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

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

[HarleyD]

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erasmus On the Freedom of the Will

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luther's Arguments Against Erasmus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Battle of the Biblical Texts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Main Issues and Implications of Each View

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Importance of This Controversy Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kolokotronis]

Dewy, what you've posted is all fine and good, but you've still not told me what you believe salvation is and why you believe something about salvation which the men who discerbed what was appropriate to be in the bible never saw, wrote about or believed.

I'm not trying to play head games with you, Dewy. Its simply that I have absolutely no understanding of why anyone would believe in a once saved always saved theology and I would like to at least see where there is any basis for this belief beyond the personal opinion of a self described "saved" person.

[Kolokotronis]

"My premise for asking the question was that Adam was not created in perfection, because he had the free will to sin, and of course, he did."

FK, where do you get the idea that because man was created with Free Will, a divine attribute, that that meant he wasn't created perfect? By the way, I agree, Adam was not created in a state of complete theosis.

"In heaven, there is no sin, so we will be "perfect" then, although not equal to God or His essence in any sense. So, another way to ask my same question would be: "could Jesus have used His free will and sinned"? I would answer 'No', not because He doesn't have the power to do whatever He wants, but because it is not His nature to sin."

There is no "sin" in heaven because every being in heaven is in a state of theosis. Remember that the English word "sin" is a translation of the Greek word "amartia" which means "to miss the mark". The mark is Christ and missing the mark means we aren't being Christ like. Christ of course does not need to be "Christ-like". Asking whether therefore if Chrust could exercise His Free Will and sin is meaningless.

"The incarnation of Jesus was in perfection, unlike Adam."

Quite right, but in this Adam and Christ, the New Adam, are alike; Adam had the potential to become like a god and transmit that potentiality to his descendants. It was his created purpose. That potential was lost by the Sin of Adam. Christ, the New Adam restored the potential for theosis to the descendants of Adam.

[kosta50]

So, another way to ask my same question would be: "could Jesus have used His free will and sinned"?

The answer is "Yes." Jesus was tempted like any one of us, but He chose not to.

I would answer 'No', not because He doesn't have the power to do whatever He wants, but because it is not His nature to sin

Which one of His natures, FK? His divine or His human nature? You see, the moment you begin to separate His humanity from ours, you wonder into heresies that were long discarded -- namely that Christ only "appeared" as man. If He was subject to passions, and he was, then He was subject to sin. If he did not reject sin on His own free will, what accomplishment would His sinlessness be? What hope would we ever have of achieving theosis?

[Forest Keeper]

God certainly did not intend man to be immoral and unrighteous. The whole concept of moral, repsonsible and righteous becomes meaningless unless man has free will to exercise the qualities God gave him, in the image and likeness of God.

Then God does not get what He wants? Maybe God decided that the best way for us to know righteousness was to have the experience of sinning. We learn from our mistakes. God doesn't make us sin, but He creates us with the potential to sin, which He knows we will do. God doesn't intend the elect to end up immoral or unrighteous, but He teaches us righteousness by allowing us to be unrighteous.

But in order for man to be free he must be able to choose between what is right and what is not right. The only alternative is to create a man who is, like animals, driven by necessities, and has dominion over lower species by brute force alone. And that's not how God created man.

But isn't it the truth that sets us free? Were we born with the truth? I don't think so. The truth comes with salvation, doesn't it? Can an unregenerated heart know the truth? I would agree that we are free to choose evil after salvation, but we are not born so. I would say we are born dead in sin, so from birth we will sin. It just isn't a choice until after salvation.

[Forest Keeper]

Yes, there is a need for us to become pristine in order to be in communion with Him, so the answer is yes, our sins must be forgiven; we must be cleansed of all that separates us from Him. Some of that we can do ourselves, but ultimately it is God's mercy that accomplishes that.

It's the last part that still gets me. :) What is it that we can do ourselves, and where does the ability to do it come from? Are we born with it?

