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

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

[HarleyD]

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erasmus On the Freedom of the Will

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luther's Arguments Against Erasmus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Battle of the Biblical Texts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Main Issues and Implications of Each View

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Importance of This Controversy Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HarleyD]

2Ti 3:15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Funny Timothy knew what the "sacred writings" were. I suppose he failed to informed the rest of the Church and it took everyone else 300 years to figure it out?

[HarleyD]

"The authorship of those books, which are nonetheless considered inspired, is not certain, HD. Hate to burst your bubble."

Then couldn't they be Gnostic writings the Church has erroneously declared "inspired"? The Church has made mistakes in the past. Why not now? In the end you undermine your own faith.

Our Lord Jesus had much to say to those who put tradition before God's written word:

Mat 15:3 And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

Mat 15:6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Mar 7:8 "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."

Mar 7:9 He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

Mar 7:13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."

There must have been the written word somewhere or all of these statements would be a little crazy. And, btw, our Lord Jesus was pretty hard on those who focused on tradition.

[jo kus]

I suppose the way I see it, it isn't the same at all. We both know the Apostles sinned and were subject to error

We both agree that the Apostles COULD NOT be in error when teaching the faith. Paul in Galatians even mentions that he KNOWS THEY cannot be mistaken! "As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Gal 1:9). There is a big difference between sinning and not teaching error. God doesn't protect men from sinning. Paul mentions in Romans 7 that he HIMSELF continues to war against the flesh. But yet, he KNOWS he cannot err in teaching the faith. Why? Because the Spirit of God is protecting his proclamation.

But if the Bible is inerrant, then it could not have been subject to human error

You seem to be lumping "sin" and "error" in the same definition. Again, we believe that the Apostles and their successors, due to Christ's promise, cannot err when, as a group, teach the faith. This includes putting pen to paper, teaching in public to the Galatians, or deciding what books infallibly belong in Scripture.

Through God's given grace and faith, I am able to see that the Bible is true and accept it.

That is pretty much the same argument that Mormons use. We have discussed the anthropology of man before, and you seem to agree that man is at the very least a wounded specimen, incapable of coming to God alone. Yet, now you "know" that your wounded (or depraved?) intellect is able to point out what Scripture is - alone and without mediation from another? I find this an interesting argument - "I know that Scripture is God's Word - because my (depraved) mind tells me it is". Really, is that it?

I don't see this as changing my faith all the time, the core hasn't changed, I just see it as learning more correctly the nature of the true faith that God already gave me.

Sure. I can agree with that. We all form conceptions in our minds on the faith. I believe God sometimes corrects ideas that we hold that are in error. But we are wounded in intellect and the will. It is difficult to rely on such things for correction-sake, because we can, as humans, convince ourselves of anything being true...

So, even when I teach new Christians something, my attitude is never "trust me", I have been a Christian for a long time, etc. I always say take a look at what I've said, see if it matches scripture and pray about it. The Spirit will then lead as He will

God mediates Himself through your teaching. People see you as trustworthy because of your WITNESS. They see your way of life, how you follow the Lord and your belief in Him. They see you as at peace - different from other people. They want that peace, that assuredness of God's presence in their lives. You are forgetting what moves people to conversion. God works through other people. The Scriptures are not meant to be read alone separate from His Church. The Scriptures merely help to verify the proclamation that needs no Scriptures - JESUS IS LORD! Our witness is stronger, in the eyes of others, than a book. The reason people look to the book in the first place is because they trust your witness and your word that your source for your peace is God and His Word - found in Scriptures.

I'd agree it is debatable whether he was also referring to (what would become) the NT

Debatable?! How about "no doubt"! Paul was refering to a book written before Timothy's youth! Couldn't be the NT... In any case, we don't find a "table of contents" that is inspired and found in Scriptures. The Book of James doesn't list all the other books that belong. We have to rely on the decisions of men to determine WHAT is Scriptures. Perhaps you find that offensive. But that is the unarguable truth of the matter. If you believe that the Bible is infallible and inerrant, how does one explain that fallible men put it together? If one is infallible, so was the other.

Wouldn't you agree that the Bible stands alone in the history of religious literature as the only book, written through many different people, across hundreds of years, with a firmly consistent message without contradiction, etc.?

Of course, because God guided men protected by the Spirit to compile it. Naturally, if they could compile such an infallible book - and Paul could say their teachings were infallible, I have a difficult time understanding why the Spirit of Truth doesn't protect the ordinary special teachings of these same men.

