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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FK, you have made a fascinating post. I think I now see where part of the problem is and its in how you use the word "salvation". As I understand your use of the term, salvation is the result of "regeneration" by the Holy Spirit and good works (I'll leave aside discernment for a moment) are the fruit of "salvation"? Right?

I have been looking at your word "salvation" as the equivalent of our word "theosis". I think I can say with some confidence that when a Roman Catholic uses the word salvation he means theosis but it is evident that you are using it in a different way. I also notice that you use the words "process of sanctification" seemingly as an equivalent with "salvation". For Orthodox Christians and for Roman Catholics, there is a distinction between salvation or theosis and the "process of santification" or the "process of theosis". That process is always as a result, both initially and ultimately, of grace or the uncreated energies of God by the Holy Spirit. +Symeon the New Theologian a man who some say attained theosis in this life, puts it this way:

"Can a man take fire into his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?' (Prov. 6:27) says the wise Solomon. And I say: can he, who has in his heart the Divine fire of the Holy Spirit burning naked, not be set on fire, not shine and glitter and not take on the radiance of the Deity in the degree of his purification and penetration by fire? For penetration by fire follows upon purification of the heart, and again purification of the heart follows upon penetration by fire, that is, inasmuch as the heart is purified, so it receives Divine grace, and again inasmuch as it receives grace, so it is purified. When this is completed (that is, purification of heart and acquisition of grace have attained their fullness and perfection), through grace a man becomes wholly a god."

What he is describing here until the final sentence is the gradual process of theosis. The final sentence describes complete theosis, which the Roman Catholics call 'salvation". Theosis or salvation for us is the "end product" and is not descriptive of the process.

+Thalassios taught the same thing in a different manner; note the final sentence:

"...when the intellect has been perfected, it unites wholly with God and is illumined by divine light, and the most hidden mysteries are revealed to it. Then it truly learns where wisdom and power lie... While it is still fighting against the passions it cannot as yet enjoy these things... But once the battle is over and it is found worthy of spiritual gifts, then it becomes wholly luminous, powerfully energized by grace and rooted in the contemplation of spiritual realities. A person in whom this happens is not attached to the things of this world but has passed from death to life."

Works, as the fruit of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and also as a preparation of the "self" for more "fire" of the Holy Spirit, play a vital roll in the this process of theosis. As +Gregory Palamas wrote, note again the final sentence:

"After our forefather's transgression in paradise through the tree, we suffered the death of our soul - which is the separation of the soul from God - prior to our bodily death; yet although we cast away our divine likeness, we did not lose our divine image. Thus when the soul renounces its attachment to inferior things and cleaves through love to God and submits itself to Him through acts and modes of virtue, it is illuminated and made beautiful by God and is raised to a higher level, obeying His counsels and exhortations; and by these means it regains the truly eternal life. Through this life it makes the body conjoined to it immortal, so that in due time the body attains the promised resurrection and participates in eternal glory."

Thus for the theology of The Church, what you call "salvation" we call a process, salvation or theosis being what these Fathers are speaking of in the final sentences of the above snips. Now as for falling away during the process, well the Fathers are unanimous in their conviction that indeed that can happen. The process of theosis, theosis itself and the possibility of failure during the process as The Church believes is graphically demonstrated by the icon of the Ladder of Divine Ascent; I don't think I've posted it on this thread:

We start at the bottom of the Ladder and climb upward to union with Christ which is theosis. Along the way we are tempted by demons and encouraged by angels. Some make it, others fall off the Ladder into the Pit (notice that the one headlong into Hell and the third and fourth up the Ladder falling off are hierarchs, very Eastern! :))

Your quotes have not been interpreted by the Fathers or The Church as meaning we cannot fail of our goal of theosis. The first two texts refer, so The Fathers say, to our sealing with Holy Chrism at Chrismation. Indeed, in the Orthodox sacrament, the priest says, as he annoits the Christian, "The servant of God N is sealed in the name of The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit...." The next verse, from John, is interpreted to mean that while no one can "snatch" us from the hand of God, we can "fall" out of it. As +John Chrysostomos writes in Homily VI on Phillipians:

"As long as we are in the hand of God, “no one is able to pluck us out” (John x. 28.), for that hand is strong; but when we fall away from that hand and that help, then are we lost, then are we exposed, ready to be snatched away, as a “bowing wall, and a tottering fence” (Ps. lxii. 3.); when the wall is weak, it will be easy for all to surmount."

