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.

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 don't think the differences between the Protestant canon and the Hebrew canon are substantial, but I am no expert

Well, the differences are more than substantial, although not in the Five Books of Moses, save for the "virgin" issue. The oldest Masoretic (Rabbinical) Text dates to 10th century AD. The book was found in a Moscow synagogue. Jamnia, by the way, was a rabbinical meeting that anathemized Jesus of Nazareth and the out all the books used by Christian Jews. The meeting took place in 100 AD.

Some consider Jamina to be the date and place where the Hebrew Canon was finalized, but some will dispute that. The fact is that Hebrew canon was growing; by 500 BC only the Five Books of Mose constituted the "Bible." In the next 400 or so years, up to the birth of Christ, Prophets and Psalms were added, along with the seven books included in the Septuagint, which was a Jewish working Scripture written in Greek for the Alexandrian Hebrews who did not speak their ancient lanuage any more or Aramaic, but only Greek.

The Gospels quote from the Septuagint but the Protestants choose to ignore that fact. Catholics use a mixture of MT and Septuagint. The Orthodox Church retains the entire Septuaging as the source known as the "Old testament."

Catholic dogmas of Immaculate Conception, etc. can be traced to the "Apocryphal" books. But so can many other Orthodox and Catholic doctrines.

The Septuagint is the oldest complete Old Testament Scripture, dating back to third century BC, so it cannot be accused of being modified by the Christians.

I'm not sure I understand why being physically dead is an unnatural state

Death is not our natural state. Death is unnatural because God did not create us to be mortal; we became mortal through fault of our own.

When Adam and Eve were created, they were without sin and therefore immortal. The state humanity was created in is our "natural" state. Our fallen state is not our natural state, separated from God.

A bulb disconnected form the electrical source is a dead bulb. What good is a bulb if light doesn't shine through it? Adam and Eve were alive in God, Who is our sole source of existence. Separated from God, who is Life, our light went out, as we died unto sin.

Restoring manking to its original state is the only "natural" state of man. I don't know of any unnatural condition that is pleasant. Do you? If you do, then my example is bad, but it's late so I can't think of any other examples. Nonetheless, you get my drift.

Yes, but as is often said, you do pray "to" the saints. This is a major issue of contention between Catholics and Protestants

I know and I have to give it to you for having taken the time to learn the subtle difference. In fact your summary "prayer for a prayer" is quite good. Most Protestants, except Calvinists, admit that the Saints (in heaven, the "famous" ones) prey on our behalf along with angels. Most Protestants except some Anglicans do not accept prayers (as requests) to the saints. Yet, early Church records show that this was the practice and understanding of early Christianity.

I mean, if we can accept such complex things as the Holy Trinity, one essence and three persons, or Christ, fully God and fully Man, accepting requests for prayers is not such a foreign idea. Also, remember that Holy Trinity, as understood by the Church and accepted by most Protestants, as well as the duality of nature of Christ in one Person is not exactly word-by-word in the Scriptures either.

The Church really has no "hard evidence" to prove it, but then again +Paul tells us we believe things by faith and not by provable evidence. (cf Heb 11:1)

"I think you will find that hesychastic fathers leave no doubt that we are born in complete depravity, slaves to sin (oh yeah, the Calvinists would love that part!), unable to choose anything but evil, and that we are saved by God's loving grace out of that rot."

I don't think so, Kosta. None of the Fathers save perhaps Augustine, believed in the total depravity of man at birth. The Fathers taught that while we might have lost the "likeness" of God at the Fall, we didn't lose the "image" of God. As +John of Kronstadt wrote: "Never confuse the person, formed in the image of God, with the evil that is in him, because evil is but a chance misfortune, illness, a devilish reverie. But the very essence of the person is the image of God, and this remains in him despite every disfigurement." It is fair, however, to say that without grace we cannot move from a state of being a bondsman or servant to sin towards theosis.

"I am no expert on Greek of course, but is it correct that the ancient Greek term for "slave" became the modern Greek word for "laborer" or "bondsman?"