Every single prophecy which subject has come to pass has turned out to be absolutely true.

Be careful on that one, brother. Prophesy is subject to interpretation. We interpret the OT prophesy has having been fulfilled by Jesus - such is what we have been taught. However, the OT never mentions Jesus of Nazareth as being the Messiah. WE as Christians say that. They Jews, the authors of the OT, did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. What this means is that prophesy is subject to interpretation. Prophesy ITSELF does not prove Jesus was the Messiah, because prophesy is by nature vague.

If you are trying to start a movement, would you highlight stuff like that? Can any other book say 'yes' to all of those things?

Please don't misunderstand me. I agree that the Bible is God's Inspired Word. It is just that I believe that based on the witness of other men - men who were willing to die for their witness. Men who could have just as easily remained under the protection offered their Jewish brothers (an accepted religion in Rome) by not that a man rose from the dead. Their way of life, their teachings, the miracles reported even by hostile witnesses. And this continued for centuries. The truth of the matter is that either Jesus was a lunatic, a liar, or our Lord. Based on what we have, the witness of His followers, based on how so many people have followed this Man, I can't help but think He was the latter. But to accept that the Scripture is God-breathed FIRST is a circular argument that does not stand up to critical argument. We believe the Bible is the Word of God BECAUSE of those men, not the other way around!

men had nothing to do with their organization into what became the Bible.

I would suggest you do some reading on the forming of the Canon of Scripture. You are beginning to sound like you think that the scrolls of James had a stamp on them that said "Inspired Scripture, please hold for 300 years until the Council of Carthage"... Start by reading who Marcion was - and why HIS verison of the Canon was not taken up. THe reason why, of course, is because the men of the Church already KNEW what were the teachings of the Apostles. They HAD the Deposit of Faith. Thus, Marcion didn't ring true - not because of Scripture, but because of Tradition.

I'm just saying that God was the final editor and controlled the entire process. He allowed the personalities of the scribes to come through, but the message was all God's.

Yes, of course. However, again, I ask you to read about the formation of the canon of Scripture. Many Christian commmunities felt that the Spirit was leading them to include the First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians as Scripture. Others thought the Shepherd of Hermes belonged. Many didn't agree that 2nd Peter was Scripture. Some didn't think the Book of Revelation was from God. Isn't it obvious that individual men are not given the ability to infallibly determine what IS the Scriptures and to collate them into one book? This took the Church, infallibly guided by the Spirit, to make such judgments.

Why were these fundamentals left out, or not clearer? Even with a traditional paradigm, aren't there too many things left wide open for the future Protestants to assail later?

Apparently, the writers of the Scriptures didn't foresee the Protestant Reformation and their decision to ignore the Church's authority on such matters. I ask you to consider this....When you write a letter, do you write EVERYTHING you did to someone? No, you focus on something that sticks out in your mind, something you consider important. You don't write a letter and include how to eat a bowl of cereal! Thus, since the vast majority of the NT is letters, why would anyone expect everything taught by the first Christians to be in there? Doesn't Paul make it clear that he taught many things to his communities, some of them found in the written traditions, some not? In the quote from Galatians above, isn't it clear that Paul talked to the Galatians before he WROTE to them?

And why would he rehash EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE that he taught them in a letter? For the Protestants who would leave the Church 1500 years later??? Tne purpose of a letter is to address particulars, not to teach people of 1000 years latter the history of the Christian doctrines and beliefs. We write to people, understanding the nuances of our langauges, the customs of our times, the society that we live in. Historians regret that Paul and other didn't write more, because we have precious little knowledge of the times. But the fact remains that Paul was no different then we would have been. Paul was addressing problems and exhorting his communities, not writing a full exposition of the Catholic faith, all its practices and doctrines, in his letters. He understood that was the point of having an authoritative group of men. Did he not ordain men to continue his work, or did he leave a book to teach future men? And yet, you seem to forget this and place your faith in a book alone which is not self-attesting?

To me that is "a" proof that we are right and Arius is wrong, plus, if that's what the JWs say then enough said. :) And, doesn't the Spirit lead both of us to the same place (as we perceive it) on so many issues? I think that's great.