The final quote from Romans is repeated time and again by the Fathers for two purposes. One is to demonstrate how God's love falls on all, the good and the evil equally:

"Love never hates anyone, never reproves anyone, never condemns anyone, never grieves anyone, never abhors anyone, neither faithful nor infidel nor stranger nor sinner nor fornicator, nor anyone impure, but instead it is precisely sinners, and weak and negligent souls that it loves more, and feels pain for them and grieves and laments, and it feels sympathy for the wicked and sinners, more than for the good, imitating Christ Who called sinners, and ate and drank with them. For this reason, showing what real love is, He taught saying, 'Become good and merciful like your Father in Heaven,' and as He rains on bad and good and makes the sun to rise on just and unjust alike, so also is the one who has real love, and has compassion, and prays for all." Abba Ammonas (one of the Desert Fathers)

The second reason is to demonstrate that we all have equal access to God's grace, as +Peter the Damascene writes:

""We all receive God's blessings equally. But some of us, receiving God's fire, that is, His word, become soft like beeswax, while the others like clay become hard as stone. And if we do not want Him, He does not force any of us, but like the sun He sends His rays and illuminates the whole world, and he who wants to see Him, sees Him, whereas the one who does not want to see Him, is not forced by Him. And no one is responsible for this privation of light except the one who does not want to have it. God created the sun and the eye. Man is free to receive the sun's light or not. The same is true here. God sends the light of knowledge like rays to all, but He also gave us faith like an eye. The one who wants to receive knowledge through faith, keeps it by his works, and so God gives him more willingness, knowledge, and power"

So, it seems you are using "salvation" in a different way than we do. Tell me, what do you believe happens after the death of the body? BTW, sorry for being so long winded.

"...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?"

First let me state that our Catholic or Orthodox friends would like us to believe the Protestantism just POPPED into existence 1500 years after they've been humming along. This is far from true. The Reformed belief is the true belief of the western early church. The Orthodox church built their theology around John Cassian, a student of Pelagius, both of whom were condemned by the western church as heretics. Many of us Reformers would argue that we are the remnant of the true western church. The Roman Catholics started heading east around 600AD and finally made the transition with Trent.

That being said, when the Arminians broke away from the Calvinists they created the Remonstrant laying out their 5-Points. One of these points was the belief that a person could so fall away from grace that they would no longer be saved (btw-You'll find the 5-points of the Remonstrant to be very close to Roman Catholic theology.) The Synod of Dort countered the Remonstrant with the TULIP which stated while it IS possible for people to fall away, it will never happen simply because we are sustained by God's grace through our Lord Jesus who watches over His flock.

My understanding on this whole OSAS mess is that over time there were some Arminians didn't like the idea of losing one salvation. It smack of works. However they couldn't overtly go back to the Calvinists and say, "Well, looky here. I guess you fellers were right about the PotS all along." Instead they invented OSAS which is a bastardized version of the two views. Please see: A review article on R. T. Kendall’s Once Saved, Always Saved This view allow men to continue to be saved while at the same time retaining their free will. If there is one thing Arminians don't want to give up it's their free will.

To be frank while I believed in OSAS for 30 years I never understood the scriptures behind it and certain I did not understand how one could fall away and still be a Christian. It made no sense and when I would ask questions I simply get the standard, "Let's move on..." kind of comment. Of course if you go with the Catholic/Orthodox/some Protestant view of man losing his salvation, IMHO, you are into works. PotS is the only system that seems consistent with God's grace and salvation while placing the right emphasis on works. Plus it has scripture the Arminians can't explain.

