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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

disagree that a beautiful hymn has the same hand of God behind it that the book of John does

You asked in what sense God has authorship of the Bible, and I say that in both cases, of inspired inerrant scripture, and a hymn or an icon, God uses a human worker who receives an approval from the living body of Christ, the Church. Definitely there is a difference between canonical scripture and other works of the Holy Tradition, and that difference is defined by the Church: one is inerrant when interpreted through the eye of the Church, the other is a contribution to the inerrancy of the entire living Word that abides in the Church, but for some reason or another (how can a hymn be inerrant?) is not declared inerrant.

aren't all Paul's letters written to specific audiences, and are thus not applicable to the rest of us Christians?

This is not what I am saying. We should listen to Paul, but the fact that his, and most other, writings are written to correct errors and confirm historical facts for an audience that has already received the Word in the form of the Holy Tradition illustrates that it is the Holy Tradition, and not written scripture alone that is the Gospel of Christ.

If you and I met the same man, and we each gave him an opposite teaching, would you judge the correctness of the teaching by which of us convinced the man?

Again, this is not the right corollary of what I am saying. If Jake and Jim met a man and each spoke to him, and Jake sent him to Christ then Jake spoke the truth, even though Jim might have succeeded in sending him to Satan.

I understand that you believe that God has deposited "the truth" into the hands of a very select few men. We believe that God has done the same thing, but just to "more" men.

The issue is, which men. Protestantism encourages a democratic model, where not just more men, but everyone, decide moral issues for themselves. Communism says that the state decides. Catholicism says that the truth has to be historically tested and conform with the deposit of faith as preserved by the Church, an institution that persisted since Christ, before it can become social teaching, irrespective of what the state says and what the elections say.

Thank-you for the ping, Alex.

FK, I have re-read many of the posts on this thread and I have sincerely tried to understand the apparent rejection by Protestantism of the first 1500 years of Christian theology on salvation in favor of a once saved always saved mindset. Where does this come from? I have read the proof texts presented, but when I read the Fathers on this, I see a unanimity of understanding and expression which is nearly without peer in Christian belief and that is that salvation, or theosis, is a very individual process which most of us "work out with fear and trembling" in our liturgical communities. It is also clear, especially from the Desert Fathers who were writing for the instruction of their monks, that even the most advanced in spirituality and in spiritual practices can come up short, even end up destroyed, if, in their presumptuous arrogance and pride, they either never develope, or do not exercise the divine gift of discernment.

This idea of an instant salvation I think is particularly dangerous, especially to people who really believe this has happened to them because then they can fall prey to all sorts of demonic mischief. Indeed,it seems to me that if anyone, and I do mean anyone, believes that he or she is saved in a particular instant and that is quite literally the end of that, the ticket has been punched and can't be unpunched, he has no discernment at all and is, likely, doomed to destruction by the Evil One. It says to me that these people have not been properly guided by someone in the capacity of a spiritual father, an elder if you will. +John Cassian relates this story about monks discussing the process of theosis with +Anthony the Great, the founder of monasticism. The story is about 1800 years old:

"I remember the years when I was still a boy in that section of the Thebaid where the blessed Anthony used to live. Some older men came to visit him and to talk to him about perfection. Their talk lasted from the evening hours until dawn and the problem we are now discussing took up the greatest part of the night.

"There was a most searching inquiry into which of the virtues and which observance could always preserve a monk from the snares and deceptions of the devil and could lead him with firm tread on a sure path to the summit of perfection. Each one offered an opinion in accordance with the understanding he had of the matter. Some declared that by means of zealous fasting and the keeping of vigils the mind would be enlarged and would produce purity of heart and body so as to enable one to come all the more easily into union with God. Others posited detachment from everything in order that the mind, shorn of everything, freed from all the snares which were holding it back, would come more speedily to God. Others thought that what was necessary was to get completely away, to have the solitude and secrecy of the desert where a man, living there always, could converse more intimately with God and where union could be achieved more directly. Some opted for the practice of charity, that is to say, the works of hospitality, since it was to people of this kind that the Lord in the gospel promised especially that he would give the kingdom of heaven. 'Come, you blessed ones of my father, come and possess the kingdom which has been ready for you since the beginning of the world. I was hungry and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me a drink,' and so on (Matthew 25: 34-35).