Unfortunately, as the existence of Protestantism shows, men do not agree on what is "valid" Christian teaching on many issues, some being of eternal importance. Without an heirarchial authority that is accepted by the Church, Arius would have just started another church and dragged away more unwitting catholics to eternal doom. The intent of Christ was to establish an authoritative body who knew HIS teaching and could bind and loosen on such matters.

My argument to Arius would not have been so much "that is not what we have been taught" as much as it would have been "that's not what the totality of scripture teaches".

Scripture alone does not interpret itself. Doesn't thousands of denominations convince you otherwise? These are not just on minor issues, brother. Look at the Arminius vs. Calvin discussions. Is Baptism an ordinance or a sacrament necessary for salvation? The Eucharist? I find this particularly scandalous, because NOWHERE in the Scriptures do we find that Christians had many faiths and beliefs, "as long as they agreed on the main issues". That is the relativistic individualism of Protestantism, not what is taught in Scripture. We are taught one faith, one Baptism, and one Lord. We partake in one loaf. We are one Body, not many. Communion implies a sharing of beliefs. Unfortunately, we don't share in beliefs on key issues.

Your continued reliance on the "Spirit" is purely subjective. What is the difference between what you see as the "Spirit" and what might be your own fancy? How do we identify between the two? One month ago, you thought the "Spirit" was leading you to believe in "the absolute assuredness of salvation" and then today, the "Spirit" leads you to "perseverance of the Saints"? Why is it that last month, the Spirit was leading you to the former belief, and then, today, He has changed His mind, leading you somewhere else? Isn't this proof enough that the Spirit doesn't lead every one of our actions and beliefs and thoughts? Merely identifying your current beliefs with the "Spirit leading me" is another way of justifying yourself and your beliefs. How do you KNOW such thoughts are from the Spirit, and not your own intellect, or even worse, Satan???

If the Spirit doesn't (ultimately or directly) lead me, and I'm just making it up, then I'm not a Christian in the first place.

We must discern WHAT the Spirit is saying. We cannot equate every thought we have as coming from the Spirit. That is why we cannot trust our own intellects and wills to infallibly lead us to God's will and teachings. Our human condition REQUIRES a protected body to lead us, since we cannot infallibly follow Christ alone - we interject too many errors into the process. The Spirit leads us always in line with how He leads the visible Body of Christ. When we read something and take it in contradistinction from how He leads the Body, we can be assured that we are treading dangerous ground. Beware of pride. The Spirit does not lead us astray from the Body.

On the question of who's to say whether my interpretation or that of the JW is correct, I can simply rest in how the Spirit leads me

You won't convince many people on that argument, because they say the same thing. Either the Spirit is lying, or one (or both) are misinterpreting what the Spirit is saying. The question, then, is :" how do you discern infallibly the Spirit"? How do you know the JW is wrong and you are right? BOTH of you 'claim' the Spirit! What an impasse. Just this example should be proof that one treads on dangerous ground when they use private interpretation and claiming that "the Spirit is leading me" - a virtual impossiblity considering the Spirit supposedly leads so many others in different directions. I will call this pride and leave it to you to discern if I am correct or not.

Regards

[jo kus]

Apostolic tradition did not come first. The Hebrews were writing down things long before the Church was ever formed.

You mean like the Messiah would rise from the dead? I said "APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS", not Hebrew traditions...

And to say that the scriptures are not necessary flies in the face of many of the early church fathers' writings where they relied upon the scriptural teachings (please is Iraeneus works).

Please. You don't know what you are talking about. The following are all from St. Ireneaus. It is clear that he did not do away with the Apostolic Tradition...

"To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition,(3) believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible." Scripture is not absolutely necessary to follow Christ.

"...they (Gnostics) proceed when they find anything in the multitude of things contained in the Scriptures which they can adopt and accommodate to their baseless speculations." the danger of reading Scripture without Tradition

"I carefully noticed the passages which they garble from the Scriptures, with the view of adapting them to their own fictions." same thing. Private interpretation without tradtion = garbling fictions.

"But if they had known the Scriptures, and been taught by the truth, they would have known" So who IS the truth? The Church is the teacher of truth.

"WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles." The Church is the source of Apostolic teaching, which came FIRST.

"But since this man is the only one who has dared openly to mutilate the Scriptures" Again, mutilating Scripture implies there is a particular WAY to read them.

"These things, too, were preached to the Gentiles by word, without [the aid of] the Scriptures: wherefore, also, they who preached among the Gentiles underwent greater labour." Isn't that quite obvious which came first?