Joh 10:11-18 "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."

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

As a very quick sidebar, I have heard different things, was C.S. Lewis an Anglican?

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

What is the distinction? In either case, God is the power behind it. Catholics don't make the claim that our leaders are infallible based on their own ability!

I have learned from you all and do understand that Catholics do not claim infallibility on their own merit. My distinction was based on the concept of cooperation, I think of a guide as being less authoritative than a director. (If I'm wrong about this I do want to know.) I think of cooperation as that between two separate and distinct entities. Yes, you have God's help, but in order to cooperate you must add something from your own self which is not of God. Isn't this free will? My understanding of what you all are saying is that God "partners" with you to accomplish His will. Yes, you might say God is the major partner, but your "self" is still necessary. Is this fair?

Whether it is on the contents of Scripture OR making a decision on a belief ("is Jesus the same essence as God the Father?"), do you not agree that God would protect His Church, the Faithful, from error?

You would say that my church is not part of the Church, but that I as an individual might be a part of it or of the Faithful. Clearly, at least one of us is in error on a number of issues. Which of us is God not protecting? :) Or, if I disagree with your leaders, am I not one of the faithful?

If you think that the Scriptures are infallible, I do not understand why you refuse to accept God working through these same men to make decisions on the Faith.

That's because I don't believe the scriptures ultimately came from these men. I have no problem with the idea of God giving special wisdom to certain people, like Solomon, but I'm not sure that these special abilities are necessarily transferable from man to man, at least not on the grand scale that you require. Too many have been proven unworthy throughout the ages. I know that you will say that "THE CHURCH" is still infallible despite some bad apples, but I have never heard an explanation of how an infallible Church allows bad apples.

Thus, it is illogical to believe that Paul should have discussed things that didn't come up - either because they were commonly held (Eucharist is Christ's Body) or were not theologically discussed yet (Mary was Assumed into heaven).

I certainly wouldn't presume to tell Paul what he should or should not have written. :) My point was that God did know the future and He could have so easily avoided the whole Reformation by inspiring a few more lines. But, according to my own theology, if the vast majority of the 775 million of us are lost because we aren't Catholic Christians, then I suppose those are God's ways. (I know you never said you thought the vast majority of us are lost, but if you have a guess, I would love to hear it. :)

In matters of faith and morals, we need a Body that protects what was handed down - the Deposit of Faith. This is serious business, because we believe that Deposit CAME FROM GOD. It is not subject to our spin or change with the culture. Nothing is added to it ... (emphasis added)

What about saying mass only in Latin? What about eating meat on Fridays? What about encouraging Catholics to actually read the Bible?

What would BE the point of Scriptures if there was not something to back it up and say "THIS is what it means"?

Well, none, I suppose. That's what we think the Holy Spirit does. You believe that the Spirit only speaks to a few in your hierarchy, and we believe that the Spirit speaks to all believers. (It's not like it's a long distance call either! :) I agree that the Spirit does not send out mixed messages, which must mean that wherever there is error, it must be on the receiver's end. We are all fallible men, after all.

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

Yes, I can, but it won't be to your satisfaction. If I were to quote internally, such as from 2 Timothy 3:15-17, you have already been ordered to interpret that away. It would be the same for any other verse. I could go further and point to such things as unity and the prophecies, but you are again waiting for me with dogma to refute it. I could throw in some external arguments as well (historicity, integrity of scribes, indestructibility of the book, etc.), but you are barred from believing them, even if they made perfect sense to you. It's a no win situation because you are not allowed to engage with an open mind. Everything you think and say first has to go through a lens, about which origin we honestly disagree.