"Thus it was that the different virtues were said to give a more certain access to God. And most of the night was spent in this inquiry.

"Finally, the blessed Anthony spoke. 'All the things that you have spoken about are necessary and helpful to those thirsting for God and longing to reach him. But the countless disasters and experiences of many people do not permit that any one of these virtues should be said to be the prime influence for good. For very often we have seen people who have been most zealous in their fasts and vigils, who have lived wondrously solitary lives, who have endured such total privation of everything that they would not allow themselves to hold on to even a day's food or even a single coin of the lowest value, who have hastened to do all that is required in charity - and who have suddenly fallen prey to illusion with the result that not only could they not give a fitting end to the work they had undertaken but they brought to an abominable conclusion that high zeal of theirs and that praiseworthy mode of life. Hence if we probe the exact reason for their delusion and fall we will be able to recognize what it is that, above all else, leads us to God. The virtuous activities, of which you were talking, flourished among them. But the lack of discernment prevented them from reaching the end. No other cause can be found for their downfall. Lacking the training provided by older men they could in no way acquire this virtue of discernment which, avoiding extremes, teaches the monk to walk always on the royal road. It keeps him from veering to the right, that is, it keeps him from going with stupid presumption and excessive fervor beyond the boundary of reasonable restraint. It keeps him from going to the left to carelessness and sin, to sluggishness of spirit, and all this on the pretext of actually keeping the body under control."

I think you're both wrong. God's plans have nothing to do with our decisions, good or bad. Tertullian deals with this in Book II of his Contra Marcion. The following is Chapter 7.

"By such a conclusion all is reserved unimpaired to God; both His natural goodness, and the purposes of His governance and foreknowledge, and the abundance of His power. You ought, however, to deduct from God’s attributes both His supreme earnestness of purpose and most excellent truth in His whole creation, if you would cease to inquire whether anything could have happened against the will of God. For, while holding this earnestness and truth of the good God, which are indeed capable of proof from the rational creation, you will not wonder at the fact that God did not interfere to prevent the occurrence of what He wished not to happen, in order that He might keep from harm what He wished. For, since He had once for all allowed (and, as we have shown, worthily allowed) to man freedom of will and mastery of himself, surely He from His very authority in creation permitted these gifts to be enjoyed: to be enjoyed, too, so far as lay in Himself, according to His own character as God, that is, for good (for who would permit anything hostile to himself? ); and, so far as lay in man, according to the impulses of his liberty (for who does not, when giving anything to any one to enjoy, accompany the gift with a permission to enjoy it with all his heart and will? ). The necessary consequence, therefore, was, that God must separate from the liberty which He had once for all bestowed upon man (in other words, keep within Himself), both His foreknowledge and power, through which He might have prevented man’s falling into danger when attempting wrongly to enjoy his liberty. Now, if He had interposed, He would have rescinded the liberty of man’s will, which He had permitted with set purpose, and in goodness. But, suppose God had interposed; suppose Him to have abrogated man’s liberty, by warning him from the tree, and keeping off the subtle serpent from his interview with the woman; would not Marcion then exclaim, What a frivolous, unstable, and faithless Lord, cancelling the gifts He had bestowed! Why did He allow any liberty of will, if He afterwards withdrew it? Why withdraw it after allowing it? Let Him choose where to brand Himself with error, either in His original constitution of man, or in His subsequent abrogation thereof! If He had checked (man’s freedom), would He not then seem to have been rather deceived, through want of foresight into the future? But in giving it full scope, who would not say that He did so in ignorance of the issue of things? God, however, did fore-know that man would make a bad use of his created constitution; and yet what can be so worthy of God as His earnestness of purpose, and the truth of His created works, be they what they may? Man must see, if he failed to make the most of the good gift he had received, how that he was himself guilty in respect of the law which he did not choose to keep, and not that the Lawgiver was committing a fraud against His own law, by not permitting its injunctions to be fulfilled. Whenever you are inclined to indulge in such censure (and it is the most becoming for you) against the Creator, recall gently to your mind in His behalf His earnestness, and endurance, and truth, in having given completeness to His creatures both as rational and good."

Me: "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.

I do believe the Apostles themselves were given special abilities to spread the truth, so I am not inclined to scream bloody murder at this. There's a bone. :)

Me: "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.