"Chapter 26, Book IV...THE TRUE EXPOSITION OF THE SCRIPTURES IS TO BE FOUND IN THE CHURCH ALONE. Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church,--those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismaries puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory." This is what St. Ireneaus thinks about people who think they can interpret Scriptures outside of the Church

"And then shall every word also seem consistent to him,(6) if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out."

There are many others, but you should get the gist of things. St. Ireneaus clearly believes that the Church is the sole source of authoritatively interpetating Scriptures. It is not to be read outside of Apostolic Teachings. And finally, he realized that oral teachings were sufficient to instruct the faithful, thus, the Bible was not absolutely necessary.

Regards

[jo kus]

Funny Timothy knew what the "sacred writings" were. I suppose he failed to informed the rest of the Church and it took everyone else 300 years to figure it out?

Isn't it quite obvious that Paul is refering to the Old Testament? Those of Timothy's YOUTH! The New Testament was not even written yet...

Regards

[HarleyD]

Paul's letters that you are saying weren't around for 300 years were considered by Peter to be inspired:

2Pe 3:15-16 "...and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. "

I believe your position on 1 Peter is that it is inspired by God. Well if it is inspired then Peter (your first Pope) is saying that Paul's writings are inspired. Therefore the very letters Timothy was reading were gospel and considered inspired, that according to Peter.

The Four Gospels by Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2nd century

There are four gospels and only four, neither more nor less: four like the points of the compass, four like the chief directions of the wind. The Church, spread all over the world, has in the gospels four pillars and four winds blowing wherever people live.

These four gospels are in actual fact one single Gospel, a fourfold Gospel inspired by the one Spirit, a Gospel which has four aspects representing the work of the Son of God.

These aspects are like the four cherubs described by Ezekiel. In the prophet's words: `The first had the like ness of a lion,' symbolizing the masterly and kingly role of Christ in priesthood; `the second had the appearance of an ox,' the beast of sacrifice, recalling the perfect sacrifice of Christ; `the third had the face of a man,' undoubtedly referring to the coming of the Lord in human nature; `and the fourth had the aspect of a flying eagle,' with a clear allusion to the grace of the Spirit hovering over the Church. [cf. Ezek. 1:10; Rev. 4:7]

The four Gospels correspond to these symbols. Christ is at the center of them.

John actually speaks of his kingly and glorious Sonship to the Father in his opening words: `In the beginning was the Word.' [John 1:1] Luke begins with Zaccharias offering sacrifice. Matthew chooses first of all the Lord's human genealogy. And Mark leads off by calling on the prophetic Spirit which invests humanity from on high.

Irenaeus knew about the four gospels as early as the 2nd century and believed them to be inspired. I would submit those who are saying the gospels weren't around until the 3-4 century better look at Irenaeus. He knew where they were and he knew them to be inspired before any creeds of the Church.

The two meanings of the Bible by Origen, c. 185-254

The reason why the divine power has give us the Scriptures is not solely to present facts according to the literal interpretation of the narrative. If one looks to the letter of the text, some of the facts have not actually happened and would be irrational and illogical.

Granted , the facts that have happened in the literal sense are much more numerous than the facts that have been added and have only a spiritual meaning.

All the same, in the face of certain pages the reader feels embarrassed. Without accurate research it is not possible to discover if a fact that seems historical actually happened according to the literal sense of the words or if it did not happen at all.

By keeping the commandment of the Lord to "search the Scriptures" (John 5:39), one ought to examine with care and attention where the literal meaning is historical and where it is not.

In Scripture not everything is objectively historical in the literal sense. Sometimes it is obvious that the result of taking it literally is impossible. But the divine Scripture, taken as a whole, has a spiritual meaning.

Origen also stated that the “divine power has give us the Scriptures” and to look at the “text”.

Sorry but it is completely wrong to suggest things were handed down by voice until the 3rd or 4th century. Not only does the Holy Scriptures states this isn’t so, (I would hope the Roman Catholics would admitted the Book of 1 Peter isn't wrong) but as I stated earlier the early church fathers also believed. Granted they believe the interpretation should be held by the councils but that a different matter. They held a very high regards for the scripture and if they for once thought that it could be passed on through word of mouth it was only because they never assumed the text would be so thoroughly abused by those inside the Church.

It is a sad commentary on the Roman Catholic Church and those in this system today that they would attack the only credible source on which the Christian faith is founded. It goes back to the tradition of men.