No. The Greek word then and now for slave as we today think of slaves is "sklavos".

"Ancient Greeks considered every man who worked for someone else not feee. Only those who worked for themsleves were considered free men. Anyone serving anyone else was not."

Not quite, but close. There were many people who worked for others but were not sklavoi or douloi. The distinction to make is that there were different types of people who come under the English word slave and different states of life that we generically call slavery. Justin Martyr sort of makes this distinction:

"To yield and give way to our passions is the lowest slavery, even as to rule over them is the only liberty. The greatest of all good is to be free from sin, the next is to be justified; but he must be reckoned the most unfortunate of men, who, while living unrighteously, remains for a long time unpunished. The end contemplated by a philosopher is likeness to God, so far as that is possible."

Thanks for the article, it does help.

Freedom in God, as enjoyed by Adam, implied the possibility of falling away from God. This is the unfortunate choice made by man, which led Adam to a subhuman and unnatural existence. The most unnatural aspect of his new state was death. In this perspective, "original sin" is understood not so much as a state of guilt inherited from Adam but as an unnatural condition of human life that ends in death.

So every human in existence (since Adam) throughout time has spent his entire time on earth in an unnatural state? Given that you have said that God experiences all time simultaneously, how would you put the fall into the context of God's plan? (I know you know that God is omniscient.) Would you say that it was God's plan that mankind should spend 99.999999% of his collective existence on earth in an unnatural state? Would you say that God changed His plan based on Adam's choice? IOW, was it God's original plan that all people would be born immortal on earth, but man foiled this plan?

In the East, man is regarded as fully man when he participates in God; in the West, man's nature is believed to be autonomous, sin is viewed as a punishable crime, and grace is understood to grant forgiveness.

Hence, in the West, the aim of the Christian is justification, but in the East, it is rather communion with God and deification. In the West, the church is viewed in terms of mediation (for the bestowing of grace) and authority (for guaranteeing security in doctrine); in the East, the church is regarded as a communion in which God and man meet once again and a personal experience of divine life becomes possible."

This is especially instructive. How would you phrase God's view of sin? Is there a need for God to forgive sin?

Deification? I know you and Kolo have talked about theosis, becoming more "God-like". "Deification" implies an idea to me of becoming "as a God", or "equal to God". Does it go to this extent, or is it an unreachable goal?

How would you phrase God's view of sin?

Orthodoxy regards sin simply as "separation from God." In fact, the Greek term is "missing the mark" (the "mark" being Christ); when God is not our mark, we sin. As long as our aim is to imitate Christ, as long as we are in communion with Him, we don't. That's where the idea of frequent confession and communion comes from.

Is there a need for God to forgive sin?

God neither has needs, nor is He driven by necessities. If we follow Christ, we will feel a need to confess our sins, not as a legalistic obligation, but as a realization that we have been ungrateful to Him.

Confession is not a true confession unless it is grounded in what the Greeks call metanoia (change of mind), a permanent and irrevocable rejection of that which we confessed as our ingratitude to God. We believe that God forgives us if our ingratitude is an honest failure and our confession an honest desire to change our mind. God will forgive if we honestly try, even if we honestly fail.

"Deification" implies an idea to me of becoming "as a God", or "equal to God"

Oh, no, never equal to God! That would be pagan. Theosis is becoming God-like, Christ-like. It is a process, a spiritual growth to holiness through faith in God, in due time. The "official" Saints reached that likeness to God more than your average bear. They have achieved that by denial of their passions and carnal qualities of our fallen nature, and incessant prayers. They became empty vessels, "poor in spirit," without egos, clean glasses, through which the light of God could shine for others to see and know Him.

People who achieve theosis don't know it. Their humility does not allow them to arrogate such quality. They consider themselves truly unworthy of any honor or title. In fact, they are truly disconcerned with such things as honors and titles, or anything of this world for that matter. :-)

What Christ handed down was oral tradition and the Septuagint illuminated by the oral tradition. His mandate to the Apostles was to teach the Gospel, not write a book. ... it is rather clear that the evangelists did not intend to create an encyclopedia of Christ's teaching but rather put on paper the bare facts and verbatim quotes as they remembered them.