But ONE PARAGRAPH AGO you saw me list sin and error separately. I was making a distinction. In my next statement I only said "error". I didn't think it possible for sin to be involved in the writing of scripture, so I also eliminated error. Notwithstanding unintentional sin mentioned in the OT, I am using these words to mean "sin" (intentional) vs. "error" (unintentional).

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

... 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 believe that when we are born, man is much more than wounded, he is DEAD in sin. Perhaps this is a semantics issue. I said that God gives me grace and that God gives me faith. Through these, then, I am able to "see". My intellect has no ability of its own. The Spirit translates and interprets for me, but in my own weakness I am still capable of missing the correct interpretation. Sanctification makes me better able to avoid that error on my part. I believe this is consistent with what I have been saying all along.

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.

While I would never say the scriptures "merely" do anything, I do agree that witnessing is very important. God tasked us with this honor. I did not mean to imply that I chat with someone, throw him a Bible, and say "let me know how it works out". :) I always follow up with further teaching and encouragement.

I do not believe my little witness will ever be stronger than God's word. Since my witness is based upon it, the best I can do is not blow it. I can't surpass it, and I am not perfect, God's word is. I fully agree with you that seekers are very attracted to the peace that we hopefully exhibit. I firmly remember being that seeker.

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.

One of the main points I have been making is that fallible men did not put the Bible together. God alone did through His use of men. There were no accidents, there was no luck. God takes no chances based on the decisions of fallible men.

The 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.

I agree that prophesy is subject to interpretation, but then, so is everything. Some "Christians" interpret that Jesus was married. You and I appear to interpret the same on this even though we differ on the path. Many Jews chose to not see what was in plain view, "live". Later Jews are forced to throw out the whole NT, it never happened, all lies, etc. We know this is not a reasonable interpretation.

I would say that the shear volume of prophecies about Christ, vague or not, interpreted or not, DO prove the identity of Christ as Savior. Statistical probability studies have been done and there is no doubt. If someone wants to interpret away the prophecies that doesn't change the truth.

The truth of the matter is that either Jesus was a lunatic, a liar, or our Lord.

You are quoting Josh McDowell. Outstanding! :)

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.

Yes, it is indeed obvious. I would only disagree that the Church was "guided". I would say that it was "directed".

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?

Yes, I can accept that, and I wouldn't expect that everything taught would be included. It just seems odd to me that so many controversial (according to Protestants) teachings were not included. Were they not written down by anyone, even just for reference? If you were a free will writer of scripture, wouldn't you want to include the core doctrine of practice in your writings, at least somewhere? You made the analogy that no one writes down how to eat a bowl of cereal. The difference is that from the time of the first bowl until today, no one has ever argued about it. Not so with Catholic tradition.

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???

Of course he wouldn't rehash everything. I would think that he would rehash some more of what is now known as tradition. After all, aren't there many very important principles in the traditions that we have only the faith in men to know are true? As for not being able to see potential future problems in doctrine, I guess the writers were not nearly as blessed as we were led to believe. You rely on the special powers of the Apostles for authority, but none of them was wise enough to foresee a major doctrinal split ripping Christianity apart. That seems strange to me, if it was a bad thing.

Did he [Paul] 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?

Of course. I'll put my trust in God's word, and you can put your trust in other men you hope have been inspired. Ask yourself why you believe the Bible is not self-attesting. It is only because men of the Church instructed you to interpret it this way. Why do you believe these men of the Church are infallible? Because they said so. What do you use as proof of their infallibility? A non-self-attesting Bible.

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?

The Spirit never changes His mind, He changes my mind. This is what we call sanctification. I'm surprised that you do not appear to believe in it. I take it then that everything you know today you knew at the first moment you became a Christian? Further, that you don't expect to learn anything else in your faith for the rest of your life? This is perfect proof that the Spirit does lead. The Spirit knows that, unlike others, I am unable to absorb all truth in a single moment. The Spirit therefore leads me on a pace that I can handle. This will last for the rest of my life and I give all glory to God for it.

How do you KNOW such thoughts are from the Spirit, and not your own intellect, or even worse, Satan???

That's what faith is, and I'm sticking to it. If I am no more than a useful idiot to Satan then I will pay the price later. I live in God-given confidence and power that this won't be the case.

Me: "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! ... I will call this pride and leave it to you to discern if I am correct or not.