Catholic or Orthodox friends would like us to believe the Protestantism just POPPED into existence 1500 years after they've been humming along. This is far from true

What are the pillars of Protestantism? Faith without works saves; The Bible alone is the rule of faith; man is imputed justification, rather than infused. Man is depraved totally and has no free will. Did I miss any major ones? Oh, and man is saved and cannot fall upon his baptism/sinner's prayer.

I would say that you will have a difficult time finding these innovations in the Fathers of the Church - and you CERTAINLY will not find them all in ANY Father. Thus, Protestantism as we know it did INDEED "pop" into existence during the 1500's. If you can point out ONE Church Father that holds even 3 of the 4 ideas simulataneously, you will have proved your point. It is a shame that you keep spouting off this nonsense about the Fathers. Perhaps you should actually read them. You will be surprised with what you can learn - even if you remain a Baptist/Reformed man. There is a lot of insight from reading their interpretations of Scriptures. Can we point to more holy men then them?

The Orthodox church built their theology around John Cassian, a student of Pelagius, both of whom were condemned by the western church as heretics. Many of us Reformers would argue that we are the remnant of the true western church. The Roman Catholics started heading east around 600AD and finally made the transition with Trent.

Mere assertions without a shred of evidence. This has been disproved here before. Don't you grow tired of this? I have asked you time and time again for such evidence of the changes between Orange 2 and Trent, but I never hear an answer...

The Synod of Dort countered the Remonstrant with the TULIP which stated while it IS possible for people to fall away, it will never happen simply because we are sustained by God's grace

A big leap of self-determination, as we can't know we are of the Elect in the FUTURE. Certainly, the Elect will be saved - but it is presumption to "write yourself" into that book. God might be holding you up as an example of the importance of perseverance to other Christians, only to bring you down later! "Wow, Harley seemed like such a good Christian, but look at him now...I guess I better work out my salvation in fear and trembling..." Who can say what God has planned for you. It is nonsense to presume you are of the elect.

My understanding on this whole OSAS mess is that over time there were some Arminians didn't like the idea of losing one salvation. It smack of works

You don't appear to understand the concept of works in the Bible. Work is not an action, but something we do for pay. Isn't it obvious I can do an action, but out of love and not for pay? Doesn't Christ leave us with ONE Commandment that sums up the Law?

I did not understand how one could fall away and still be a Christian.

Because we aren't Christian in name only. By severing YOURSELF from the Family of God, you are "Christian" by virtue of your Baptism, but this has little meaning if we later reject Christ. Re-read Matthew 7:21 again. The emphasis is on doing the Will of the Father, not on making verbal declarations at an altar call.

Regards

was C.S. Lewis an Anglican?

As far as I know, he was. I hear that Tolkein could never bring him the rest of the way!

My distinction was based on the concept of cooperation, I think of a guide as being less authoritative than a director.

We believe that God allows us to use our intelligence and powers of the mind to make decisions, guided by the will that is led by the Spirit. God provided the visible evidence that led to only one conclusion on each epistle. Thus, there is a cooperation, man does use his knowledge, and God ensures that we make the correct decisions, but not by overpowering us. We believe that God is more behind the scenes, so to speak, then a glorified vision that gave the Bible's table of contents. God COULD do it that way, but no one reported that this is how it happened.

I think of cooperation as that between two separate and distinct entities. Yes, you have God's help, but in order to cooperate you must add something from your own self which is not of God

I disagree with that definition of cooperation. That is a human definition, and would apply between two humans. But with God, we cannot "add" anything, strictly speaking. God has given us EVERYTHING. Both in nature and in grace. However, God has given us the ability to be secondary causes. This is a concept that many Protestants are not aware of or don't understand. An obvious example is child birth. Men and women are secondary causes of that baby forming. Biologically speaking, a baby will not form without the two coming together (ordinarily. Let's leave out the artificial stuff for now). Thus, we are secondary causes - although God makes it possible by creating us with our respective parts.

