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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suppose then, that we would disagree on the meaning of the Sermon on the Mount. I would say the reason Jesus does not speak of imputed justification is that He was not talking about salvation in the Sermon. He was talking about righteous living,

Ah, I think our terms are getting confused again. "Being saved" has different meanings to us, correct? To you, it is that first turning to Christ, during Baptism/sinner's prayer. To me, that is secondary - being saved is a life-long process that doesn't end until we achieve heaven. Thus, when I see the Sermon, from my vantage, it DOES talk about salvation.

Note Matt 5:20 again, looking at it from my point of view on salvation: "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Throughout the Sermon, Jesus tells us what sort of loving actions should proceed from us (while abiding in Christ) for us to see eternal life. Again, we don't see salvation as a done deed because of our Baptism. Scripture clearly tells us we can fall away into our former lifestyles. Peter says "return to the vomit"...

I actually like the idea of Christ's righteousness being thrown over me like a coat.

I understand it is an interesting commentary, but I disagree with it being anywhere in Scriptures. I often wonder "what would be the point of sanctification?" IF this was true? WHY bother trying to become holy, if we are already 'saved' and Christ throws His blanket of righteousness over us? It doesn't matter, in that sense, how I act, then, since I can't lose my salvation, and heaven is guaranteed. I think Paul is misunderstood when he tries to explain how men cannot earn salvation but still must continue to do good deeds. Peter said that Paul can be difficult to understand...

I believe God knows "who" we are in our sin, and He is not ashamed of what He made.

As you know, God didn't make us this way. Thus, we must fully become a new creation. Yes, our "initial salvation" has begun the process, but we still battle the flesh. We are not completed creation products yet. Until that time, how can we co-exist with Holiness itself?

Christ fixes this problem for us, we did not have the means.

True. We are born without sanctifying grace, necessary to enter heaven. Thus, we absolutely need Him.

It is as if God ignores our "smell".

Again, I have a hard time with that. That is like saying God ignores sin. I think what Christ did opens the gates of heaven to us. We now have the chance to enter eternal life. But God doesn't save us without us. We, too, must make some sort of effort to cooperate with His grace and not refuse them. God continues to give us grace, and we find ourselves slowly becoming more like Him. I don't see why He would stop this process at different stages for people before they enter into heaven. It would make the whole idea of sanctification a joke. Again, if Christ covers my sins, then why worry about sin? Does it matter whether I avoid sin or not? I don't get that from Christ in the Gospels.

Of course, the other way to look at it is that we really don't "smell" so bad at all, since we have a new nature in righteousness. Yes, there are remnants that stink, but the core of our new being is holy. Christ's work caused this to happen. In either case, the result is the same. We are unworthy, Christ loved us and did what we could never do. Here we would disagree on the cooperation issue. I know you have said that cooperation is enabled by God, but the whole freewill idea means the decision comes from us. Is man glorified in his cooperation?

Well, this makes more sense. Of course, we are unworthy, in whatever scenario you look at it! However, God, LOVE, WANTS to share of Himself with us. He knows us, inside and out. He knows HOW we will be happiest. And this will happen when we are REALLY free from sin, not just "imputed" free. Being imputed with righteousness doesn't MAKE me righteous. I STILL have unhealthy desires, they are just not CALLED sin. But there they are, just the same. Sin is sin. It is unhealthy for us not because of its legal status that it leaves us in, but because it REALLY IS unhealthy for us. Take lust. If I have lust, my actual relationship with my wife will suffer. Just because I don't call it lust, or because God says it is no longer sin, does that take away that inner wound within me that effects my relationship? No. Sin is more than a legal accounting. It is something that hurts us, whether we admit it or whether it is called sin or righteousness, or whatever. That is why I disagree with the idea of imputed righteousness.

Regards

But hasn't the Scripture set the precedent that we are to obey those men whom God has placed over and above us? Like Moses? Or the Apostles? Or even secular kings, as Paul mentions in Romans?