I would never use that argument on anyone else. I thought I was being clear enough that this was an argument I would use with myself. You are right that it would not work on another person.

From all of your posts on related matters, it is becoming more clear to me that you do not believe that the Holy Spirit leads non-Catholic-clergy at all. Every time a Protestant says the Spirit has led me to such and such, you immediately dismiss the idea and equate it with vanity and pride in the so-called believer. What can I say? I know the Spirit lives in me. I know the Spirit loves me. I know the Spirit leads me. If I can't convince you, then I can't convince you.

Even though "ordinary" [Vatican] statements are not necessarily infallible, we still give proper obedience to his statements!

Oh, I understand that, I wouldn't expect you or any good Catholic to cherry pick from the Pope! He wouldn't be the Pope if he didn't know Catholicism inside and out. :)

Thus, the idea of the Immaculate Conception is quite old - it is just not DOGMA - infallible teaching - until 1854, I think.

Thanks for the info on this. I had no idea about the connection between Mary and Eve.

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.

Yup! :) But, I accept your answer. It beats the heck out of a declarative "All non-Catholics will rot in hell!". That would have been a total bummer.

The Spirit certainly can come [to a saved person] in a "more direct manner", but not to the exclusion of the Church, which is what I believe Protestantism teaches.

I understand how you could say that. As for myself, I certainly do not believe that the Spirit bypasses Catholics and only leads Protestants. And on this thread, among other Protestants, I don't feel lonely at all in this view.

If you say that the Spirit is leading you through the Church to believe in a thing, then I am in no position to accuse you of being a liar. On the same issue, I might say that the Spirit is leading me in a different direction. I agree with you that there is only one truth, therefore one or both of us is wrong in receiving the Spirit's leadership. So, we work through it as best as we can. I can't explain why this happens, all I can say is that we'll find out someday.

Me: "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).

This is fascinating. Here is the same verse from my NIV:

1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. [Emphasis added]

This completely changes everything as far as how we look at this verse, doesn't it? I can't think of a bigger difference in all the verses we have swapped. Very interesting.

But, getting back to your point, it appears you are saying that the lost person never gets to the stage of turning down a sure thing because he first rejects the required faith. OK, but you would have to admit that the person still has no conception of what he is rejecting. Else, he would obviously accept the gift. That was my point. With fair knowledge, who would say 'No'?

Me: "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.

True enough. Between my bleatings, I pray I will recognize my Shepherd's voice when He calls. :)

NO!!! You are tempting my primary vice...

LOL! God bless.

Thanks,

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

It says "For by grace are ye saved". Now the question, who's grace? Gods grace of course. Grace and mercy were extended to man at Calvary.

When Jesus said: It is finished

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

What was He talking about? His death, His time here on earth? No, the fulfillment of the law.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Christ is the fulfillment of the law. No man has ever, or ever could live a perfect sinless life but Him, Thats why He is Lord and Saviour.

Because of Jesus Christ our Lord we can now during the Church age, or dispensation of Grace come to God through Him.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Now the next phrase in Eph 2:8 is through faith:

The gift of salvation is giving to man only by Gods Grace extended to man look at v8. I believe it says it is the gift of God:

Faith is man simply believing what God says.

Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

The 11th chapter of Hebrews concerning faith:

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Verses in Hebrews 11:

6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

This verse teaches us that the OT saint was saved by faith also:

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

21 By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff.
22 By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones.
23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment.
24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;
25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;

32 ¶ And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:
33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,
34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.
35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:
36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:
37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;
38 (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Chapter 12

1 ¶ Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

We are saved only grace. I am resting in the finished work of Christ. John 3:16

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I believe (Faith) In Him for what? For my salvation.(faith). The promise is-everlasting life (faith).

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
John 12:44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
2 Corinthians 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
1 Peter 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
1 John 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
1 John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

How does Faith come?

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
John 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
John 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Man is not saved by works. What kind of works?

Goodness, charity, church, money, ordnances, these things are good but cant save.

Titus 3: But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life

"No man can pluck those who have attained even a level of theosis from the hands of God. But the Evil One can and any individual man can, by turning away from God, cut himself off from God"

Sorry another point.

John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Question: Are you a man or woman? God said no man. Do you believe God is greater than you? Sure you do. So no man includes you.

The Bible says also that we are sealed. Who is sealed? the believer. What is that seal?

Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

The day a person comes to salvation he permanently sealed (eternal life).

How is that obtained? Salvation.

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Salvation is obtained through confessing to God that your a sinner. Asking for forgiveness and by faith asking Christ to come into your life. In to your fife for what purpose? To lead rule and guide through his word (the Bible)

David said in Psalms

Psalms 119:9 BETH. Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.
Psalms 119:11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
Psalms 119:105 NUN. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

We are told by God to read and study His word.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

I wrote: The truth of the matter is that either Jesus was a lunatic, a liar, or our Lord.

You replied: You are quoting Josh McDowell. Outstanding! :)

I have read some of his work, but I was actually quoting C.S. Lewis and "Mere Christianity".

I would only disagree that the Church was "guided". I would say that it was "directed".

What is the distinction? In either case, God is the power behind it. Catholics don't make the claim that our leaders are infallible based on their own ability! It is clear that the Tradition of the Church, the Scriptures and the Fathers, note that God infallibly guides His Bride. Thus, when I mention earlier that the Council determined the contents of Scripture, this is based on the Holy Spirit's guidance, Who was able to "guide" those men to infallibly determine Scripture.

Whether it is on the contents of Scripture OR making a decision on a belief ("is Jesus the same essence as God the Father?"), do you not agree that God would protect His Church, the Faithful, from error? If you think that the Scriptures are infallible, I do not understand why you refuse to accept God working through these same men to make decisions on the Faith. What good is Scriptures, frankly, if people have incorrect ideas about God that are not corrected?

It just seems odd to me that so many controversial (according to Protestants) teachings were not included.

They were NOT controversial at the time! Paul wrote to the Galatians about Judaizers and circumcision. Why? Because of false teachers who were influencing the community. Paul didn't write about irregular practices of the Eucharist (as in Corinth) because there WERE no such problems. Things like "Mary is the Mother of God" hadn't come up while the Apostles were alive or everyone agreed with that teaching and it never came up. Again, the writings were directed at people from the First Century, not the Sixteenth Century. Thus, it is illogical to believe that Paul should have discussed things that didn't come up - either because they were commonly held (Eucharist is Christ's Body) or were not theologically discussed yet (Mary was Assumed into heaven).

Can you tell me why God would change how He leads His Church? What He did with the Apostles, we believe He continues today and until the end of time. A visible Church that authoritatively interprets Scriptures. In matters of faith and morals, we need a Body that protects what was handed down - the Deposit of Faith. This is serious business, because we believe that Deposit CAME FROM GOD. It is not subject to our spin or change with the culture. Nothing is added to it (there will NEVER be a fourth person in the Trinity, women will NEVER be ordained by the Church, and so forth - no matter what culture says).History has taught us that men alone will not agree on what the Scripture tells us. Thus, we need an authority protected by God Himself.

Thus, while people say that the Spirit leads them to believe "X" or "Y", we MUST disagree, as the Spirit of Truthy doesn't teach two different things. THAT is what the Church is for. Can you imagine if no one could point to a teaching (is God one, two or three or four persons) that was TRUE? What would BE the point of Scriptures if there was not something to back it up and say "THIS is what it means"?

I'll put my trust in God's word

Can you go through the process of proving that the Bible is God's Word WITHOUT the witness of the Church? The Bible is not self-attesting in its individual books! Explain Philemon or Jude. Why? I have yet to hear an answer on this front.

From all of your posts on related matters, it is becoming more clear to me that you do not believe that the Holy Spirit leads non-Catholic-clergy at all.

I never said that! What I am saying is that YOU (or HIM) cannot be sure if the pastor at your church is teaching the truth, or his own version of the truth. Sure, he might happen to coincide with the Apostolic sense of the Scriptures - what God meant for Scripture to teach. He might happen to teach VERY Catholic teachings, such as on abortion or the Trinity. But when they deviate from Catholic teachings, rest assured, they are wrong and are not following the Spirit, but their own personal ideas. God does not teach its Church one thing, and your pastor another.

The Spirit is most certainly active in your pastor. We can know someone by their fruit. But we are speaking on two different levels. I am not speaking about a person's personal sanctification. I am speaking about a person's knowledge of God, about proper teachings that God has given His Apostles. Those don't change - despite what you pastor thinks is his personal abilities in the Spirit to be holy and free from sin. God has given the Church Apostles, teachers, preachers, prophets, and so forth. We are not ALL teachers. We are not ALL prophets. Your pastor has heard God's calling to proclaim the Word. But it is not supposed to be according to HIS opinion, but God's. He has already given this to the Apostles and their teachings - both oral and written. Deviate from that, and you are following men, whether you admit this or not.