God gives us free will in the sense that WE are secondary causes of our actions. We are not puppets. But free will does NOT ignore that God is the primary cause of all. As St. Augustine said, "God merely crowns the gifts that He has given man". God rewards His own gifts and their utilization by us as secondary causes.

By realizing that men are secondary causes, that we are operative and have free will to choose - but keeping in mind that God is the primary cause and will "provide" for certain events, it is clear that we can attribute the Bible's compilation to both man and God. Man used his own abilities to judge what belonged and what didn't, while God provided man the "evidence" to be able to make the judgment - the Spirit was certainly among these men, but not to overpower them.

Clearly, at least one of us is in error on a number of issues. Which of us is God not protecting? :) Or, if I disagree with your leaders, am I not one of the faithful?

That is true. And you does not protect each individual's set of beliefs. You have admitted as such very recently regarding OSAS. Who's to say you are incorrect on the Eucharist, if you base you beliefs on your OWN understanding (alone) of Scripture? As to your disagreement, [still trying to "catch" me :)], again, I will say I cannot make that judgment because I don't know you "knowledge" of the Catholic faith and your understanding. Are you REALLY rejecting the Church, knowing that it is the continuation of the Church established by Christ? I would doubt that now. Perhaps we can say you are still "invincibly ignorant". You have been raised in a particular background, taught particular things. It takes time to overcome such biases and ideas. So I can't say the reasons for your rejection of the faith. I would speculate that you still have not received the evidence to overcome the hurdles placed before you.

I'm not sure that these special abilities are necessarily transferable from man to man, at least not on the grand scale that you require.

God did it throughout the OT and NT. But now He no longer does that, relying on individual men to figure it out for themselves?? I thought the New Covenant was supposed to be better, not being one where we CAN'T know the truth about God. Men disagree. Without an authority, we can KNOW little about God. Christ came to give us knowledge of the truth, not to confuse us with the opinions of men. Christ said He would be with His Church for all time. What does this mean to you? If the Spirit of Truth is with His Church (but not individually - as evidence clearly shows), then what IS Jesus talking about? How will the Gates of Hell not prevail against the Church?

Too many have been proven unworthy throughout the ages. I know that you will say that "THE CHURCH" is still infallible despite some bad apples, but I have never heard an explanation of how an infallible Church allows bad apples

As I explained, God GUARDS His DEPOSIT, the teaching of the Church, not the individual's life regarding sin. No one is impeccable (sinless). At what point would you say "OK, that Pope is 'acceptable'? Even one sin, you could then argue, would be enough to bring down the whole idea of the Church's infalliblity? If infallibility was tied to sin, then ANY sin would disprove it. But God Himself prevents even a poor Pope from disrupting the Deposit. Christ came to give US His teachings. He isn't about to let a human screw that up. Thus, we can be SURE that God's teachings, AS GIVEN, continue to come to us. God guides the Church from teaching falsehoods. The Apostles believed this in their writings. Is this based on the Apostles' superior ability or on God? Why does God stop protecting His Church from error???

My point was that God did know the future and He could have so easily avoided the whole Reformation by inspiring a few more lines.

And so why did God allow Adolf Hitler to be born? I am not comparing the Reformation to Hitler, but you will get the point. Our ways are not God's ways...

But, according to my own theology, if the vast majority of the 775 million of us are lost because we aren't Catholic Christians

Oh, brother, well, your theology is incorrect. I never once said a person had to be Roman Catholic to be saved. I have made great effort to NOT say that. Only when we understand that the Church of Christ subsists within the Roman Catholic Church are we REQUIRED to join it. Beyond that, I can't answer for individuals. We believe that God saves ALL, Muslims, people in the Amazons, and even Protestants THROUGH the Body of Christ, the Church, which subsists in the Roman Catholic Church. God, in His infinite mercy, does not ABSOLUTELY require that a person enter the visible Church - to even be baptised. God is not bound by the Sacraments and can save whom He will. I would say that God placed me in the Catholic Church because I need all the help I can get!