The Catholic-Protestant Debate on Biblical Authority

[Forest Keeper]

Part ii -

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.

I did not have any idea about this. Thanks very much for the explanation. This will put a whole new light on how I read the news about these Vatican statements. And, I certainly believe that the Pope is no slouch as a private theologian :) I also did not know that the idea of the immaculate conception of Mary is so relatively new? Was it the case that the idea was always "there", but was only made "official" in the last 150 years, or is this truly new?

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.

It would depend on the habit, and there certainly is a line that, once crossed, would require removal. I do not presume at all to dictate to the Catholic Church what that line should be, however, I know that you agree with me that clergy of any Christian faith should always be held to higher standards than the non-clerical father in your example.

Thank you very much for the compliment on open mindedness. :)

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…

That is the way I took it, but I shuttered at the implications, following up on above. I appreciate that lay people like me have a chance through invincible ignorance, but wouldn't you have to say that my pastor is necessarily doomed? How about Billy Graham? By this reasoning, all well trained and very learned leaders of Protestant churches are actively leading people away from the Church of Christ. INCLUDING CHILDREN. They must have special places in hell reserved for them, no? :)

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, ...

It was you, and I cannot agree more with the sentiment. :)

[On whether there is a need for a hierarchy] 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.

I don't see truth as a matter of opinion at all, I might be tolerant of a person out of love, but certainly not to her views if I believe them to be in error. I would then work very hard, as you would, to make the case. I do believe there is one and only one truth, whether I know it, or like it, or not. I seek to know it and reckon it, and of course in my biased opinion, on balence, so far so good! :)

In addition, while I think there is only one truth on a given matter, I can sometimes give some leeway on the way to get there. For example, we both believe that the Spirit indwells and guides the saved person. This is the truth. We disagree on how that happens, you believe it comes through the Church, and I believe it happens in a more direct manner. The "core" issue is the existence of the indwelling Spirit. I respectfully and strongly disagree about the mechanics, but I choose to focus on the bigger issue. I think I get this approach from what Jesus said concerning John the Baptist:

Matt. 11:11, 18-19 : "11 I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. ... 18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' But wisdom is proved right by her actions."

They had completely different methods of preaching. John was "fire and brimstone", while Jesus was calmer and more declarative. Both were absolutely correct and arrived at the same place via different means. Both spoke absolute truth. I still remember how much that understanding knocked me over when I first learned it. Jesus was certainly "tolerant" of John's methods even though they were not His own. He sacrificed no truth to hold this view.

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. ... 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.

You certainly did explain that God graces us to be able to cooperate in free will to accept Him. My point, as I understand you, is that the decision remains your own to be saved, this is your free will.

Here's what I don't get: I think that you say that God graces us all with enough to make a decision for or against God. Some say 'yes', some say 'no'. OK, why would anyone say "NO"? Who wouldn't accept such a gift? Does God give more grace to some than others? Are some people born with a larger capacity for cooperation than others? Would that come from God, since God created "all of" all of us? Doesn't God Himself create the free will that we would use? (This goes back to my use of the word "luck".) What separates the 'yes' people from the 'no' people?

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.

On many matters, there is clearly no contradistinction. On others, it is precisely a matter of interpretation, which is why I put it in the context of what the Spirit reveals to us. I know the Catholic theology is well developed enough not to allow patent error to all readers (e.g. Jesus never lived on earth in human form). So, all of our theologies have critics from other Christians. Among Christian faiths, this does not bother me to a huge extent, because if someone I disagree with is really a Christian, then he will be in heaven and when I see him I can say "NAH, NAH!" :)

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?

For whatever current fancy I might have I would first look to scripture to the best of my knowledge. After that, I might look to others of like faith and learn their teachings. As we touched on recently, on this thread I did have a fancy, and it was wrong. I didn't know the scripture well enough to realize it, and I have heard people I respect promote "once saved always saved" so that was my fancy. I am grateful to God that I have been touched and further sanctified and have learned a better teaching.

However, I also believe that I could have gone for the rest of my life without learning this new teaching and still have gone to heaven. I "KNOW" I will never learn a new teaching now that will get me into heaven where I was lost before (now).

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?

I know for sure that the devil tries to lead me away from God each and every day. But, I also know that I am protected and that God keeps His own. God will not allow me to don the Nikes and go chasing after Haley's comet. I have said that I make no claim of a monopoly on perfect interpretation of all scripture. :) My faith says that the Spirit will always point me toward the narrow road, even if I sometimes stray through briers or rocky sidepaths.

