clergy or not, of any faith. I do not trust my own pastor, whom I love, just because he is my pastor. I trust in God, prayer, and the word.

As a Catholic, we have sources to go to and check against what a priest might teach. We don't have to take his word for something. The job of a priest or bishop (regarding teaching) is to preach the FAITH, not HIS spin on it. We take the Deposit of Faith seriously because we believe it was handed down from generation to generation, beginning with Christ and the Apostles. As a result, we, knowing that the faith is presented in the Catechism or in Counciliar documents, can figure out if a priest is on the level or not. WE do not judge whether a priest is incorrect. We weigh his word against what has gone before him - the Deposit of faith. Thus, WE are not using private interpretation. Catholics believe what has been passed down from Peter and Paul and their successors who have plumbed the depths of the Apostles' teachings.

Regards

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.