The idea [of Theosis] is to become pure and clean so that, to paraphrase the Scripture, His light can shine through us for others to see and know Him.

Sounds good to me. :)

[Forest Keeper]

You are contradicting yourself. If the Bible is the LITERAL WORD of God, there is NO ROOM for INTERPRETATION. It is ALWAYS to be taken literally! Thus, the literal word of cutting off your hand is NOT to be understood as hyperbole.

No. The dictionary also supports me, as in "reproduced word for word : EXACT, VERBATIM". Assume that we have a conversation that I tape record, and you use an allegory to illustrate a point. I then go to another friend to explain this teaching. I stumble through the story that you told, so my friend asks me "what were his (your) literal words"? I play the tape and say "those were Joe's literal words". No one would then claim that the story must be taken literally.

I don't believe that any interpretation from man was needed to write the actual words of the scriptures. Interpretation comes later from the Spirit through fallible men. You must assume that God's word includes the interpretations of men (whom I call "the scribes"), which may be why you appear to have a much lower regard for scripture than Protestants.

A book CANNOT interpret itself! The Church treasured the writings of the Apostles - who had long ago died. They compiled the writings they left. Found within the Scriptures is all we need to know for salvation - BUT, it is not always clearly and explicitly laid out.

Why not, especially when you start with wonderful premises such as "God doesn't lie" and "God doesn't contradict Himself"? Within that framework, we can certainly make interpretations based on other scripture. I agree that not everything is explicitly laid out, but on some things, good Christians may disagree. I believe the core issues are not like that for most Protestants, they are reasonably clear. I suppose this means that Protestants must believe to a higher degree that Christianity is a revealed faith.

The problem, then, is that you accept the authority of Scriptures, but not the same body who wrote and collated it - identifying and verifying it, that the Bible is, INDEED, the Word of God. How can a fallible group of men determine what are infallible writings and infallibly compile them into one book? Without making ONE mistake?

Yes, exactly! How could such men do that? The answer is that they could not. Instead, God did it all. Men were used for physical labor, but contributed nothing of substance. All the glory for God's holy word goes to God, not men.

Men throughout the Church could not agree on 2 Peter, for example, and whether it was inspired. This went on past 250 AD! God made His "decision" through men. That's the way God works. If the Bible came to us like you say, it would have fell from the sky, a la Koran, and there would have been NO dispute.

Partially answered above. I only wanted to add that I dispute that there would have been no dispute. :) Wasn't Mohammed's style to say "believe this teaching, or I'll kill you"? Since we don't do that, I see it as being perfectly natural for fallible men, in different stages of sanctification, to greatly disagree on what is to be the perfect truth made into the Bible. I would expect it. That's why I believe that God took no chances and made it all happen Himself.

[kosta50]

Then God does not get what He wants

Why? Because Bill doesn't go heave and Jo does? God gives His love to all. Love is respect. God is Love. He respects our free will. I know, this is an alien concept to western Christian thinking! How can omniopotent God be humble? How could He possibly respect our decisions? Well, then, this tells me that western Christianity does not know what love is.

And God gets what He wants. There are many who have been purified by His love who will pass that eye of a needle. Those who won't will not fail because of lack of God's love for humanity, but because of their arrogance and pride.

[Dewy]

Salvation: Is a once for all thing that happens when one comes to true faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man. Salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification.

Redemption (to buy back) Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Ephesians 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Regeneration: (change of mind) Jesus tells Nicodemus in John chapter 3 at v.3 "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." A spiritual state or work done by the Holy Spirit.

Justification: As regards its nature, it is the judicial act of God, by which he pardons all the sins of those who believe in Christ

Romans 5:1 ¶ Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: Romans 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Romans 5:3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; Romans 5:4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope: Romans 5:5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. Romans 5:6 ¶ For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. Romans 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Sanctification: Involves more than a mere moral reformation of character, brought about by the power of the truth: it is the work of the Holy Spirit bringing the whole nature more and more under the influences of the new gracious principles implanted in the soul in regeneration. In other words, sanctification is the carrying on to perfection the work begun in regeneration, and it extends to the whole man.