I accept the authority of the teachings of Moses and the Apostles. However, I differentiate between following a secular leader in law vs. his religious doctrine, or lack thereof. We are to obey the secular law, generally (Daniel is an exception), but that is totally separate from our faith. I suppose we just disagree on who any of those "other" men are.

The reason why Church authority is even more highly regarded is because they ARE infallible ONLY because of the Holy Spirit, not their own abilities.

This is a main point of our disagreement. Authoritative succession throughout the ages is only true based on the say so of interested men, and their say so that God said so. When Jesus said He would be with the Apostles even until the end of the age, I took that to mean with all believers, not only the RCC.

WE both base our trust that the Bible is the WORD of God BECAUSE we trust in those who gave it to us were trustworthy. St. Augustine says "I would not believe in the Scriptures if it were not for the Catholic Church". Anyone can say that there writings are inspired by God (see the Mormons). We don't believe them - but the Bible, we do, because it came from the Church.

Actually, I don't trust anything in those who gave it to us, on their own authority, I trust in He who authored all of it. I pray that I am misinterpreting your reference to St. Augustine. Are you saying that the Church authenticates the scriptures? Not God?

Me: "Even in the Pope's recent pronouncement on homosexuality, he allows latent existing homosexual priests to remain in good standing."

Again, that is not an official statement made from the "chair of Peter". However, frankly, how does that differ from a "latent existing" alcoholic priest who remains in good standing? We ALL have tendencies towards sin that we must fight against. Of course, priests with homosexual tendencies should remove themselves from the possibility of sinning. Perhaps a ministry to the sick, and keep away from kids. But are we to eliminate all priests who are not perfect?

I do not understand the distinction of 'an official statement made from the "chair of Peter".' I thought it was a Vatican statement, which implied to me the Pope's blessing.

I appreciate the comparison to an alcoholic priest (a guy with a problem), but I was keying in on someone who is unrepentant. I haven't heard of many homosexuals who think it is wrong that they chose this lifestyle. I think alcoholics might be a little different. In either case, if one of my church ministers was a "proud" homosexual or lush, then I would want him removed. If the person wanted to seek help and get better (much more often for alcoholics than homosexuals) then I would say fine, give the guy a break.

What you continue to ignore on this issue is for people to "change" from a "symbol" to a "reality" in one generation (it is clear what people from 110 AD believed) would require EVERYONE EVERYWHERE to change to the same "error" of the real presence, without a MURMUR of protest. Quite impossible, FK. We are talking about people who willingly went to lions to defend their faith. Are you saying that the Church became so confused, wimpy and inept on such a key belief in one generation?

I don't claim to state for a fact what the original practices were. (I also do not claim that any non-Biblical practice was right simply because it was first.) I do not say that all of the earliest Christians were really Protestants, and then "switched" to Catholicism in one generation. I don't know what they did, or why. You have cited many extra-biblical sources on these practices, and I don't blame any Catholic for following them. I just haven't accepted them as authority.

There are a large number of Catholic practices/rituals with which I have no problem at all. It's just that when Biblical teaching appears to be threatened (or fails to substantiate) that I question it. It seems too peculiar to me that if God had included another 15 measly pages in the Bible, we would have no need for this discussion. For 15 extra pages, we might agree on everything. Definitionally I suppose, tradition is what didn't make it into the Bible. Much tradition is perfectly consistent with the Bible, but much of it appears to be with a very strained interpretation (IMO) of God's word.

Protestant communities are NOT part of the Church of Christ.

THIS is something I REALLY wanted a 'yea' or 'nay' on. Thank you for the clarification.

[On the subject of "core" Christian principles] As being subject to private opinion, you are free to ignore another's opinion. You are not bound to it. Thus, a person could state "I don't think Jesus rose bodily" and still consider themselves Christian. We might not consider them Christians, but who cares what we think (to them). That is why a hierarchy is important - to TELL US what is necessary for salvation.