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”).

I thank you for the very kind words. I am in great admiration of your vast knowledge of scripture. You represent your faith exceedingly well.

God bless.

[jo kus]

Paul's letters that you are saying weren't around for 300 years were considered by Peter to be inspired.

Say what? When did I say that the letters of Paul weren't around for 300 years?

I believe your position on 1 Peter is that it is inspired by God

You mean 2 Peter. And it was not clear from the Church's teachers that IT was considered Scripture. It was one of those books that was called the NT Deuterocannonicals, along with 2 John, 3 John, and Jude. There was not universal agreement on 2 Peter being written by Peter HIMSELF. Most scholars would agree that Peter didn't write that letter. It is not important to me whether he wrote it or not, as it is NOW part of the Canon. However, IF so many people didn't accept 2 Peter as Scripture for some time, then 2 Peter 3:16 falls on deaf ears on determining the canon....

The letter Timothy was reading is not the same one from his youth. That is what Paul is refering to in 2 Timothy, not a current writing in his hand!

Irenaeus knew about the four gospels as early as the 2nd century and believed them to be inspired. I would submit those who are saying the gospels weren't around until the 3-4 century better look at Irenaeus. He knew where they were and he knew them to be inspired before any creeds of the Church.

I never argued that no one was aware of the Four Gospels! Nor did I ever say anything about the men of the Church having to wait without inspired writings for 300 years! The Councils of the late 300's definitively set the Canon of Scriptures. There would be no more disagreements - 2 Peter WAS Scripture! 1st Clement of Rome to the Corinthians was NOT Scripture! I ask you - what do you think guided these men to know what Scripture was? The teaching of the Apostolic Church, that's what. St. Ireneaus is clear that Apostolic Succession guarantees the contents of Scriptures. Know the chronology and theology of Christianity. What came first? Do you think for a second that the second generation of Christians, having unearthed a writing from "Paul", would have accepted it if it said something about the fourth person of the Trinity (as St. Ireneaus argues against in his writings)? It is the teachings received, protected by the Spirit, that verifies WHAT IS Scriptures.

Sorry but it is completely wrong to suggest things were handed down by voice until the 3rd or 4th century

Who made that statement? It is quite obvious that the Church gradually accepted particular books as representing the teachings they had been given. The later councils merely defined the entire Canon, verifying that there were NONE left out, and ALL were from God. Only an authoritative heirarchy could make that determination. Only THEY could tell what was the totality of Scriptures. However, it is obvious that the Church Fathers, based on what they were TAUGHT, identified some of Scriptures before it was officially sanctioned by the Church.

They held a very high regards for the scripture and if they for once thought that it could be passed on through word of mouth it was only because they never assumed the text would be so thoroughly abused by those inside the Church.

Of course they highly regarded Scriptures. They taught what they had received ALREADY. The Scriptures verified their faith, what was passed down. I would suggest to you that very few of the first Church Fathers even READ the 27 books that we now call Scriptures! I would posit that they only read a few here and there. When they refer to Scriptures, most of them refer to the Old Testament, although as time moves on, they identify this word with the Gospels and some other Epistles. What is important to remember is what came first and what determined the lenses that the Fathers read a particular book - and accepted it or discarded it. The reason why the Gospel of Thomas was discarded was its contents. The Fathers KNEW what the proper contents of faith were. This writing didn't match what was given. Thus, it was out. Thus, Apostolic Tradition was so important to them.

It is a sad commentary on the Roman Catholic Church and those in this system today that they would attack the only credible source on which the Christian faith is founded. It goes back to the tradition of men

It's a sad commentary on yourself to not understand what Cahtholics are writing. We are saying you cannot discard Apostolic Traditions because IT was what determined what WAS Scripture in the first place. By discarding something on your own authority, what would St. Ireneaus say about you? Would you be considered orthodox or a heretic like Marcion, picking and choosing your own version of Scriptures, your own version of beliefs, and your own way of coming to God?

Is Christianity a revealed religion or one made up by men? That's the question you should ask yourself. If you pick and choose, it is no longer revealed, it is from you - it is no longer faith.

Regards

[annalex]

[bringing people to Christ] was not the early Church criterion

You are right, the criteria for canonicity are different; I simply meant correctness of a particular statement.

baptism is not the promise of salvation

Baptism is a part of the promise, but not the entire promise; this is why I said "through" not "with".

