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

Protestant Reformed Theological Journal ^ | April 1999 | Garrett J. Eriks

[HarleyD]

Introduction

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 On the Freedom of the Will

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.

Luther's Arguments Against Erasmus

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 of the Biblical Texts

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:

To put it in a word: the result of your exegetical license is that by your new, unheard-of grammar everything is thrown topsy-turvy. When God says: 'I will harden the heart of Pharaoh,' you change the persons, and take it thus: 'Pharaoh hardens himself by my long-suffering'! 'God hardens our hearts' means: 'we harden ourselves while God postpones punishment.'

Showing the absurdity of what Erasmus says, Luther says that this view means that God shows mercy when He sends Israel into captivity because then they are invited to repent; but when Israel is brought back from captivity, He hardens them by giving them the opportunity of hardening in His longsuffering. This is "topsy-turvy."

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:

As soon as God presents to it from without something that naturally irritates and offends it, Pharaoh cannot escape the acting of the divine omnipotence and the perversion and villainy of his own will. So God's hardening of Pharaoh is wrought thus: God presents from without to his villainous heart that which by nature he hates. At the same time, He continues by omnipotent action to move within him the evil will which He finds there. Pharaoh by reason of the villainy of his will, cannot but hate what opposes him, and trust to his own strength; and he grows so obstinate that he will not listen nor reflect, but is swept along in the grip of Satan like a raging madman.

In his consideration of Jacob and Esau in Romans 9, Erasmus denies that this passage speaks of predestination. Erasmus says God does not hate anybody from eternity. But God's wrath and fury against sin are revealed on Esau because He knows the sins he will commit. In this connection, when Romans 9 speaks of God as the potter making a vessel of honor and dishonor, Erasmus says that God does this because of their belief and unbelief. Erasmus is trying to deny the necessity of the fulfillment of God's decree in order to support the freedom of the will.

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.

The Main Issues and Implications of Each View

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:

Erasmus had supposed that by stressing the smallness of the power which man can exercise, and of the merit which he can gain in his own strength, he was softening the offence of his Pelagian principles and moving closer to the Augustinian position, which denies all merit and ascribes salvation wholly to God.

According to Luther, Erasmus does not succeed in moving closer to the Augustinian position. Instead, he cheapens the purchase of God's grace. Luther says:

This hypocrisy of theirs results in their valuing and seeking to purchase the grace of God at a much cheaper rate than the Pelagians. The latter assert that it is not by a feeble something within us that we obtain grace, but by efforts and works that are complete, entire, perfect, many and mighty; but our friends here tell us that it is by something very small, almost nothing, that we merit grace.

The Pelagians base salvation upon works; men work for their own righteousness. But Erasmus has cheapened the price which must be paid for salvation. Because only a small work of man is needed to merit salvation, God is not so great and mighty. Man only needs to choose God and choose the good. God's character is tarnished with the teaching of Erasmus. This semi-Pelagianism is worse than Pelagianism, for little is required to earn salvation. As Packer and Johnston say, "that is to belittle salvation and to insult God."

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.

The Importance of This Controversy Today

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.

[jo kus]

I have a Catholic relative who prays to her deceased father for intercession. (A good man, but obviously not Canonized.) Based on your whole post, I take it then, that I have no need to "correct" her as a Catholic. She also believes that her father is watching over her family and is thus aware of what is happening on earth. Is this correct?

You are correct. The "sense of the faithful" is active in your Catholic relative! Certainly, we must both agree that our love will be even greater in heaven - and nothing can separate us from the love of Christ. Thus, her father remains part of the Body and even more deeply desires her daughter's salvation and God's graces to rain upon her. I believe this is a comforting doctrine for those who have lost a loved one. A connection still remains between the two as a result of their love. (which is from Christ)

Please forgive my ignorance, but I don't know anything of the exact Church teaching of purgatory. Who goes there? Why? What's it like, and for how long? What is the strongest scriptural support for this, or is this considered tradition?