I do feel free to both ignore another's opinion or to adopt it, based on its adherence to scripture. I'm the only one I can think of on this thread who has changed his mind on a position. I began by arguing "once saved, always saved", but then it was pointed out to me that "perseverance of the saints" was superior from a scriptural viewpoint. It was a no-brainer to me so I quickly adopted the doctrine. I will always do that. God knows the very limited extent of my intellect, He knows which of my buttons to press to get His results, He knows what I need to understand, and He provides it to me. I am fully capable of blowing the message sometimes, but overall, it's been so far so good. If He wants me to follow a different path, He knows where to find me.

As to any person who said that Jesus did not rise bodily, I would ask for the source of their opinion, dismiss it, and know that the person had a serious problem in core theology under beliefs of Protestants and Catholics. I don't see how this translates to a need for a hierarchy. We totally disagree on that idea, but we completely agree that the person in this example is seriously misguided. However, I suppose that you put us in the same boat with this other misguided "Christian". Oh well.

You submit to your OWN selves, don't you? You are presuming to know what God means by particular Scripture passages, over and above men from 1800 years removed from today.

Of course not. I have every bit as much faith that the Holy Spirit leads me as you do that the Holy Spirit leads others to lead you. In fact, you would have to admit that our side puts far less faith in ourselves than your side. Your salvation depends upon the inner goodness of yourself, separately, and in cooperation with God, right?We think no such thing. It is you who submit to your own selves to cooperate in salvation.

So am I to disagree with so many generations of Christians? Why?

I would say that either of us is to disagree with any error the Spirit reveals to us, regardless of how long it has been taught, by whom, or where it came from. This includes the theology of Protestant "founders". I am not wed to all of Luther's or Calvin's beliefs. The test is always the Bible and how the Spirit leads me.

If God said He was 6 persons in one, we would believe Him. The Scriptures DO NOT EXPLICITLY SAY that He is a Trinity. From the Scriptures, tell me who the Holy Spirit is? A force? An angel? A creation? God? It is not quite so clear as you'd make it out to be. That is why we shouldn't ignore the Apostolic Tradition - HOW to read the Bible. Through them, we KNOW that Jesus is of the SAME essence of God, that the Holy Spirit is ALSO of the same essence of God.

Well, with all due respect, I don't think we need any tradition to know that Jesus is of the same essence of God. Would you agree that Jesus plainly said so Himself in scripture? I'm going to presume that you believe that the Father is God and that Jesus is God. :) So, if the question is about the Spirit, one of many verses would be:

1 Corinthians 2:11 : "11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."

Does this not define the omniscience of the Spirit? Who besides God could be omniscient? No one I know of. We are even told that satan is not. So, this Spirit guy is no angel, or "force". He must be God. We do not need the Apostolic tradition to learn this lesson at all. God gives it to us clearly here, but also gives us clues in many other passages in scripture. They are all consistent independent of any teachings in tradition.

The claim you make, that the Spirit guides you, is true to a degree. But it cannot be entirely true, because I believe the Spirit guides me...But yet, we disagree on the Eucharist!!! How COULD the Spirit lead two Christians to believe something entirely different, on a core issue? Thus, the Spirit DOES NOT lead us in THAT fashion.

Yes, my claim can be entirely true! :) I appreciate and accept that the Spirit guides you too. So, either one or both of us is wrong on the Eucharist. I believe all men are capable of blowing things on matters of interpretation, including me. (Of course it's not the Spirit's fault.)

By what you said, how could the Spirit lead us on anything? We'll agree on many things, but then disagree etc., but then we'll bring in another good Christian and there will be even more disagreement. The whole point of this rambling is that maybe the Eucharist is not a core issue. I know it is very important to you, but you told me that no sacrament is absolutely required for salvation. I think we might substantially agree on "bigger" issues

Every word within the Bible came to us through men. The Judeo-Christian heritage understands that God's Word is brought to us through the instrument of men who the community deems as inspired by God. THE COMMUNITY deems they were inspired.