1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 ¶ But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
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;

Now, I have tried to show you what and why I believe.

Question is do you believe? I'll be frank friend if you are depending on the works of others, the church, the pope or anything other than Christ. You'll spend eternity in hell.
What does this verse say??

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

I didn't see Mary, Apostles, Popes, Church, works, or anything other than Christ.

We were warned:

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Matt 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Have a nice life! (I'm through)

[kosta50]

... where does the ability to do it come from?

Baptism.

What is it that we can do ourselves

Turn to God.

Are we born with it?

No.

[Forest Keeper]

Because of Christ, we are MADE righteous in God's eyes - not because of anything we do, but by the grace of God. We will not be covered but dirty humans entering into heaven!

Yes, I fully agree. I think we really do see eye to eye on this issue. That's why I was confused when you had me adopting some idea I had never heard of before. :)

The point I am making that having faith alone does not save. It must be faith with love. Faith alone has no love. This was Luther's mistake, again. If you include love within your definition of faith, I think we'd agree that - however, I would say that love is not "generated" by faith, but by Christ within us. EVERYTHING is a gift from God.

Yes, I do include love in the definition of true faith, and I agree with what you are saying here. Boy, this Luther guy is sure getting me into a lot of trouble recently, and I don't even know his specific teachings. :)

If we have a ticket for a nice new coat when we enter heaven (sinner's prayer, correct?), then why IS sanctification important? Tell me WHY it matters if I am a little dirty or very dirty UNDER that coat that allows me entrance into heaven???

I know I've answered this, but it may have been after your post or to someone else. The short answer is that a truly regenerated heart wants to be sanctified. It is an automatic result. Although, from a truly regenerated heart, the extent of dirt under the coat (remnant sins after salvation) may determine rewards in heaven, it will not affect salvation. We do not enter into heaven as our original sinful selves with a coat hiding us. The saved are new and unblemished in God's sight for salvation purposes.

You have said that works are merely a fruit, evidence of salvation. Why do you need this evidence, when you already "know" you are saved by your sinner's prayer? What is the purpose of having fruit to prove your salvation?

Oh, OK. Well, I suppose I would say that I don't need any evidence to prove my salvation because I don't seek to prove it to others. Only God and I can know for sure if I am saved. However, I do seek to have others be able to see Christ in me, for witnessing purposes as well as my own benefit. I said that the fruit is evidence, but I don't "need" the evidence for the purpose of proving anything. It wouldn't occur to me to say to someone "look at my good deeds, therefore know that I am a Christian".

I sense a contradiction in what is being said, or I am misunderstanding you. You believe you are of the elect, that you cannot fall, that your name cannot be blotted out. This is due to your sinner's prayer, as further evidenced by the fruits of salvation, your good works. Correct me if I am wrong so far.

Yes, I believe that I am of the elect and my name cannot be blotted out. I would replace "cannot fall" with "will not fall". Much more significantly, I would say that I am not a member of the elect because of the sinner's prayer. I was always a member of the elect from the beginning of time. The sinner's prayer triggers my knowledge of it, and completes the salvation event as I experience it in time. As a new regenerated Christian, I then have the indwelling Spirit to lead me for the rest of my life. If this has indeed happened, then good works will come forth.

A logical question you might have is that if I am of the elect from the beginning, but I have to accept Christ to be saved, then if I died the day before I would have come to Christ would I still be saved because I am of the elect? Good question. My only answer can be that this cannot happen because God keeps His own. If we are truly of the elect, then after reaching the age of reason we will accept Christ and we will be saved. He ordained that it would be so, and it therefore must happen.

Furthermore, what about those who DO NOT obey God, even though they have made the sinner's prayer? Does this say that the sinner's prayer does not infallibly tell us that we are saved? Ugh...