[annalex]

You neglect to quote the preceding verse. This is the whole passage:

14 But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

(2 Timothy 3)

What do we see here? First, verse 14 refers to oral teaching. Second, that the scripture thus described is something Timothy knew from infancy, which means the Old Testament. Third, that such scripture that is inspired is useful in teaching, correction, and generally in every good work. Now, what do we not see? We do not see that Timothy knows the New Testament Canon, which as of St. Paul's writing did not exist yet. Generally, in this passage we do not see any way to tell which scripture is inspired.

[annalex]

Paul's letters that you [jo kus] are saying weren't around for 300 years

Jo kus is not saying that.

Irenaeus knew about the four gospels as early as the 2nd century and believed them to be inspired.

No one argues otherwise.

it is completely wrong to suggest things were handed down by voice until the 3rd or 4th century

Which "things"? Some were, some were not. Once a book is written it is handed down by script, not by voice. The Epistles and the Gospels were all written in the 1 century; I don't think anyone has argued otherwise.

[Forest Keeper]

Thank you both for your answers on OT history. This is very interesting.

[annalex]

You are very welcome. Thank you for asking and for listening.

[HarleyD]

What do we see here? First, verse 14 refers to oral teaching. Second, that the scripture thus described is something Timothy knew from infancy, which means the Old Testament. Third, that such scripture that is inspired is useful in teaching, correction, and generally in every good work. Now, what do we not see? We do not see that Timothy knows the New Testament Canon, which as of St. Paul's writing did not exist yet.

Arguing the development of the Bible with Catholics is a futile cause. When I point out that some don't believe the written scriptures came in to existent until the 3-4 century and I'm told I'm wrong that no body states this (please refer to former posts). THEN those same people turn right around and say there wasn't anything written until the 3-4 century.

Paul hands Timothy a letter, a letter which Peter declares to be inspired and one that the Church has deemed to be inspired, and I'm told "St. Paul's writing did not exist yet." and Timothy was only reading from the Old Testament even though Timothy was reading from 1 Timothy. DUH!!! I understand it isn't REALLY inspired writing until the "Church" has said it is inspired writing. Well

1) if Peter was your first Pope, and
2) if he declared Paul's writings to be inspired, and
3) Paul sent Timothy a letter which has become 1 & 2 Timothy,

doesn't that mean that Timothy was reading from the NEW TESTAMENT? Hasn't the Church formally declared it to be inspired through Peter himself?

[annalex]

I'm told "St. Paul's writing did not exist yet." and Timothy was only reading from the Old Testament even though Timothy was reading from 1 Timothy. DUH!!!

Harley, please, get a grammar book. A Protestant grammar book will do. This is my sentence, which you quote:

We do not see that Timothy knows the New Testament Canon, which as of St. Paul's writing did not exist yet.

It parses thus:

We do not see X

X ::= Timothy knows the New Testament Canon, which Y

Y ::= as of Z did not exist yet

Z ::= St. Paul's writing

1 Timothy did exist. The canon as of the writing of 1 Timothy did not.

The scripture Timothy knew since his youth did not contain the letter St. Paul wrote to him.

The letter to Timothy is not the entire New Testament canon.

[HarleyD]

But was Timothy reading from the New Testament? It was your claim earlier that he was not.

[annalex]

Timothy was reading the letter written to him by St. Paul that centuries later became a part of the New Testament canon.

[HarleyD]

Was Timothy reading the New Testament? I take your answer as a "Yes."

[jo kus]

This will put a whole new light on how I read the news about these Vatican statements.

Even though "ordinary" statements are not necessarily infallible, we still give proper obedience to his statements! Infallibility applies only to explain the Deposit of Faith. But there are many issues that are not part of this deposit - such as "can a priest be married"? Such ecclesiastical disciplines are not part of the Faith passed down from the Apostles.

I also did not know that the idea of the immaculate conception of Mary is so relatively new? Was it the case that the idea was always "there", but was only made "official" in the last 150 years, or is this truly new?

The former. St. Justin the Martyr around 150 AD wrote about the New Eve, paralleling the New Adam of Romans 5. Him and other writers of the time (St. Ireneaus and Tertullian, for example) note that God works in parallel manners. If Adam and Eve (both sinless, they note) fell, God would "untie the knot of their discord" in the same manner - through TWO sinless people, the New Adam and New Eve. Thus, the idea of the Immaculate Conception is quite old - it is just not DOGMA - infallible teaching - until 1854, I think.