"THROUGH" men - 'YES'. "BY" men - 'NO'. Of course I would say that while the scribes of the NT showed their personalities, intended audiences, etc., that nevertheless, God was the final editor of every jot and tittle. I would say that there was no cooperation from any of the authors of the scriptures. They were faithful scribes, but they were not writing of themselves. That all the authors of the Bible could be so completely consistent in message and so great in wisdom across hundreds of years appears impossible to me if their human weaknesses were subject to being included in the final text. To me, God gets the only copyright on this book.

I also thank you for this discussion, and I appreciate your patience with me. I have learned a tremendous amount from you, which helps me toward my goal of being able to discuss Catholic beliefs with others and be accurate and fair. I almost think I now know more about Catholic theology than some Catholics! :) It has been wonderful to learn more about your beliefs.

Wow, that’s quite a post. I think I’ll digest it better if I try to break it into a few parts. I hope you don’t mind. This first one concentrates on one subject. The next one will answer miscellaneous comments

I differentiate between following a secular leader in law vs. his religious doctrine, or lack thereof. We are to obey the secular law…but that is totally separate from our faith.

God takes priority over the two if they disagree, but I don’t see obeying secular law as separate from our faith. That is called “secularism”. That is the battle-cry of those WE face in society, those who want to contain Christianity to a private practice – “keep it in your house…” I think if you begin to have that attitude, you are on a slippery slope to not exercising your faith and evangelizing to the world.

Authoritative succession throughout the ages is only true based on the say so of interested men, and their say so that God said so. When Jesus said He would be with the Apostles even until the end of the age, I took that to mean with all believers, not only the RCC.

You are correct – apostolic succession is based upon whether we believe the witness of the men who make the claim. But, just the same, we ALSO look to those SAME men who tell us WHAT the Scriptures are! It is interesting that you take their word on what is Scripture, but not on Apostolic Succession, which we see even in the Scriptures themselves. To me, to discredit these first bishops is to discredit the claim that the NT letters are Scriptures. As to Mat 28, it can be taken to mean that Jesus will be with the Church – all believers – but He is addressing the Apostles, the future leaders of the Church. In Matthew, Jesus gives the Apostles special authority to bind and loosen. In John’s Gospel, He does this – and promises the Spirit of Truth to THEM. Throughout the NT, the Apostles and their successors are given special authority over their communities. Yes, the call to proclaim the Gospel is for all men, but primarily, it is given to the Apostles, since THEY have witnessed to Christ’s acts. Check the requirements of the replacement of Judas Iscariot in Acts.

Again, I ask you to continue this line of thought…How do you KNOW the Scriptures are from God Himself, that they are inspired by God, but not the Koran, or other so-called “Scriptures”? Ask yourself “how do I know the Bible is from God”. Your answer will be “because someone told me, and I believed them.” We trust the witness of the men who saw the Christ and His Apostles in action, who passed down the Gospel. Yes, the Church authenticates the Scriptures. God does not do so directly. The individual books of the NT are not self-authenticating as being God-breathed. We only know that because the men who walked with Jesus (whom THEY believed was God) tell us – and we believe them and their witness, their miracles and their way of life. Today, we continue to see God’s Word validated by the Church. I am sure that you know of many people who will vouch for the power of the Scriptures. So God operates through the Church, the people of God. We are told that, and we believe it. Such is the nature of faith! It is not absolutely “provable”.

It's when Biblical teaching appears to be threatened (or fails to substantiate) that I question it. It seems too peculiar to me that if God had included another 15 measly pages in the Bible, we would have no need for this discussion. For 15 extra pages, we might agree on everything. Definitionally I suppose, tradition is what didn't make it into the Bible. Much tradition is perfectly consistent with the Bible, but much of it appears to be with a very strained interpretation (IMO) of God's word.

I suppose we must look at the Scripture through a set of lenses, a paradigm. No one approaches the Bible without some idea about it or what it is based on. Thus, the Scriptures are read through a paradigm. Catholics call this “Apostolic Tradition”. A book CANNOT interpret itself. The earliest Church Fathers made this very complaint of Gnostics and others who utilized Scriptures to back their OWN teachings (which I will show soon)! They constantly refer to Apostolic Tradition during the earliest stages of Christianity so that doctrine would not become corrupt. I find it quite amazing that Catholic doctrine, while delving deeply into Scriptures to learn more about Revelation, does not change. This is a tribute to the idea that Christ put into action by forming an authoritative body to teach and preach.