The Bible says that those who do not obey God do not love God. And, as we discussed and agreed upon before, those who do not love God cannot have true faith. Those who do not have faith cannot be saved. Therefore, the saying of the sinner's prayer by itself isn't necessarily efficacious. It is the sincerity behind it caused by God's original intent. That's why I said only you and God can know for sure, no matter what our "profession" of faith may be.

God bless.

[jo kus]

The dictionary also supports me, as in "reproduced word for word : EXACT, VERBATIM".

My brother, the Bible is not the exact, verbatim words of God...One only needs to look at the Resurrection of our Lord and the accounts of it in the Gospels. They differ! Now, if GOD HIMSELF was "dictating" the words, how did HE become so confused? No, the reason why the Gospels differ on the account of the Resurrection is because there are THEOLOGICAL issues behind the words. Each synoptic writer is appealing to different people and bringing out a different message. Religious teaching is their primary concern, not historical conventions.

Also, IF the Bible was the LITERAL Word of God, and you read it like a Muslim, then would you suggest to another that they should cut off their arm or cast out their eye because it "causes them to sin"? The LITERAL Word of God leaves no such room for interpreting these words as hyperbole! They are from the "lips" of God! Really, I can't believe that you think the Bible is LITERALLY God's Word for Word dictated to the writers!

Assume that we have a conversation that I tape record, and you use an allegory to illustrate a point. I then go to another friend to explain this teaching. I stumble through the story that you told, so my friend asks me "what were his (your) literal words"? I play the tape and say "those were Joe's literal words". No one would then claim that the story must be taken literally.

The analogy falls short, because I am not God. If God says we do something - we do it. There is no room for trying to justify our own idea of what He "really" means...And secondly, the Gospels do not record the EXACT words in Synoptic parallels. There are subtle changes that the author makes to emphasize a religious point. The Bible is not primarily a historical book, it is a religious book meant to supplement the already-held Apostolic Traditions taught orally in person by the Apostles!

You must assume that God's word includes the interpretations of men (whom I call "the scribes"), which may be why you appear to have a much lower regard for scripture than Protestants.

Ouch, that's not fair...I consider the Scripture as the Word of God. But written words are subject to interpretation. Again, our verse regarding 'cutting your hand off if it causes you to sin'. Isn't this subject to human interpretation of God's Words? Christianity has been flexible over its reading of some of the Scriptures over time because people change. Our understanding of God's Word GROWS! We take into account other's views, commentaries, and development of thought. Certainly, Scripture is viewed through the lense of our past Traditions, our views of what Scripture means. God's Actual Word, on the other hand, is unchanging. Romans 12:1 has a meaning to GOD. Perhaps many meanings finely intertwined. And man has yet to unravel its fullest meanings that HE has intended for that verse.

Within that framework, we can certainly make interpretations based on other scripture

Because Scripture seems to contradict itself sometimes. For example, Romans 3:28 and James 2:24. We KNOW that God cannot contradict Himself. So WE must figure out what God is trying to say - how are we saved? This takes human interpretation - and it should be obvious by now that we don't agree on our interpretations. IF the Bible was so clear on self-interpretation, would there be a multitude of Protestant denominations? How can man read God's "clear" Word so differently, on such important matters as salvation and Baptism??

I agree that not everything is explicitly laid out, but on some things, good Christians may disagree

I ask you to carefully think out what you are saying here. Christians can disagree on GOD'S WORDS???? If they are God's LITERAL WORDS, HOW can Christians disagree over God's meaning? It seems very obvious to me that there is some confusion going on here. Either God's Word is literal and there is no disagreement over it, no re-interpretation or spin, or God wrote the Bible through men as a supplement to an already-held interpretation of Christ's teachings.

I suppose this means that Protestants must believe to a higher degree that Christianity is a revealed faith.