I know that you agree with me that clergy of any Christian faith should always be held to higher standards than the non-clerical father in your example.

Yes, we should just be careful and not jump the gun, remembering that the priest is a spiritual father rather than a middle manager in the Church.

"...wouldn't you have to say that my pastor is necessarily doomed? How about Billy Graham? By this reasoning, all well trained and very learned leaders of Protestant churches are actively leading people away from the Church of Christ. INCLUDING CHILDREN. They must have special places in hell reserved for them, no? :)

Seemed determine to catch me here, huh? ;-) We cannot know how much a person realizes that the Catholic Church is the TRUE Church, that it subsists within it, and that it was formed to bring people into union with Christ. Just because you are visibly not a Roman Catholic doesn't mean you have REJECTED the ACTUAL Roman Catholic Church. We would hope you are rejecting a misperception of it!

I do believe there is one and only one truth, whether I know it, or like it, or not. I seek to know it and reckon it, and of course in my biased opinion, on balence, so far so good! :)

Fair enough

we both believe that the Spirit indwells and guides the saved person. This is the truth. We disagree on how that happens, you believe it comes through the Church, and I believe it happens in a more direct manner.

The Spirit certainly can come in a "more direct manner", but not to the exclusion of the Church, which is what I believe Protestantism teaches. How can a person reject the Church that gave us the Bible, gives us the Apostolic teachings, and then claim to be following the Spirit? Protestantism rejects Catholicism's claim. Catholicism rejects Protestantism's authority to break away - admitting that some Protestants still remain, unknowingly, in the Church.

Jesus was certainly "tolerant" of John's methods even though they were not His own. He sacrificed no truth to hold this view.

I am not arguing over teaching methods, but teaching contents! John and Jesus taught the Kingdom as near. Repent and believe! The Church continues this teaching.

OK, why would anyone say "NO"? Who wouldn't accept such a gift?

Faith is the gift, correct? What is faith? "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Heb 11:1). It is not seen yet! The PROMISE made is just that - a promise of eternal life. Thus, people are free to not accept the promise for whatever reason (we've heard a number of excuses). Again, we base our faith on the word of others - that God speaks to us through the Scripture is based on faith, not on visible reality.

Does God give more grace to some than others? Are some people born with a larger capacity for cooperation than others? Would that come from God, since God created "all of" all of us? Doesn't God Himself create the free will that we would use?

Yes to all.

I also believe that I could have gone for the rest of my life without learning this new teaching and still have gone to heaven. I "KNOW" I will never learn a new teaching now that will get me into heaven where I was lost before (now).

Perhaps. I don't agree that we can infallibly know that we are of the elect. That takes away from God's freedom to choose whether we deserve heaven or not. Or to condemn whom He wills. Perhaps in the future, you will learn of a greater appreciation of the Eucharist, partake in it, and learn to be more virtuous, more humble, etc. Who can say what this "new" devotion will mean on our spiritual lives. God wants us to come to the fullness of the Truth, not to "just barely make it"!

My faith says that the Spirit will always point me toward the narrow road, even if I sometimes stray through briers or rocky sidepaths.

:-) as long as you can identify the "voice of the Spirit", that would work great! Sometimes, that is hard to do. Discernment is a difficult ART (not a science) that takes a lot of work and prayer. My point is that we are given more of God's instruments of graces through the Church's liturgical life, through her devotional life. I am not saying that a person CANNOT attain to heaven without this, but it makes matters easier, for those who are aware of the gift God has given us. If people knew what the Church was, and they desired to enter into Christ, they would RUN to enter the Church, since Christ works most powerfully through His Body, His Bride, the Church

I thank you for the very kind words. I am in great admiration of your vast knowledge of scripture. You represent your faith exceedingly well.

NO!!! You are tempting my primary vice, pride! Careful, Joe...Ooo, head is starting to swell... Danger, danger...Engage "humility manuevers"... "Joe, you don't know what you are talking about. And you got a lot of work before you could even hope to know the Old Testament like your separated brothers..." AH, swelling coming down. Much better...! :-)

Pride puffs up, love builds up.

Brother in Christ

[annalex]

No, according to 1 Timothy, Timothy was not reading the New Testament. He was reading a letter that centuries later became a part of it per infallible determination of the Church.