I don’t think 15 more pages would have made a difference. First of all, consider the Scriptures themselves. They are not a systematic catechism or theology book. There is no organization, topics are scattered to the four winds, and often times, key elements of the faith appear, on the surface, to contradict other parts of the Scriptures. The fact remains that the Scriptures were collated hundreds of years after the diverse letters and narratives were written. People had an idea of the faith through Apostolic Teaching, THEN searched out ALL of the available Christian writings. They weeded out those that did not fit the PARADIGM, not the other way around! In other words, the Bible didn’t determine their beliefs, the already-held beliefs determined whether a letter would be called “Scripture! That is absolutely critical to understanding how the Scripture came into being. Thus, the Gospel of Thomas. Out. The Shephard of Hermes. Out. Dozens of letters written about the first hundred years of Christianity. Out. And why is Philemon in there? What makes you think it is from God, unless someone told you? Who wrote Hebrews? And so forth. The Church leaders took what they had and compiled what THEY thought was from God – what was taught them – and put it together into 27 letters and called it “the New Testament”. God inspired this body to collate specific titles, and there we have it, Scriptures.

Thus, it is important not to cast out Apostolic Tradition just because something is not explicitly found in Scripture (like prayers to saints in heaven to intercede for us). The same men who practiced the above, calling it orthodox and from the Apostles, are the same men who gave us the current NT. Otherwise, brother, we’d be considering the Gnostic version of the Bible, those who pass along the Da Vinci Code, as Scripture. You HAVE to have a paradigm, a standard, FIRST before you can say, “Ok, this letter is NOT what we believe”. The other option is Islam – “an Angel gave me this book directly from God”. But you still have the problem of trusting that man…Did God really give Mohemmed that book? (NO!)

"THROUGH" men - 'YES'. "BY" men - 'NO'. .. I would say that there was no cooperation from any of the authors of the scriptures. They were faithful scribes, but they were not writing of themselves. That all the authors of the Bible could be so completely consistent in message and so great in wisdom across hundreds of years appears impossible to me if their human weaknesses were subject to being included in the final text. To me, God gets the only copyright on this book.

I agree that God inspired the authors, but each author used his own style to write the Word. God inspired the Scriptures, God ensured that what He wanted presented was placed in it. The fact of its consistency is more of a testament to the TRADITION that was given to the editors and compilers of the Scriptures! Again, God inspired the editors and compilers to write what they wrote or edited. But again, what came first? The oral teachings in nearly every case proceeded the written. These teachings were part of the communities’ life and beliefs. Thus, when someone claimed to have written “God’s Word”, the community already KNEW whether the writing really WAS from God. THEY, guided by the Spirit, knew. If it disagreed with what they had been taught by God through the prophets or apostles, it couldn’t be Scriptures.

I don't think we need any tradition to know that Jesus is of the same essence of God. Would you agree that Jesus plainly said so Himself in scripture? ,/i>

You are taking for granted what has already become part of your paradigm. To us, yes, but not to Arius. He was a Catholic priest from the early 300’s who began to wonder, using his own intellect and the “promptings of the Spirit” that Jesus was NOT of the same essence of God. He used various SCRIPTURES to “prove” his point: “Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice because I said, I go unto the Father; for my Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)

“And he said unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to those] for whom it is prepared of my Father.” (Mat 20:23)

And he withdrew from them about a stone's cast and kneeled down and prayed, saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. (Luke 22:42) {note – Arius asked, “why should God pray to Himself”?

The temptations of Jesus in Mat 4 – “If Jesus is God, how could He be tempted”

His primary “proof” follows: “The LORD made me as the beginning of His way, the first of His works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth;” (Proverbs 8:22-25)

Christianity had always seen the Jewish idea of the Wisdom of God and Jesus Christ as the same person, Christ being the incarnation of that Wisdom, thus, this passage was understood by all to refer to Christ.