Unfortunatly, many do not act like it is. A revealed faith means it is given to you. You accept the interpretation given - you don't make up your own in contradiction to what was given. However, one of the major tenants of the Reformation (that Luther himself regretted later) was that men can come to the Bible THEMSELVES and figure it out. This is NOT a revealed faith, but a faith through one's own reason and emotions. Given our fallen state, it is hopeless to come to agreement on what even core verses mean. All I have to say on this is "Eucharist". That should be clear that some Christians do not consider Christianity a revealed religion.

Instead, God did it all. Men were used for physical labor, but contributed nothing of substance. All the glory for God's holy word goes to God, not men.

I have said time and time again that the Church's infallibility is based on the Spirit, not man's own abilities... The point is that God works THROUGH men. Isn't this clear throughout Scriptures?

Wasn't Mohammed's style to say "believe this teaching, or I'll kill you"?

If you had a book that was "from God DIRECTLY" that said "kill infidels" - what the heck would you do?

Since we don't do that

Which should clearly tell us that we don't think the book is written LITERALLY by God - otherwise, there'd be a lot of people without hands or eyes.

I see it as being perfectly natural for fallible men, in different stages of sanctification, to greatly disagree on what is to be the perfect truth made into the Bible

I will close by saying - what's the point of having a book if no one can agree on what it MEANS? God didn't give us a Book to confuse man, to leave us in the dark about the TRUTH - and there can only be ONE truth. God IS truth. He isn't so non-chalant as you seem to be about "disagreement". The NT is quite against dissent and disagreement among various communities. But you say it's OK? Perhaps I am wrong, but it appears YOU are picking and choosing what the 'literal' word of God means. The Scripture clearly says "no dissent", but you say "it's OK". I am confused on your real stand regarding Scriptures.

Regards

[Forest Keeper]

Our world is an independent little playground. Some of us end up where God wants us; others don't. It does not diminish God, it does not change what He planned -- which is to have mankind in Paradise. Not necessarily you, or me, but mankind. And our free will does not change the fact that He shall have mankind in paradise, with or without you or me.

So, in your world God says, "win some, lose some". Even worse, you say that God doesn't particularly care which of us goes to heaven, He just knows that some of us will and that's good enough for Him. That sounds like a pretty weak God to me.

Regarding the rest of your post, my mouth is open and I am almost speechless. You are making the same accusations against us that you made 2000 posts ago. I truly regret that you do not appear to have learned anything new about our side's beliefs. I feel truly blessed that I have learned so much about your beliefs and those of Roman Catholics. While I maintain strong and honest disagreement with you all, I have been able to throw away many stereotypes that I have heard before about you. I am sorry that it has not gone both ways.

[Forest Keeper]

I realize that in theory the Holy Ghost can sanctify one in his lifetime in the strict fashion of the Protestant timeline, -- declarative faith first, a downpouring of sanctifying grace later, good works undertaken joyfully by a believing heart.

Not too shabby my good man! :)

My comment was, and is, that Protestantism tends to deny that the walk of faith requires two legs: faith and works of love.

Now this along with what you write below is truly new, and thank you for it. While of course I cannot speak for all Protestants, I can report that I, my SB church, and every other Protestant church with which I have had contact, all believe that Godly love, and the future works thereof, are absolutely an essential element of true faith. With one type of exception, I know of no one who believes that we can say the sinner's prayer, be saved, and then go off and do whatever we want.

I surely have met many righteous Protestants. I also know some Protestants driven to despair by recurrences of sin flying in the face of their supposed status of being saved by faith, the faith they know in their hearts to be genuine. I know others who develop insensitivity to sin, -- sin boldly, -- and fall off on the other side, presuming their salvation. None of that is healthy.

Indeed that is very unhealthy. Here is where the exception I just mentioned comes in. I believe the people you are describing simply do not know their own faith! I remember that when I was first saved, according to my beliefs, I knew the basics but nothing else. That's why, soon thereafter, I "fell away" during college, although I never felt at liberty to 'sin boldly'. :) I had no clue what it was that I really had. It wasn't until later that I was moved by the Spirit to read and study and accept His gift of a mentor that I understood much better the nature of my own faith.