What Purgatory is I can tell you from the top of my head, but more Scriptural/Tradition quotes will have to await written sources that I don't have with me. Even several hundred years before Christ, Jews believed (at least Pharisees) that the souls of faithful men who had deviated somewhat from God's ways were subject to a third state of existence. Maccabees 12 talks about some men who died in battle with some amulets with them. Judas, the leader, took up a collection of money and sent it to the Temple and the men prayed for the souls of these men who died with the taint of idolatry on their hearts. The Scripture itself explains that there would be no point in praying for these men if they were in hell or heaven. Jesus also implies the existence of a third state between heaven and hell, as does Paul. Being that the first Christians were Jews of the Pharisaical branch, it would follow that they had similar beliefs as laid out in Maccabees. Practices noted in later writings show the validity of the teaching.

The idea is that nothing impure shall enter heaven. We must attain holiness - how can we come into union with God and not be holy ourselves? Before I continue, be advised that this is not holiness we attained ourselves, but through God's graces throughout our lives. When we are judged, God will note whether we have purified ourselves in this life. Is it possible we can attain union with God but have pride? Have sloth or vanity? Hardly! We must become like Christ to rise with Christ. Purgatory is a great mercy, because it gives us, the saved, a final opportunity to prepare ourselves for eternal life. We do NOT merit in Purgatory. It is a purging - which entails suffering (just like any purging or sacrifice does). But we know that we are destined for heaven. We will deeply desire to be purged of anything that keeps us from Christ. It is the result of Christ's work of redemption on the cross.

The Church doesn't officially teach much about Purgatory's means of punishment, or "length of time" spent there, and so forth. Private revelations given to others give us an indication that it would be better to be purged here on earth! But these are not part of the Deposit of Faith. The Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition don't teach us such things. So all we can do is speculate on the particulars.

Let me know if you want more specific Scripture/Tradition quotes.

Regards

[Forest Keeper]

Only someone working for salvation is required to be perfect.

Now THAT is a great line! I've never heard it before so I'll give you the credit when I repeat it. :)

[HarleyD]

There is no difference in how God appealed to Cain and to Jonah. He called both to do His will; Jonah hesitated and agreed; Cain did not agree. Similarly, Eve and Mary both listened, hesitated, then one agreed to do God's will and the other did not.

I find nothing in scripture that shows anyone agreeing to anything. God tells people what is going to happen and people accept (or deny) what will happen. It always happens just the way God said whatever we say.

Jonah wasn't given much of a choice which many are refusing to admit-("Fish belly, Nineveh, fish belly, Nineveh, fish belly, Nineveh. Hmmmm which to choose?"). Cain wasn't given a choice at all. God just make a blanket statement to Cain that sin was "crouching at his door". Cain still killed Able his brother. Since God appoints the time for us to die, one has to conclude this was the time appointed for Able to die. God not only knew when Able would die, He also knew how he would die and allowed Able to die in such a fashion. Cain was ordained to bring about Able's death although that doesn't make what Cain did right or excuse him. God controlled the events-not man.

Since there were only these two individuals it is clear to see the workings of God. The more people and interaction the greater the permutations become similar chaos theory where a butterfly beats its wings in South America causing a tornado in Texas. Instead I would call it Intelligent Design. It is God who directs the entire universe according to His will.

Cain never said he was sorry, never asked forgiveness, and never went to his parents to have them intercede for him with the Lord. Cain simply focused on his own selfish concerns and left. That is the true nature of man; vile and contemptible. There is no "spark" of goodness.

I don’t know of any “decision” by Eve. Scripture states that Eve was deceived (2 Cor 11:3, 1 Tim 2:14); not that she made a “decision”. Adam was the one who “freely” took of the fruit as ordained by God and it is because of Adam that the race died; not Eve who actually sinned first. Less we think too harshly of Eve, Paul warns Christians in a number of places not to be deceived. Although one can be deceived into sinning it doesn’t excuse us. But deception is far different than making a choice.

Mary is similar to everyone else who has an angel popped in on them. The angel says, “You will….(fill in the blank)” and people says, “Sounds great to me.”. I don’t consider that an exercise of choice.

[jo kus]

You believed there was a God. You searched. You found Catholicism, you liked it, and you accepted their teachings. You accepted that the Church interprets scripture. You were open to the truth, wherever you found it, wherever God led you. Your points of convergence ended in the Catholic Church. Based on God's leadership, you believe that you are right in your faith and that other faiths contain error.