Regards

Oh, I understand that, I wouldn't expect you or any good Catholic to cherry pick from the Pope! He wouldn't be the Pope if he didn't know Catholicism inside and out. :)

Well, it is not a matter of the Pope's innate wisdom per sec that leads loyal Catholics to obey, but the fact that we understand that God works powerfully through his teachings - even if not infallible, they rate our obedience, as Hebrews 13:17 (among others) states :"Listen to your pastors, and do not resist them, for they watch for your souls as those that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief; for that [is] unprofitable for you."

An interesting note is the definition of "catholic". It means more than "universal". It means "the totality" or "the whole of the parts". Thus, it can be said that there is no such thing as a cafeteria Catholic. By picking and choosing, you de facto say you are not "Catholic". Thus, we follow everything that is legitimately taught to us. You would, too, if you accepted the Church's establishment is based on the Foundation, Jesus Christ.

I had no idea about the connection between Mary and Eve.

When I teach people about Mary, I focus on the early Church's connection between the two (which is a natural parallel that Paul makes with Jesus and Adam).

Here is an example:

God, by a rival method, restored His image and likeness...For into Eve when she was yet a virgin had crept the word that established death, likewise, into a Virgin was to be brought the Word of God that produced life; so that what had gone to ruin by the one sex might be restored to salvation by the same sex. (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, c. 200 AD)

There are similar such quotes by St. Justin the Martyr in 150 and St. Ireneaus in 180 AD. They saw that the disobedience of Adam and Eve should be canceled out in the SAME manner by the obedience of two people. These people would be similar, also - Since Adam and Eve were born sinless, and Jesus was born sinless, then the Church viewed Mary, also, as sinless. Thus, the argument for the Immaculate Conception was very early, an idea that no one refuted.

As I have said elsewhere, the Spirit operates on two levels within the Church. The first level is for our individual sanctification. While the Sacraments are the par excellence of God's coming to us, we also can receive Him during prayer and Scripture meditation, for example. Certainly, Protestants are quite open to receiving the Spirit in this manner. The second level is the Spirit guarding the teachings of the Christ. Christ is not visibly present on earth for all time, so to maintain what HE taught, we must rely on some divinely-guided body to ensure that men (who are wounded of intellect) do not stray over hundreds of years of Christianity from God's teachings. This second level is given to the Bishops, those men following in the footsteps of the Apostles (this laying of hands, the passing of the torch, is clearly seen in the Pastorals).

People have various levels of faith (due to their own disbelief or skepticism). A person can have an intellectual faith, but it does not lead us to love. I know this from experience, as my first 6 months in Christianity was like that. Intellectual with little love. A person who rejects God at that stage certainly does not know what He is rejecting OR He doesn't have a strong enough faith to believe that it is really true. What is "fair knowledge"? I am sure that both of us are aware of people who have fallen away from Christianity, in some cases, many years after following Christ. The problem is often skepticism creeps in. Or a strong presence of evil appears. But knowledge is not enough to hold us to God. It requires an ongoing relationship with Christ.

Regards

Dewey, I've read your proof texts in both post #2211 & 2212. More about personal proof texting in a few lines. I am, I must say, right back where I was when I said I simply can't see where you people are coming from with your "once saved always saved" theories. As I understand what you profess to find in the bible, "Salvation is obtained through confessing to God that your a sinner. Asking for forgiveness and by faith asking Christ to come into your life. In to your fife (sic) for what purpose? To lead rule and guide through his word (the Bible)" Is this all? Does this happen at any random time in life? Suppose I lead a sinful, self absorbed life for 25 years and then decide all of a sudden on my 26th birthday to do exactly as you have suggested. Having done that, and assuming I live to be 101, will I spend the next 75 years in a completely sinless state? Or, conversely, am I now free to sin vigorously, as Luther unfortunately put it, without consequence to myself or creation around me?