Well, maybe originally, but it takes time to write things down (and make copies), and many events had not even happened yet so they couldn't have been written down. Do you believe that God mandated, regardless of whether He gave the Apostles advanced notice, that the scribes of the Bible would physically put pen to page? Did God cause the Bible to be written? You are writing as if you believe that the scribes of the (eventual) Bible made their own free will choices on what to include in their writings. Is this correct?

If I can find one phrase in the non-canonical writings of the Fathers, no matter how clearly that father's position is seen, I need to find a consensus among others to prove that this is the teaching of Christ. That is the difference between canonical scripture and oral (i.e. patristic, written to us) tradition.

I suppose it is human nature to give some merit to a view that is widely held. But does popularity make it correct? I fully admit that I start with the premise of giving "my guys" the benefit of the doubt. However, no man, nor group of men, gets my agreement if what they say doesn't pass the scriptural test as the Spirit leads me. That's why it is not the end of the world when I might disagree with my fellow churchgoers on some issues. But, if my pastor walked in some Sunday morning and announced that Jesus never claimed to be God, then I would be outta there.

As it is, the Protestant position is not to be more cautious in the study of the Fathers, but to ignore them unless something suits their agenda (which is, exclusively, fragments from St. Augustine).

In this case, our only agenda is the word of God.

I can recognize my Church in the writings of Justin Martyr, Clement, Ignatius or Irenaeus, -- can you?

No, I only recognize my church inasmuch as it is in Christ, not in the writings of any man.

But a sacrament has a defined meaning. ...

OK, all I meant was that we practice many similar things but we attach very different meanings to them. I just looked up "sacrament" and it appears to refer pretty much to "your" practices and interpretations. They are clearly defined.

Many, -- indeed not all, -- Protestant churches would not baptize a child before the age of reason. This deprives that child of the grace of baptism and endangers his soul should he die unbaptized.

I freely say that my church is one. :) I'm pretty sure that you all have said that an infant baptism performed in a Protestant church "CAN" be effective. However, what do Catholics say happens to victims of abortion, or to any child who dies before the age of reason (and living in a non-Christian family)? Are the salvations of those children really mainly determined by their parents?

Me: "We deny the necessity of man-driven works."

But then you deny scripture. When Christ commanded us to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, etc. He did not say anything about man-driven, He just said, do it.

I agree. Where we disagree is where the power for these works comes from. We just say that man does not produce good works from himself or his own autonomy. Every good work comes from God. He gets all the credit and all the glory for every good work. Whatever reward in heaven we might get from God is of course up to Him. I know that when I face judgment one thing I'm NOT going to say is: "But Lord, look at all the nice things I did..."

Also, no mature Protestant is looking for any excuse not to obey God (good works) in this world. Good works automatically flow from a regenerated heart.

But the movement away from parochial schools was a Protestant project, that has lead to the scandal of publik skulz of today.

I admit I have no idea to what you are referring here. Would you elaborate?

But this is the fundamental Protestant idea [finishing a prior thought, but leading into ...]. The notion that a bunch of lawyers and politicians can go and starve an innocent disabled woman to death because an electoral process of law has lead to it, -- I am referring to Terri Schiavo, of course, -- is a direct product of the mentality according to which everyone is his own pope and therefore entitled to autonomous moral judgement.

You are really trying to blame Protestantism for what happened to Terri Schiavo??? You are too funny. I did follow the case pretty closely because of how outraged I was by it. I do believe the judge who was involved was a long standing member of a Protestant church. Did you know that they KICKED HIM OUT because of this? A most proper cleansing. Do you think Catholic churches need to do any cleansing?

The one aspect of moral law on which you admit Protestantism has defected en masse (Lambeth Conference, 1930) is contraception. But this is the cornerstone of moral order that was destroyed by the left, -- and now, of course, the Church is waging a lone, despairing battle to steer at least its own flock away from that sin.