I believe, in the end, it comes down to authority. That is the final question. It is not a matter of "liking" the Catholic Church's teachings. It is that I believe that they ALONE had a legitimate claim to authoritatively teach the Gospel. Christ sent out particular men to preach and teach - those who were His witnesses. I saw this Apostolic Succession as the source of authority within the Church, protected by God. Thus, I submit my obedience to their interpretations on Scripture and so forth.

I don't think it is a matter of finding a church who YOU agree with. I think it is a matter of finding a church that has been given authority from God. If we find such a church, if we say that Christ is our King, must we not obey our King and follow where He leads us and follow those whom He had left in His charge? Consider the parables of the ruler/master who go away - and a slave is left in charge. This is representative of the Church's leadership role.

Just to be sure, are you saying that whenever we talk about "papal infallibility" we are only talking about the truth of the message, and it has nothing to do with the man himself?

Exactly. Benedict, the Pope, is certainly a holy man. But his decisions on faith and morals are binding on us NOT because of his superior wisdom or sinlessness, but because the Holy Spirit is specifically protecting Him. Christ promised that the Church cannot teach error on matters of doctrine. Over and over, the Church itself notes that it is not to teach anything "new", but only what has been handed down from the Apostles. Everything of consequence taught by the Church is found at least implicitly in the Scriptures as interpreted by Tradition. I have already given "intercessionary prayers of the physically dead saints" as an example of a teaching found in Scripture implicitly. The current Pope is God's instrument of visible unity for the Church. It is through him, if God finds it necessary, that God speaks to the rest of the Church, for example, on his just released encyclical on Love.

I do make interpretations, and they are in part based on what other men I trust have thought before me

We do as well, as long as we don't make interpretations against what the infallible Church teaches. This is a sign of our humility and obedience to God - that we submit to His Church.

My ultimate test is always whether the teaching is Biblical and in context.

The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is Biblical, is it not? Do you think that the Christians writings in 100 AD are following a practice that is not found in Scriptures? It comes back to authority, doesn't it? Catholics follow the teachings passed down from the Apostles. That is what faith is.

Well, IN THE ONLY SENSE THAT LONG-TERM ERROR IS POSSIBLE, how long have the Muslims been wrong?

Does not the Scriptures say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth? Does the Scriptures say that Christ would guide and protect His Church with the Spirit of Truth? If we believe that the Church is NOT from God, then why do we believe that the Scriptures that we call the New Testament are even from God? Why not the Koran, then? As to long-term error... Satan still exists as well... It seems amazing to me that Christ would allow such a fundamental error into His Church - we call the Eucharist the source of Christian life! If the Spirit is not guiding the Church, our faith is in vain.

Jo, that is a flat out distortion and you know it. Protestants are not splintered into thousands of different directions. Do you really think this? The core principles are fairly simple and substantially universal.

There are dozens of Baptist groups, are there not? They all hold to different teachings on issues. There is no unity in Protestantism. Even on core issues, what authority beyond oneself holds a person to follow that supposed "core" issue? People cannot even agree on WHAT IS a core issue! While some may say "infant baptism" is a core issue, others will say "no, it isn't". It is clear that there is a broad spectrum of beliefs on such important issues on how one is saved, the sacraments, authority, sanctification, and so forth. I do not know a lot about Protestantism's various beliefs. I do know, from my experience here, that it is quite broad - officially. While some Catholics appear to hold some interesting points of view, this is because they don't know their faith. There is only one Catholic belief on a subject. Protestantism doesn't have that unity, except on a few areas. Can the Spirit of Truth REALLY be leading ALL of these people - sometimes in diametrically opposed directions? Are works of love necessary for salvation? Etc.

Does the Church really only teach what was handed down to them from predecessors, or does it install new teachings?

The Church doesn't teach anything "new". It DEFINES something for everyone to believe. But this is only in an official capacity. Everything that the Church defines is implicitly found in the Scriptures as interpreted by Apostolic Tradition. For example...Jesus is of the same essence as God the Father. This was believed by the "whole" Church "all" the time "everywhere" BEFORE it was officially defined at Nicea in 325 AD. The Church, as a result of heretics, is forced to plumb the depths of the Deposit of Faith and find out "what DO we believe on this matter?" After deliberation and the Holy Spirit, they Define something - "this is our official belief, not that". Thus, there is nothing "new", just items of faith that are "officially defined". The belief was already there.