Dewy, I suspect that your concept of what it means to be saved and what I mean when I say that one may attain a state of theosis are very different things. For you, what exactly does being saved mean; is it a temporal thing, an eternal thing, both? In this life, how does it manifest itself? After death? Finally, how do you conceive of the Fnal Judgment? How are we judged; what's the measure?

As for proof texting, allow me to suggest that unless one has received knowledge through the Holy Spirit, it is quite impossible to correctly interpret scripture. As you undoubtedly know, what you use for scripture, for the most part, was determined by The Church long prior to the rise of anything like Protestantism in councils of the hierarchs of The Church including many of the men we call The Fathers. Let us posit for the moment that these men, including the Fathers, were filled with knowledge by the Holy Spirit in order to perceive, among the many contenders for inclusion into the canon of scripture, those writings which indeed are inspired by God and appropriate for the inculcation of the Faith in an authoritative way. I assume you will accept this proposition since to say otherwise is to view Christian scriptures in the way Mohammaden heretics do theirs. Now, if the Fathers and other hierarchs and holy men of The Church were so inspired by the Holy Spirit as to correctly recognize true scripture, does it not necessarily follow that a) they were saved by your definition of salvation and b) on account of that salvation and the knowledge and understanding which flows from that, were in a position to correctly interpret those scriptures?

Assuming your honest answer is yes, what explains the fact that none, not one, of The Fathers, nor any hierarch nor holy man within the Church for at least the first 1500 years of its existence, ever suggested the sort of "salvation" you apparently believe in and further believe is testified to in scripture. What happened? Were The Fathers inspired as to what was appropriately scripture but the world had to wait until the Reformation before a correct interpretation of the scripture came about? Were they "sort of inspired", "sort of saved"? Clearly Dewy, all the proof texting in the world cannot substitute for proper interpretation now can it? If the Rev. Billy Bob Jeff with his degree from Ed's Bible College tells you one thing about the meaning of a verse from scripture, and a man who was in part responsible for the inclusion of that piece of scripture in the canon tells you something else, who are you going to believe?

You present short quotes ignoring their context by the dosen, but you do not make your case. I'll concentrate on these two, the Gospel of John and Ephesians first:

John 10 speaks of those who "hear his voice" and asserts their security from the devil. But the passage does not tell us who these faithful sheep are and when they became that way. The assertion you imply, that a declaration of faith converts one into a faithfull sheep is not in the text.

Let us read Ephesians starting with the passage you excerpted in Chapter 2:

1 And you, when you were dead in your offences, and sins, 2 Wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of this air, of the spirit that now worketh on the children of unbelief: 3 In which also we all conversed in time past, in the desires of our flesh, fulfilling the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest: 4 But God, (who is rich in mercy,) for his exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ, (by whose grace you are saved,) 6 And hath raised us up together, and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places, through Christ Jesus. 7 That he might shew in the ages to come the abundant riches of his grace, in his bounty towards us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; 9 Not of works, that no man may glory. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.

Note that St. Paul draws a contrast between the works of the world and faith obtained by grace. Now we understand what "works" he is talking about: the works of the world done for selfish reason. But wait. Where is Paul going with this? Let us read some more (Chapter 3):

17 That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts; that being rooted and founded in charity, 18 You may be able to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth: 19 To know also the charity of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge, that you may be filled unto all the fulness of God. 20 Now to him who is able to do all things more abundantly than we desire or understand, according to the power that worketh in us;

So, that faith is there to bring forth fruits: charity, knowledge, and power. St. Paul concludes his thought(Chapter 4)

1 I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, 2 With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. 3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
[...]
11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ; 14 That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive. 15 But doing the truth in charity, we may in all things grow up in him who is the head, even Christ:

And on and on, for two more chapters, St. Paul urges those you fancy "saved" to "walk in love". Toward the end, that walk becomes a battle (Chapter 6):

6 Not serving to the eye, as it were pleasing men, but, as the servants of Christ doing the will of God from the heart, 7 With a good will serving, as to the Lord, and not to men. 8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man shall do, the same shall he receive from the Lord
[...]
11 Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. 12 For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places. 13 Therefore take unto you the armour of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand in all things perfect.

Loks like St. Paul wants those "once-saved-always-saved" to do quite a bit of work before they can be safe from the "spirits of wickedness".

But why even pick lines from John ans Ephesians when Christ told us in no uncertain terms that a lifetime of faith working through love is the basis of our salvation, and declarative faith is not?