If you ever confront a Jehovah Witness, FK, be prepared to face these arguments. Of course, you will quote them John 1:1, 18; John 10:30; Col 2:9; and so forth. But then it comes down to your interpretation vs. his. WHO IS CORRECT? Thus, there IS a need for hierarchy to say “Arius, that is not what we have been taught. That is not what has been handed down by the most ancient of Apostolic Tradition. Your interpretation of Scripture is wrong” – and St. Athanasius, among others, would then explain Arius’ errors. To do away with an authoritative interpreter of Scripture leaves man in error. He will NEVER know what God has taught, unless God comes to each and every person individually. If God’s truth is important, you will appreciate the need for an hierarchy that can make authoritative decisions, guided by God Himself.

Brother in Christ

Part 2 :-)

I do not understand the distinction of 'an official statement made from the "chair of Peter".' I thought it was a Vatican statement, which implied to me the Pope's blessing.

Ah, sorry. Thanks for your patience. Every word from the Pope is not infallible. Again, the Pope is only infallible when he makes official, solemnly declared statements from the Chair of Peter. His opinions as a private theologian are not infallibly protected, only those when operating as the official promulgator and definer of Catholic faith or morals. As I mentioned before, this is an extraordinary charism from the Spirit. It has been exercised only TWICE in 150 years, the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary. The rest are considered ordinary teachings that we follow as a matter of obedience to higher authority – but in of itself not necessarily infallible.

I agree. But the Pope has to be careful. The Church is not a business, but is more a family (of God). To give an example, would you remove a father from a family because they didn’t discipline their children very well or taught them some disgusting habit, perhaps? It is much the same thing. The Church must be careful, because priests are the communities’ spiritual father. The Bishop doesn’t want to cause Schism, that’s for sure. There are a number of issues that doesn’t make this such a slam-dunk affair. I think the Pope has done his homework on the issue.

Protestant communities are NOT part of the Church of Christ.

I hope you understand that to mean “the First Southern Baptist Church on Main Street” is not part of the Church of Christ, BUT some of the PEOPLE who attend the “First Southern Baptist Church on Main Street” ARE of the Church of Christ…There can only be one visible organization that we refer to as the Church of Christ. The Scriptures clearly tell us that there is “one faith, one baptism” and “one loaf”…Not many different ones.

You are correct, and I give you a lot of credit. You truly are a rare person in these forums.

I am fully capable of blowing the message sometimes, but overall, it's been so far so good. If He wants me to follow a different path, He knows where to find me

I agree. Perhaps it was you that I wrote that I cannot convert anyone, only God can. I merely present the Catholic side. If God wills, the seed planted will grow into faith, either now, or a later time. My “job” is to present the truth of the Catholic Faith, which unfortunately, not many Catholics are aware of, either…

Because there can only be ONE truth! I believe you are succumbing to the idea in society that is way over-used and misunderstood: Tolerance. By making truth subjective, by saying “your truth is as good as mine”, you are saying that truth is not really important; it is a matter of opinion. In the name of “tolerance”, we live and let live. However, if we are to love, it is our JOB to bring the TRUTH to others, to bring people out of ignorance. Jesus is the way, the TRUTH, and the life. He came to bring us truth, and it will set us free! Certainly, we don’t bring truth by hammering them. We challenge them. We present the truth to them, logically discussing how they have incorrect ideas. The person above can listen to you, and walk away thinking you are crazy. “What authority does he have”? Perhaps, you will be able to present a case that will convince him otherwise. But as you have noted of your own experience, this doesn’t happen often. Thus, if we have a visible authority that is accepted as coming from Christ, we don’t have these issues of “what should I believe as TRUTH?” We don’t rely on our own interpretations, either.

I suppose that you put us in the same boat with this other misguided "Christian". Oh well.

I would say that you haven’t been exposed to the truth yet!

In fact, you would have to admit that our side puts far less faith in ourselves than your side.