Whatever the Pope says is what the Church adopts and teaches. There's no vote as far as I know. Do you hold that Christ's doctrine has never been corrupted under any Pope, as you said?

Only in his official capacity, not as a private theologian, or discussing politics. Normally, the Pope makes such declarations in union with the rest of the Bishops, although he does have the power to do so separately. I hold that the pope has not corrupted official Church teachings. Of course there were sinful popes and popes who made poor political decisions, even religious decisions.

Brother in Christ

[HarleyD]

”…it seems my most recent post might be taken to have strayed into Semi-Pelagianism. Specifically, my example regarding the joule necessary to move man to act.

This went off the beaten path but I’m certainly not going to make an issue about it. I’ve done the same thing. At least you didn’t have to explain it for 150+ posts. :O)

Where we disagree, I beleive, is when you seem to imply that God also ordains man's evil actions, as well. God predestines the elect, not the reprobate.

I would say that God doesn’t do anything with the reprobates. He simply passes over them. God uses them to affect His will but He doesn’t actively call them out as He does the elect.

There is no greater example of this in scripture than the nation of Israel versus Egypt. It is a type of the way God works. Israel was sojourners in Egypt. God called Israel out of Egypt. He didn’t make a blanket call to everyone in Egypt so that individuals could pick and choose. He specifically called Israel out and He used the Egyptians to affect His calling.

Likewise, God’s elect are sojourners in this corrupted world. God calls the true Israel out of the world. He uses those of this world, both the elect and reprobate, to affect His calling.

Not only do we not believe that some are predestined to evil by the divine power, but if there are any who wish to believe such an enormity, we with great abhorrence anathematise them (hear that, Calvin?).

From the Westminster Confessions – God’s Eternal Decreeds

VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto.[12] Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,[13] are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,[14] and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation.[15] Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.[16]

VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praised of His glorious justice.[17]

VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,[18] that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.[19] So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God;[20] and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.[21]

Scriptural footnotes

[12] 1PE 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. EPH 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. 2TH 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

[13] 1TH 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him. TIT 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

[14] ROM 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. EPH 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. 2TH 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

[15] 1PE 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

[16] JOH 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. ROM 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. JOH 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. 1JO 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

[17] MAT 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. ROM 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. 2TI 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. JUD 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. 1PE 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

[18] ROM 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! DEU 29:29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

[19] 2PE 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.

[20] EPH 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. ROM 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

[21] ROM 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. 20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 2PE 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall. ROM 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. LUK 10:20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

[jo kus]

At least you didn’t have to explain it for 150+ posts. :O)

Whew! And I am sure you are glad to hear that :-)

I would say that God doesn’t do anything with the reprobates. He simply passes over them. God uses them to affect His will but He doesn’t actively call them out as He does the elect.

Well that is pretty much what Catholics believe on the subject, at least St. Augustine and St. Thomas, who have formed so much of Catholic theology. I believe it is "allowed" for a Catholic to follow Molina, who is closer to understanding that God's foreknowledge sees man's reaction, which places more responsibility on man.

He didn’t make a blanket call to everyone in Egypt so that individuals could pick and choose. He specifically called Israel out and He used the Egyptians to affect His calling.

I wonder if EVERY Israelite placed the blood on the lintels of their doors... I suppose we could limit those who did as the "spiritual" Jews, such as Paul notes in Romans. Like I said before, I don't know if we will ever understand how God and us interact, since Scripture details BOTH God's ordinance and man's free will to choose good and evil. Perhaps we can say that ONLY a man touched by the Spirit can even choose (in other words, Moses' words in Deuteronomy to the Jews were not addressed to heathens, even indirectly) one or the other. But it is clear that we cannot come to God alone, nor do anything of eternal merit without Him. To balance this, we will be judged on what we do... I think St. Augustine says that God wills to judge His creatures based on His own gifts. Who can know God's ways...

The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,[18] that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.

The certainty of eternal election? Beware, he who thinks he stands firm, lest he fall... The Church teaches that an individual cannot know he is of the elect - although we can have signs of the possibility through our lives. The fact of the matter is that God will do what He does. The certainty of election takes away God's free will.