This is who will be saved (Matthew 25):

35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: 36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me

This is who will not be

42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. 44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? 45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me. 46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

And this is what declarative faith gets us (Matthew 7):

21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Now it is time to remember those sheep from John 10. When do we know that they are those faithful sheep? Is it when they call "lord, lord"? Or is it when, their life's work of charity done, Christ separates them from goats?

THE HOLY SPIRIT IN SALVATION

Some find it easy to recognize the work of the Holy Spirit immersing a person into the Body of Christ and regenerating the person while denying His involvement in other parts of salvation. They see that a person isn't "saved" without these works of the Spirit. Yet some reject any involvement of the Holy Spirit up until these two works take place. There are distinct problems with the convicting work of the Spirit of God and His giving the gift of faith. I am amazed at the lack of understanding concerning the fallen condition of the human race and the biblical descriptions of the condition of mankind before salvation. This message involves the importance of the work of the Holy Spirit and the gospel.

The first question on #1 is: "What is so important about the gospel for salvation?"

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

This is presented as the inherent power of God unto salvation. The facts of the gospel are the agency by which a person is saved and nothing else. This the mechanism by which agency one believes in the Lord Jesus Christ. Even though the gospel concerning Jesus Christ has a power of its own, the gospel itself cannot bring salvation without the working of the Holy Spirit. Without the work of the Spirit of God, a person could present the gospel a billion times and not even one person would be saved. This is more than His baptizing work and His regenerating work. He must work to overcome everything in mankind that prevents him or her from believing the gospel.

Man cannot generate the faith necessary to be saved. The best any human being can do is to believe or give assent to historical facts and accept them as true and real. Without divine intervention, no one can or would be saved. Why? There are at least eight problems with fallen mankind that make it impossible to believe the gospel with an acceptable faith. Every human being has at least two types of spiritual blindness: natural and Satanic. Both of these are mental. Because of the sin nature, his or her being can't see the facts of the gospel for what they are. Their perception can't find the facts as God designed them and they grope and grasp nothing. Satan and demons are always available to place a mental blind preventing perception when the gospel is presented. In a sense this blind makes them instant zombies in a mental Never Never Land concerning the facts of the gospel. Paul teaches that all men are spiritually dead in their trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1, 2, 5).

Eph 2:1 ¶ And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
V.5 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

Man has nothing in himself, including faith or works, that would even direct his attention to God.

How the Holy Spirit relates to unbelievers in the dispensation of grace.

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

This makes it possible for the Holy Spirit to accomplish His work in the new dispensation (Grace) toward the world of mankind. Jesus Christ promised to send Another Comforter after He had departed. His work toward the world of unsaved mankind would be to reprove {convince, convict} the world of sin, righteousness and judgment.

He convicts of the single sin "because they believed not in me" that is of not believing in Christ. When the Spirit convicts a person of that sin, He does it through the facts of the gospel. "Christ died for our sins" He was our Substitute.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

It is through faith in Him that the person is saved. He sees that he hasn't believed in Christ, his Substitute, and believes through the convincing of the Spirit. Interestingly enough, when a person believes the gospel, he no longer is capable of committing that sin. What sin? The sin of unbelief. Christ's righteousness is affirmed by His resurrection which was followed by his ascension. The Father accepted Him and His human body and nature in the third heaven – the first living human body to enter the third heaven. The Holy Spirit is the Person of the Godhead that is resident on earth in this dispensation and who is the Restrainer of evil. When He departs with the Church at the Rapture, evil will have freedom throughout the 70th Week of Daniel.

The first and foremost mechanism for removing all of the human in-capabilities for believing is the gift of faith. Paul taught this in at least three passages. The Holy Spirit provides the faith as a gift for the person to believe the gospel

(Philippians 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

1 Corinthians 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

Galatians 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Ephesians 2:8, 9). This directly relates to the convicting work of the Spirit whereby He convinces the mind of the person of his need for the work of Christ. The person takes the gift of faith and believes the gospel and is saved. At the specific point in time the Holy Spirit then brings about spiritual birth (after faith – Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;) and immerses the person into Christ

(1 Cor. 12 ¶ For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is the Person of the Godhead that brings salvation to those who are saved in this dispensation of Grace. Without Him, there is no salvation. With Him, there is perfect salvation.

The invitation to come to Christ for salvation:

Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come . And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

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