By making yourself the final arbitrator of what is the truth?

Your salvation depends upon the inner goodness of yourself, separately, and in cooperation with God, right?We think no such thing. It is you who submit to your own selves to cooperate in salvation.

Well, I thought I explained that “our” inner goodness comes from God and God alone. We cooperate in salvation merely because God ALLOWS us to. He, being LOVE, operates that way. He desires a free union of love between two beings, Him and us. Thus, we must not willingly reject Him. But we realize that all that God gives us is gift. We cannot truly begin to understand God until we understand that EVERYTHING we have is a gift from Him. So knowing this, cooperation is merely saying “yes” to God’s gifts. Isn’t that what the Scripture demands from us? To choose good or to choose evil?

I would say that either of us is to disagree with any error the Spirit reveals to us, regardless of how long it has been taught, by whom, or where it came from.

What errors does the Catholic Church teach? I am not aware of anything that is taught that is explicitly denied of us in Scriptures. Everything I am aware of that is taught is not in contradistinction to Scripture.

You can never be sure your claim is actually true because we are not infallible. You yourself believe that man sins, that man sometimes chooses sin, even after our “salvation”. How do you know you are not choosing something that suits your current fancy? How do you know the devil is not leading you to believe something? How do you know you are accurately interpreting what the Spirit says? How do you know the “promptings” within you are actually the Spirit? Too many variables destroy the idea that an individual can KNOW he is correct regarding doctrine of the faith (without an authoritative interpreter to say “yes, this means that”, or “no, that does not mean that”)

The Spirit leads us to love. We understand from Scripture that the Spirit is leading His Church but not APART from it! Christ said a Kingdom set up against itself will surely fall. Did Christ establish a Church so the Holy Spirit could lead it into diffuse and diverse paths? Saying that the Eucharist is not important because it is not absolutely essential is like saying I can live without food. Or I can get around with no legs…Christ IS the Eucharist. Wouldn’t you say that Christ coming to us to feed us spiritually is critical towards our salvation?

I admit you are a rare breed, and I appreciate your questions. Sadly, you are probably correct in that you know more than many Catholics on their faith. If there is one thing I admire regarding Protestants is there desire to learn more about God through the Scriptures. They do it often on their own time (outside the Sunday “obligation”). We need more people like that within our Church. But I trust God knows what He is doing!

Brother in Christ

It really wasn't until I got out on this board that I discovered the wacky ideas Catholics have. ;O)

Okay, HD, I guess we do seem a little wacky to you and your Protestant kin. But You seem alien to us, and I don't mean it as an insult, personal or collective, nor as a disparaging remark about your faith.

I meant it as a collective understanding of something that has been with the Church since it was established by Christ on the Pentecost. If you think the Protestants are the first to behave like Protestants you are sadly mistaken. And if you think the first "protests" came from Luther and first Church reactions to such protests at Trent, you are way off the scale... again.

To bring you into the reality of what the Church did from the beginning almost, here are some quotes from St. Irenaeus (of Lyons, 2nd c. AD, I would say thta's quite close to the earliest Christinaity and how they undersood the faith) in his Against Heresies:

For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters.

For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another.

Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation."

Sounds familiar? Well, heresies and human arrogance, assuming it can, on nothing but the merit of our limited intellect, understand the depth of Scriptures individually have been around even in very beginning of the 2nd century.

Fascinating revelation that nothing has changed! Yet Protestants think they invented the wheel by insisting on personal interpretation of the Scripture and questioning the authority of the Church!

One of the favorite arguments of the protesters of all kinds is that famous line — "tradition became corrupt," or "the Church was in error." What are we to do? Break up with the Tradition as the Protestants did?

Here is what St. Irenaeus says:

Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation."

He reiterates that the Church gets its authority from none other than our Lord's Apostles:

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth...

Thus, the apostolitcity and catholicity guarantees that the faith once delivered remains unaltered.

In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth." [Against All Heresies, Book III, 2:2, 3:1, 3:3]

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