Regards

[RnMomof7]

We did not lose the ability to choose. That is the freedom that is inherent in the intellect and dominion given to man in the image of God, which we retain.

You can choose between 2 things, but everything an unsaved man does is sin to God, so all the unsaved do is chose which sin they will be guilty of, all he can do is sin ( I am not talking about our standing before men)

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean [thing], and all our righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.

Tts 1:15 Unto the pure all things [are] pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving [is] nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

[annalex]

harsh

To the Protestantism as a whole, it is harsh, but well deserved. At least I do not call Luther antiChrist, and he called my pope just that. It should not be taken as a judgement on individual Protestants of whom I know and love great many. They believe what they were brought up to believe, love Christ and very often lead exemplary lives for the rest of us to follow.

Protestantism doesn't ask any more of a person than the Bible does.

It asks less. It removed several inspired books from circulation; it disregards and ridicules the Holy Tradition apart from its written component (only Augustine among the Fathers is treated as authority, but frequently misunderstood). It disobeys the Church that Christ established and leads its adherents away from the sacraments of Eucharist and confession, and children are frequently deprived of baptism, all these being necessary for their salvation. It denies the necessity of works, despite they expressly asked for by Christ (open the Gospel at random and within 5 min of reading you will find something that Christ asks you to do), and are the basis of the judgement we shall receive (Apocalypse, multiple, especially 20:12). It destroyed the monastic tradition, which deprived the Protestant flock from a powerful instrument of witness and spiritual growth. The great martyrs and builders of the Church are denied honor, and the flock denied their example, under the blasphemous and self-serving notion of sainthood as church membership.

Christ said, -- give what you have to the poor and come, follow me. That is the Church he bequeathed us, -- the Church of heroes. Instead, Luther offered a comfortable bourgeois institution wholly compatible with middle class shallow individualism, incapable of challenging the oppressor state. The fundamentals of Christian ethics condemn contraception, extramarital sex, adultery, divorce followed by remarriage, usury, voting on moral issues, abortion cloning and euthanasia, scientism, irreligious education, and I could probably go on. On these issues Protestant opposition has either crumbled or is crumbling, -- why?

[annalex]

In addition to Jo's post 1981.

Both Orthodox and Catholic believe that upon death few souls are ready to enjoy the vision of God, so called beatific vision and the highest state of happiness, to which we refer as Heaven or Paradise. We both believe that there is an intermediate state after death and then two possible final states, Heaven or Hell. We both believe that prayers should be offered for the repose of the souls of the dead, and that for those in an intermediate state these prayers have a salutary effect.

The Catholics believe that Christ judges everyone in so-called particular judgement immediately after death and if the soul is condemned to Hell, that is where it goes right away. If the soul is judged saved for eternal life, its final destination is heaven. However, most souls are burdened by the aftereffects of sin, even though that sin is forgiven them. The analogy is that even though a tumor has been removed from a sick man (=sin pardoned), the scar where the surgery took place needs to heal before the man can walk again (=be in the presence of God). That convalescence or purification happens in Purgatory. One mark of a saint is that he or she has completed the purification on earth in his lifetime and can go directly to heaven. The prayer is only efficacious for souls in purgatory, but not knowing who ends up where and at what time, we pray for all dead (a public mass for the dead is not allowed in cases of hardened public sinners, but private prayers are always a good thing).

The Orthodox beliefs are somewhat different. Both the condemned and the saved go through a process of trial, when Satan and Christ bargain for the soul. This is when we pray for them. The Orthodox do not use the word purgatory and consider the Catholic doctrine an innovation. I don't think they would say that our belief is definitely wrong, but it is not officially taught by the Orthodox Church.

You may be interested in some in-depth discussion I recently had with the Orthodox so that we understand each other better: Indulgences: Spreading the Wealth. I did not intend it as a vehicle for polemics witht he Protestants and you will see that I avoid arguing the scriptural basics there.

It is true that the doctrine of Purgatory, even its Orthodox less detailed counterpart is in some part speculative theology, in some part tradition that was written down by the Church fathers but never made it into the New Testament proper, and in some part scripture. I showed you why the Catholic theology of the afterlife is compatible with the scripture, but I agree that different interpretation of the same scripture is possible. Certianly the Orthodox interpretation is possible even though it differs from ours. I don't think that any interpretation of the scripture that denies the existence of an intermediate stage following death is possible though; at least I have not seen a satisfying exegesis of the parable of Unmerciful Debtor that would deny that a temporal punishment after death exists for some people.