It's interesting that you bring up an Anglican conference as an example of Protestant error. I didn't think Anglicans were "exactly" Catholic, but I did think you all were in the "same family". I take it that you say that Anglicans, the Church of England, etc. are all fully Protestant and outside the "Church of Christ", as I have been told?

As to the contraception issue, I would fully agree that it led directly to Roe (Griswold v. Connecticut - 1965). There just isn't any argument. Both cases were travesties of justice and introduced us into the world of penumbras and emanations. Very sick. However, I can't agree with you that this is all the fault of Protestants. The entire society has decayed. (You must think that we have a lot of power over you in that we convinced such an overwhelming majority of Catholics to use birth control.) "We" did not. As I have said before to others, if Catholics voted (en masse) like African Americans, most of the social issues in this country, that we agree upon, would be solved.

"Would you say that God changed His plan based on Adam's choice? IOW, was it God's original plan that all people would be born immortal on earth, but man foiled this plan?"

Your question points up the difficulty for finite creatures like ourselves speaking about an infinite Being like God and the limitations our finite state has on the language we use to talk about God. The concept of plans or planning can have meaning only in a finite context where time has meaning. But for God, what meaning can time have save as an observable state? I suppose the quick answer is "No, we did not, do not and cannot foil His "plans"" but that's not satisfactory at all because the question presumes something, planning, which is not an attribute of God, at least as we understand the word.

"Deification? I know you and Kolo have talked about theosis, becoming more "God-like". "Deification" implies an idea to me of becoming "as a God", or "equal to God". Does it go to this extent, or is it an unreachable goal?"

The concept isn't that we become God, or the equal to God but rather "as gods" as +Athanasius the Great puts in "De Incarnatione". Personally I think +Gregory Palamas describes it better in The Triads:

"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostases. As we have seen, those privileged to be united to God so as to become one spirit with Him - as St. Paul said, 'He who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit with Him' (I Cor. 6:17) - are not united to God with respect to His essence, since all theologians testify that with respect to His essence God suffers no participation.

Moreover, the hypostatic union is fulfilled only in the case of the Logos, the God-man.

Thus those privileged to attain union with God are united to Him with respect to His energy; and the 'spirit', according to which they who cleave to God are one with Him, is and is called the uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit, but not the essence of God...."

And in this:

"We unite ourselves to Him [God], in so far as this is possible, by participating in the godlike virtues and by entering into communion with Him through prayer and praise. Because the virtues are similitudes of God, to participate in them puts us in a fit state to receive the Deity, yet it does not actually unite us to Him. But prayer through its sacral and hieratic power actualizes our ascent to and union with the Deity, for it is a bond between noetic creatures and their Creator."

FK, notice how +Palamas soundly denies that we can become united with the "essence" of God. If you look at most Greek icons showing Christ, you will see the words "W WN". This name doesn't translate into English in a satisfactory way, but at base it means "The Ultimate Being or Reality" It implies that this Being is beyond any existence we comprehend and is the source of everything out of nothing. Thus the Cappadocian Fathers, as I am fond of remembering, said "I believe in God; God does not "exist"." For this reason we as created beings cannot share in His essence but can only share in the divine likeness (have union with the divine energies or put another way, experience and exist within the divine, uncreated light) through theosis. To believe otherwise would be some sort of Hinduism or Buddhism.

Given that you have said that God experiences all time simultaneously, how would you put the fall into the context of God's plan? (I know you know that God is omniscient.)

Well, from God's perspective, if we can assume we can even talk about it, the Plan has been devised from all eternity and is done. God is there. We aren't. He sees Adam in Paradise and He sees saved humanity in Paradise at the End of Times. Our detour does not change His plan. God's plan was to create man in His image and likeness, who will be in communion with Him.

Now, I have seen many models of this. Mine is perhaps naive but it works for me: God stands with his feet apart and looks down. He sees both feet at the same time and that distance is eternity. We are little ants on the ground between his feet. God has cleared a small portion of the ground to show the path between His feet, but some ants wonder off because they are curious or because they see something to the side and wish to investigate. Some get too from from the trail and get lost. Those who stick to the trail reach the other foot eventually, even if their path is not exactly straight.