The people you speak of in despair are much better off. We would say their pain is God disciplining and correcting His beloved children. They SHOULD feel guilty and seek to reckon it and fix whatever the recurring sin is. This is good evidence of a truly regenerated heart. The guilt shows that this person has some knowledge, or leadership by the Spirit, that it is not OK to just go on sinning after accepting Christ. The guilt must be dealt with in a Godly way, and it will happen for someone who is truly saved. This last part is a big point most of these people do not yet understand. I can see the wisdom in God arranging it this way.

The people you mentioned who 'sin boldly' are in much worse shape, but don't necessarily forfeit their salvation, unless the condition is permanent. That would evidence that their original salvation was not genuine, because what God promised would happen, didn't happen. Not likely! :) If I were in your shoes and I had any Protestant friends who sinned boldly, based on their belief of once saved, always saved, I might gently ask about their salvation experience. Did he invite Jesus into his life as LORD? What does that mean to him? Surely he knows that Christ does not want him to be leading this lifestyle, so why would Christ keep His promise to him (salvation), when he has been lying to Christ right from the beginning?

[Forest Keeper]

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.

OK, in that sense I understand what you are saying.

Me: "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 was responding to your original statement:

Ultimately, the test of correctness is whether a holy work brings people to Christ.

Your response fails your own test! :)

The issue is, which men [are repositors of God's truth]. Protestantism encourages a democratic model, where not just more men, but everyone, decide moral issues for themselves. Communism says that the state decides.

Well, in my joking comparison, the state was the Church. I saw some similarities. I don't see Protestantism as being a democracy in that whatever the majority says goes. I thought a great criticism of us was that there were so many differing views. I also don't see every Protestant deciding an individual moral code. That would be chaos. Our sub-unities are fairly united with fairly similar interpretations of God's moral code. We believe none of us has any morals of our own. God defines morality in scripture, and we reckon it, and live up to it or not to whatever degree.

[Forest Keeper]

Me: "you'll list all your traditions, ask me to prove they are explicitly unbiblical, and then, if I can't to your satisfaction, declare them as all true because your hierarchy says so."

Never happened. When you find something not in the Bible, e.g. veneration of saints, it does not make it unbiblical, it makes it not part of the written canon of scripture.

OK, I accept the challenge. :) I've never argued on this before, but I'll give it a shot. Let's consider the Immaculate Conception, and that Mary was sinless. How do you explain Romans 3:23 - "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"? Of course we both agree that Jesus gets a pass on this, but from only a Biblical standpoint why does Mary, since she isn't God?

[jo kus]

Yes, I fully agree. I think we really do see eye to eye on this issue. That's why I was confused when you had me adopting some idea I had never heard of before.

So are we made righteous during the sancitification process, finalized in Purgatory, if necessary, or do we enter heaven, not actually being righteous, but covered by Christ's own righteousness? If you choose the later, what is the role of sanctification? I guess I am still not understanding entirely your particular belief on this issue.

Yes, I do include love in the definition of true faith, and I agree with what you are saying here

So if we don't love, we aren't saved? If you agree, at what point, then, are we saved? I see faith in different degrees. There is faith of the intellect, faith that speaks of trusting in God to fulfill His promises, and faith that obeys the Lord out of love. When the Scriptures speak of "walking in faith", I see a fully-formed faith, a faith with love added to it, as in James. But at what point, then, does this "faith" of day 1 (sinner's prayer) become "saving faith", sufficient to enter heaven? I am not sure we can EVER know that infallibly until we die in our Father's arms...