[Kolokotronis]

Here's a quick synopsis of the belief of the Orthodox Church on the state of souls after death from the GOA website. I believe it was written by Archbishop Michael:

"At death man's body goes to the earth from which it was taken, and the soul, being immortal, goes to God, who gave it. The souls of men, being conscious and exercising all their faculties immediately after death, are judged by God. This judgment following man's death we call the Particular Judgment. The final reward of men, however, we believe will take place at the time of the General Judgment. During the time between the Particular and the General Judgment, which is called the Intermediate State, the souls of men have foretaste of their blessing or punishment."

[kosta50]

This is my impression as well. We believe in divine foreknowledge of all things and in God knowing His elect at all times; we believe in the free will of men to accept...

Everything in your post is the same as Orthodox belief.

[kosta50]

By denying God's ability to change His mind, we mentally come up with a Deus ex machina -- a mechanical God

Right on target, Coronos! The Scripture is full of instances where He does.

[kosta50]

During the time between the Particular and the General Judgment, which is called the Intermediate State, the souls of men have foretaste of their blessing or punishment."

This, however, does not explain our prayers for the dead, Kolo. The Orthodox, in addition to what is the GOARCH summary, also believe that the souls, separated from their bodies, are in an unnatural state. We were created body and soul (in that order) and our state in the spirit deprived of a body is not natural.

Such state is, therefore, uneasy and even possibly torturous, because the souls really cannot "do" anything. They can't repent after physical death, and our supplications are aimed at easing their "torment" or "longing" which they would experience even if they are destined for eternal blessing after the Final or Dread Judgment.

This is really a round-about-way of saing pretty much what the Latins are saying, IMHO. The "discomfort" also comes from the fact that all our sins which we have not repeneted of will be made visible as we stand before God and Saints in our sinful nakedness. Shame, perhaps, better describes this "discomfort" and prayers provide spiritual clothing, spiritual "warmth" and spiritual comfort.

The Otherodox, of course, are less legalistic in their terms, but the message is the same, as far as I can see.

[Kolokotronis]

"The Otherodox...." Would that be us Greeks? :)

Its all pretty much speculation, Kosta. In any event, as you never tire of reminding us, our prayers for the dead are for "mercy".

[annalex]

I find nothing in scripture that shows anyone agreeing to anything. God tells people what is going to happen and people accept (or deny) what will happen. It always happens just the way God said whatever we say.

Well, let's test that theory.

Eve

I don’t know of any “decision” by Eve

1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise? 2 And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. 4 And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. 5 For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil. 6 And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat.

(Genesis 3)

Eve knew the commandment of God, and evidently was disposed to agree with it at the beginning, since the serpent had to persuade her otherwise. She used her senses and listened to the serpent, changed her mind, and agreed with the serpent, and therefore disagreed with God. She is shown to be able to go either way, and she made a choice between the two, a decision. Neither God or the serpent were forcing her: God did not interfere and the serpent is said to be subtle and indeed uses nothing but persuasion. (I agree that the sin is properly Adam's, but the point is that Eve is shown exercising free choice, while regarding Adam we can only assume that, -- surely Eve did not force him to eat the fruit).

Cain

Cain wasn't given a choice at all. God just make a blanket statement to Cain that sin was "crouching at his door". Cain still killed Able his brother. Since God appoints the time for us to die, one has to conclude this was the time appointed for Able to die. God not only knew when Able would die, He also knew how he would die and allowed Able to die in such a fashion. Cain was ordained to bring about Able's death although that doesn't make what Cain did right or excuse him. God controlled the events-not man.

5 But to Cain and his offerings he had no respect: and Cain was exceedingly angry, and his countenance fell. 6 And the Lord said to him: Why art thou angry? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou do well, shalt thou not receive? but if ill, shall not sin forthwith be present at the door? but the lust thereof shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over it. 8 And Cain said to Abel his brother: Let us go forth abroad. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and slew him. 9 And the Lord said to Cain: Where is thy brother Abel? And he answered, I know not: am I my brother's keeper? 10 And he said to him: What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth to me from the earth.