Now, God could have placed all the ants into a tube stretched from one foot to the next, in which case none of the ants would be lost, but they would also not be free.

was it God's original plan that all people would be born immortal on earth, but man foiled this plan?

Maybe you should ask yourself if God made Adam and Eve in Paradise so they can become corrupt and die? Did God destroy His own crown-jewels intentionally? If God wants man in Paradise in His image and likeness and Adam and Eve were what He wanted, and that's where He wants people to be, why would He then create the chaos that resulted?

I think it makes more sense that we are the culprits of the destruction of our own blessings rather than God, Who, after, all gave them to us.

should be noted the very high regards Irenaeus had for the infallibility of the scriptures, the belief that God is omniscience and omnipotent, and the very low regards he placed upon man's ability to interpret the holy scriptures

And we don't? Church Tradition (not tradition of men) is gorunded in Scripture. What the Church teaches can not be in conflict with the Scripture. What does the Church teach that is scripturally untrue or unsound? Do you find Holy Trinity or Christ's duality fully defined in the Bible? Of course not! For if they were, we wouldn't have had Nestroians and Arians, and Sabellians, and so on, who confused these truths.

The interpretation of the Scripture is not everyone's individual prerogative. There is only one Truth and it is not relative. The early Church recognized that and the Church today realizes that. We simply can't have billions of Bible readers, each claiming a different version of the Truth.

your interpretations come from a bunch of old men who sit around and say, "Yep that's what we think it means."

I feel so sorry for you. I do. You must have a terrible need to be important, so you achieve that sense of importance by denigrating people whom you have never bothered to read, for if you have, you would have never made such a statement. But, ignorance is bliss, as they say.

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.

Maybe this is why the version of the Greek New Testament that he assembled and edited was seen as so bad, even by the scholars of his era (invented Greek words, back translation of portions of the Vulgate into Greek, Vulgate interpolations added into the text, etc).

He was, though, the principal force of the Alumbramiento in Spain. Many of these people, targets of the Spanish Inquisition, fled from Spain in the early days of Spanish exploration and colonization of the Americas. They tended to respect the value of labor with one's own hands (much like the monks of the Middle Ages) instead of embodying the classical Roman and Greek disparagement of physical labor and invention. They were the anti-conquistadores: businessmen and farmers. As a result, they settled areas of Latin America where the pickings for gold, etc., were poor. Since then, these areas have tended to have the most stable politics and economies over the succeeding centuries. A classic example of the difference between who settled which areas is that of Costa Rica and Nicaragua. This phenomenon was described by Mark Falcoff from the American Enterprise Institute back in the 80's.

I gave you scripture and explained it in 1995, and you respond with sneering? If you have an interpretation of these passages that accounts for every verse as mine does, I'd be curious to see it. I do not mind a comic relief either, if that is what you've got.

We are lucky. As to what would have happened if Eve changes her mind, or Mary, or Judas, the scripture does not tell. Perhaps God does not want us to know?

Although I tried, I don't know if I was actually funny or not, but I assure you that my "sneer switch" was turned off when I posted. :) I was trying to be half smart-aleck, but I was also trying to support Harley's statement.

I was trying to get to a key issue of to what degree is God dependent on man? We both agree that God already knows everything that's going to happen and all that we'll do. The question is: does God alter, or even make, His plan BASED on what human decisions are, or does God make His true and perfect plan from the beginning and "arrange" for it to come true? I simply vote for the latter.

We appear to differ on who deserves the credit for the unfolding of world history exactly in line with ancient prophecy. I was pointing out that it cannot be by accident or luck that God wins EVERY time! Are there not more than 250 messianic prophecies (major and minor) in the OT? How do you explain that they ALL came true if any one man in the pipeline (over hundreds of years) could have thwarted the whole thing by choosing incorrectly? I cannot explain it, other than, it wasn't luck. Why in the universe would God leave anything to luck?

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.