I suppose what I am trying to understand is that you seem to believe that one must have faith and love to enter heaven, but it should be perfectly clear that some do not have both, and others who believe they do, at one point will admit that they didn't. Thus, there is a time where our love is insufficient to allow us to call our faith "saving faith". Yet, how many Protestants do you know, honestly, that think that their faith is not saving yet? See what I am trying to say? At what point do you have "saving faith", enough to die that instant and go to heaven? During the sinner's prayer? If so, then THAT determines our eternal destiny? But how can we love and have faith in Christ at that point, sufficient to save?

Although, from a truly regenerated heart, the extent of dirt under the coat (remnant sins after salvation) may determine rewards in heaven, it will not affect salvation.

I have heard this before, maybe 500 posts ago. I don't see in Scriptures where our judgment upon our death will determine a good or better reward. The Scriptures point to either eternal happiness, or an everlasting grinding of teeth in hell. There doesn't seem to be any mention about our judgment being used to determine the square footage of our plot in heaven (or other such talk).

I believe that the Church teaches that men will have different rewards in heaven, but this is more based on Tradition then Scripture (LOL - you are following Tradition!). We see it this way. We ALL will receive our fill in heaven. God will fill our hearts totally. However, to the degree we are sanctified here on earth, the "size" of our heart will grow. Thus, some will enter with a "one gallon sized jug" that will be filled, others will have a "55 gallon sized drum" that will be filled with God. But again, that is not from the Scriptures explicitly!

Well, I suppose I would say that I don't need any evidence to prove my salvation because I don't seek to prove it to others. Only God and I can know for sure if I am saved.

Well, I understand your point of view, although I still am not so absolutely confident that my name is in the Book of the Elect right now. I have a moral confidence of it, but not absolute - that would seem to take away God's Freedom, in case I decided to just start sinning whenever I felt like it - although then you'll say "I never was saved to begin with"! Which then we go in circles by me saying "then how can we know WE are saved in 5 years?" In this same thread, this issue came up with another woman. She said that we know we are saved by the fruit of our works. She said we can tell by our harvest. I responded that we are fruit growers of today, not fruit speculators of the future. We only know what we are producing or have produced - not what we WILL produce...

Yes, I believe that I am of the elect and my name cannot be blotted out. I would replace "cannot fall" with "will not fall".

Scripture clearly states we CAN fall: "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." 1 Cor 10:12

I don't think we can KNOW we are of the Elect. That information is reserved for God alone. HE knows, and the Elect will infallibly be saved. But we can only HOPE we are of the Elect, our works of TODAY giving us a "proof" that we are indeed following the promptings of the Spirit - for the Spirit is Whom moves us to obey the Commandment of Love.

A logical question you might have is that if I am of the elect from the beginning, but I have to accept Christ to be saved, then if I died the day before I would have come to Christ would I still be saved because I am of the elect?

The day BEFORE you accept Christ? How is that possible to know that? I suppose you are saying that GOD foresees that we would accept Christ? If that were the case, then God would keep everyone alive until that day - since God desires that all men be saved. We are now treading the waters of speculation...I prefer not to discuss such opinions on such a matter - who can know who is right?

The Bible says that those who do not obey God do not love God. And, as we discussed and agreed upon before, those who do not love God cannot have true faith.

"True faith"? I suppose that means faith with love? It appears that Protestants have an aversion to the word "love" prefering to "hide" it in the definition of "faith". Does a faith without works of love save? At what point does God "justify" a person, or "save" him? If it is at the sinner's prayer, what sort of love does that person possess with his faith?

I, as a Catholic, see it this way. We are justified, seen righteous in God's eyes by faith in Christ, a gift strictly from God. However, this justification, our being righteous in His eyes, is not necessarily permanent. We must become sanctified in Christ. It is a process. That initial justification is only the first step. We don't receive "loving faith" at the moment of our initial justification. Love comes from sanctification over the course of our lives. Love is learned. Love is practiced. Thus, when considering our eternal destiny, our faith that we received (and grows) must be added to the love we receive (and grows) for eternal salvation. If we are of the elect, this WILL happen. But we don't know. Thus, we "work out our salvation in fear and trembling".