(Genesis 4)

Again, you speculate, and contradict the scripture. The scripture shows that God reasons with Cain, encourages him to do better next time, warns about sin, and urges him to have dominion over sin (verse 7). This is not just choice, but a positive encouragement to do well. The fact that Cain, not God is in control is underscored by verses 9 and 10 where God asks Cain what did he do, as if not knowing.

Jonas

Jonah wasn't given much of a choice

1 Now the word of the Lord came to Jonas the son of Amathi, saying: 2 Arise, and go to Ninive the great city, and preach in it: for the wickedness thereof is come up before me. 3 And Jonas rose up to flee into Tharsis from the face of the Lord, and he went down to Joppe, and found a ship going to Tharsis: and he paid the fare thereof, and went down into it, to go with them to Tharsis from the face of the Lord. 4 But the Lord sent a great wind into the sea: and a great tempest was raised in the sea, and the ship was in danger to be broken.

(Jonas 1)

Here is choice number one: Jonah flees from the face of God. Does God send a tornado to deposit him in Nineveh like Dorothy and Toto? No, God gives him another chance to exercise free will.

12 And he said to them: Take me up, and cast me into the sea, and the sea shall be calm to you: for I know that for my sake this great tempest is upon you.

(Jonas 1)

Choice number two: Jonas repents and chooses to die. His attempted martyrdom converts pagans. Lord used Jonas' disobedience for the greater good.

1 Now the Lord prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonas: and Jonas was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. 2 And Jonas prayed to the Lord his God out of the belly of the fish. [...] 7 I went down to the lowest parts of the mountains: the bars of the earth have shut me up for ever: and thou wilt bring up my life from corruption, O Lord my God. [...] 10 But I with the voice of praise will sacrifice to thee: I will pay whatsoever I have vowed for my salvation to the Lord. 11 And the Lord spoke to the fish: and it vomited out Jonas upon the dry land.

(Jonas 2)

The fish here is a rescue boat. Contrary to what you say, the fish is not shown as an instrument of torture and coercion, for Jonah is shown happy to be in it. Having been rescued, Jonah freely offered a prayer of hope and thanksgiving and God responded by making the fish deliver Jonah safely.

1 And the word of the Lord came to Jonas the second time, saying: 2 Arise, and go to Ninive the great city: and preach in it the preaching that I bid thee. 3 And Jonas arose, and went to Ninive, according to the word of the Lord:

(Jonas 3)

The connection between the episode at sea and the commission to preach at Nineveh is broken here, as God asks a second time. We understand that Jonah's penance at sea reformed him, but we do not see anyone but Jonah in control over the decision to obey God the second time around. Note, as I said earlier, that the fish did not deliver Jonah to Nineveh, and a second chance to refuse to go was given him.

Blessed Mary

Mary is similar to everyone else who has an angel popped in on them. The angel says, “You will….(fill in the blank)” and people says, “Sounds great to me.”. I don’t consider that an exercise of choice.

28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. 31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? 35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. 36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren: 37 Because no word shall be impossible with God. 38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

(Luke 1)

First, Mary is troubled because she is saluted as royalty, by an angel, no less. By your logic this is the time when we say "Sounds great to me" and shut up. You are perhaps right, but then this is why we are sinners and she is not. God is telling her that she will carry his Son, and her response is -- are you ready for this? -- "Prove it". Note that this exactly echoes, in reverse, Eve's behavior, who also needed proof before consenting to the serpent. Mary here is righteously prudent not willing to repeat Eve's mistake.

Next, the proof is given, and Mary consents: "be it done to me according to thy word". Hers is to be a valid marriage to the Holy Ghost, and free consent is essential for marriage. No free will, no savior.

[kosta50]

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one...

Mom, we believe that also. We believe that man dug himself into hole out of pride and arrogance and got stuck there fore good. He can't really go anywhere, or do anything, but sit eternally in his darkness. Without God's help, without His rope or Divine Hand, man cannot pull himself out. It doesn't mean that man has lost his ability to judge, or to know that a helping Hand can pull him out.

Where we differ is in who does the what. You believe that it's up to God whether He pulls you out or not. We believe that God offers His hand to everyone sitting in the hell hole and it is up to us to accept or reject that Hand. Why do some accept and others reject is not the question to pose. The question to pose is why did Adam choose evil? Pride and arorgance or because God gave him no choice but to choose evil?