It is the sincerity behind it caused by God's original intent

So YOUR intent of sincerity determines your eternal salvation? Doesn't that sound like a "work", something you earned? Another problem - what about those who were "sincere", but fell away 10 years later? I am sorry, but I just don't agree with the concept of entering eternal life based on a "sincere" sentence said long time ago.

By the way, I appreciate your answers. I hope I am not challenging you too much.

Regards

[Forest Keeper]

God's plans have nothing to do with our decisions, good or bad.

I'm with you so far! :)

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.

Here's my first step off the reservation. :) I would agree that sometimes God lets us lie in the beds we have made, but this says that God never bails us out of trouble and I just know from personal experience that this isn't the case! :)

I know he says later that for God to interpose and bail us out of anything would be to cancel the liberty of the will that God gave us. This honestly reminds me of parents who want to be friends with their young children instead of parents. Do you really see God as such a disinterested parent as Tertullian appears to see Him? From this reading, Tertullian was the uncle who let his nephews use crayons on his walls to allow them self expression. :) Is this right?

...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?

OH PLEASE! :) I don't know who this Marcion guy was, but it definitely sounds like Tertullian was afraid of him. Common human experience proves how pathetic this argument is, and we don't have nearly the sovereignty over our children that God has over us.

For, since He had once for all allowed (and, as we have shown, worthily allowed) to man freedom of will and mastery of himself,...

God allows man mastery of himself??? Yikes! Why doesn't this idea scare you to death? :)

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, ...

This part I'll buy, but the rest of it... who is this guy? :)

Finally, and in an overall sense, while I would agree that man has the freedom to choose evil, I would say it doesn't start until salvation. Before that, we are dead in sin, and have no choice.

[Forest Keeper]

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?

It's funny you should bring it up. About a million posts ago I was arguing once saved always saved, just because that was all that I knew. Then Harley showed me the much superior doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints, which I quickly adopted. This doctrine includes the element of good works as a natural fruit of true salvation. It also, by default, includes the element of discernment, which is also a natural fruit of salvation through the Spirit we receive at regeneration. "We" could blow it and lose our salvation, but due to God's promises, that will not happen. It is not that 'once saved always saved' is completely wrong or evil, it is much more that it is clumsy and defenseless when faced with all the scriptures that talk about "running the race", etc. However, the general idea is still there.

I admit I don't know where the core idea came from, but here are some verses that seem to support it:

Eph 4:29-30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

Eph 1:12-14 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession-to the praise of his glory.

John 10:26-30 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.

Rom 8:37-39 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I think the general idea is rooted in both God's sovereignty to order the universe as He sees fit, and also that once we are (from our POV) claimed and marked by God, it's a done deal.

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.

I could not agree with you more about this danger. Just as in your example, in my experience this is most frequently manifested in this type of person: "OK, John 3:16? Fine, whatever, I'll sign, see you next Easter." :) I have actually heard the equivalent of this. Just as you said, these people are in dire need of much further instruction, from God but through us.

I was pretty close to being that guy myself at one point. Then later, the Spirit touched me and led me to want to know more about my faith. Thank God! But, this isn't atypical for the process of sanctification. It always happens only on the Spirit's time table.

[kosta50]

Even worse, you say that God doesn't particularly care which of us goes to heaven

No, not particularly, He doesn't care for some. He cares for all. Sun shines on all, equally. But if some choose to shut their eyes or hide from it, the Sun will not force their eyes open or pull them out of their dark hiding places! They all know the Sun is out there, whether they like it or not. It's their choice to be in its light or to shun away from it.

[kosta50]

Then later, the Spirit touched me and led me to want to know more about my faith...

Oh,please, don't flatter yourself! Just how do you know it was the Spirit? Everyone uses that phrase. I think it's using the Lord's name in vain, as some kind of warranty.

How do you know it wasn't Satan distorting your views? The answer is plain and simple: you don't know.