Why? God obviously intended man to be in Paradise. Man was the crown-jewel of God's Creation: a being not only born in the goodness of God, in His likeness, but also in God's image -- a being with dominion over the world he was created on.

God had man exactly where He wnated him -- and where He wants him, and where he shall be. That will not change. But one can't help but wonder why then did God repent for having created man (Gen 6:6), such a high maintenance creatire, that God had to suffer out of His love for us underserving sinners, in order to give us a chance to be saved!?

Is it possible that God decided to corrupt His own perfect Creation just so that He might have something to do in the foreseeable future, by micormanaging his people and paying for our redemption with His own Blood?

Your belief would be okay if it did not at the same time imply that God created Adam with the intention of throwing him into that hole along with Eve. The Reformed theology confuses God's omnioptence with being all controlling of what we do. What we do does not interfere or threaten His plan. What we do applies only to our space-time framework which does not limit God in any way. It only limits us.

We believe that, by his own pride and arrogance, Adam sealed his fate and the fate of his progeny by disobeying God and then blaming Him for his disobedience.

He became separated from the Light and faced darkness of his soul, for the absence of light is darkness. In darkness he is lost. In darkness he cannot find a way. In darkness he cannot know the truth. God is the Light, the Way and the Truth by which we can return to Him. As long as we think that we can be like gods, we shall remain in darkness.

[kosta50]

"The Otherodox...." Would that be us Greeks? :)

LOL!!! It's been a long day, Kolo. But that was quick and funny! :-)

our prayers for the dead are for "mercy"

That's all we can ask.

[jo kus]

This is really a round-about-way of saing pretty much what the Latins are saying, IMHO. The "discomfort" also comes from the fact that all our sins which we have not repeneted of will be made visible as we stand before God and Saints in our sinful nakedness. Shame, perhaps, better describes this "discomfort" and prayers provide spiritual clothing, spiritual "warmth" and spiritual comfort.

If we view Purgatory as that opportunity to purge our attachments to things other than God, I think we would all agree on this in principle. Who would posit that man will enter union with the Father for eternity with our wounded will when we die? Very few of us will have purged away our pride, our vanity, our sloth, or whatever sinful tendency that we have, our concupiscence of the will. Thus, I believe a third place is necessary. What remains, from what I understand, is "do the purged souls go into union with God in heaven BEFORE the Final Judgment"? I would say yes, if we look to the Book of Revelation and see that John sees a great number of people in heaven offering eternal worship to the Father BEFORE this Final Judgment at the end of the Book. I think careful study by the Eastern Orthodox on this subject will likely find that we agree on much of what has been called Dogma by the Western Catholic Church.

And as Kosta mentions, there is an ancient practice of praying TO saints to intercede - not just to beg mercy for their souls. This is especially true of the cult of the martyrs - it is pretty much unanimous that they rest in peace with God.

I am not aware of what Annalex discusses regarding the "arguing" between Satan and God for the souls. Is this one school of speculative thought among many, or is this rather limited in belief through the Church? I don't sense that as part of the faith, as what would be the point of being judged upon our death if then Satan and God would "argue" over the soul?

Brother in Christ

[Forest Keeper]

agian, the problem is that the umbrella term protestant covers so many conflicting points of view: would you say arminians, southern baptists, high anglicans, weslayans etc have the same dogma?

Frankly, aside from SBs, I don't know enough about those other faiths to comment on them intelligently. From what I do know, I think I would feel general unity with any Bible-believing church. I do not think it is fair to define protestants as any "Christian" church that isn't Catholic. So, while SBs and JWs are both not Catholic, I have no association or agreement with them at all. However, in my own Southern Baptist church, I am sure there are plenty of people whom I respect who do not share my reformed views. That's OK, and I have no plans to leave my church. We are nevertheless in unity because of our reliance on the Bible, and many other beliefs.

[Kolokotronis]

" I am not aware of what Annalex discusses regarding the "arguing" between Satan and God for the souls."

I vaguely remember hearing something like this but I seem to remember that it is demons arguing with angels over the state of the deceased before Christ at the Particular Judgment, not the Evil One and Christ arguing.