What about saying mass only in Latin? What about eating meat on Fridays? What about encouraging Catholics to actually read the Bible?

None of those are dogma of the faith, the Deposit of the Faith given by the Apostles. The are called disciplines, which are given by the Church of a particular time. The Mass was first said in Aramaic or Greek, not Latin. The idea of fasting is from the OT, although I don't know when Friday became operative. Reading the Bible has always been encouraged, although during the polemics during the Reformation, some in the Church were afraid that people would come up with their own ideas and leave the Church. We read the Scriptures WITH the Church.

I agree that the Spirit does not send out mixed messages, which must mean that wherever there is error, it must be on the receiver's end. We are all fallible men, after all.

Exactly. Which is why we don't rely on ourselves on the Deposit of Faith. It was given by God, and cannot be changed by our own ideas - Christianity is a revealed religion. Knowing that men make mistakes, WE don't make dogmatic declarations. How can we alone do that? And why should another person believe us if the "Spirit" speaks to them differently? I believe the Spirit speaks to us, but not in that way. There are too many people who make the claim and are wrong. Christ said that a Kingdom divided among itself must fall. Does the Spirit go against Christ's teachings and meaning of those teachings. Eucharist...

If I were to quote internally, such as from 2 Timothy 3:15-17, you have already been ordered to interpret that away

LOL!!!! I've been ordered? Achtung! Common sense should dictate that 2 Timothy is not referring to the NT writings. Pal clearly tells Timothy about the Scripture he read during his YOUTH! The NT was not written yet! At best, Paul is referring to the OT as Scriptures. But even here, you go too far in saying that these verses teach Bible alone. Look at Eph 4:11-13. They tell us of another way of reaching Christian perfection that has nothing to do with the Bible. This verse refutes Bible alone, within the Bible itself!

My qustion regarding Philemon is "what INTERNAL evidence do you have that this letter is God-breathed." This is what I mean that the Scripute is not self-attesting. We rely on OTHER PEOPLE to tell us that Philemon is Scripture.

Brother in Christ

Are people like Kerry and Kennedy "not Catholics"?

As you know, we cannot judge another person - but if they are obstinate in heretical beliefs, they are separating themselves from the Body, even if the Bishop doesn't do it officially. God doesn't need the Bishop to make such an official determination to call someone a heretic. Officially, they remain Catholics, but to God, they are de facto turning away from the faith.

What do you say about clergy continuing to administer sacraments to such people?

I would quote Gal 1:10 to them... By refusing to discipline someone, we are trying to please other men, rather than please God. Love is not "getting along" with other people, it is leading people to the truth. I would ask "why do you think Paul excommunicated the man of 1 Cor 6"? The answer is clearly "so that the man would return to God". This priest will have a lot of explaining to do for allowing such men to remain in heresy, scandalizing the public and keeping heretics from returning to God (such a heretic will not change unless truly challenged). They are not very good shepherds of the flock.

Yes, an ongoing relationship is critical. I sure am aware of people who have fallen away after professing a faith. My own mother was like this, until she died two years ago

Yes, when it is something close and personal, it can be difficult to continue to follow seemingly restrictive teachings. We trust in the Mercy of the Almighty Father, who is not bound by anything here on earth. We do not know where you mother stood regarding her relationship. Perhaps it might not have been as good as you would have liked. Fortunately, we don't make the decisions. The Catholic Church doesn't condemn specific people to the confines of Hell, because NO ONE can know that relationship between God and the person - and I would say that even WE don't know the full extent of our relationship with Him. Thus, we trust in the mercy of God and hope and pray that the person has chosen a life with God, even if they didn't show it during their lives very well. As you said, we can't know until we ourselves move to the other side.

Regards

What are the pillars of Protestantism?

I would say that you will have a difficult time finding these innovations in the Fathers of the Church - and you CERTAINLY will not find them all in ANY Father.

There is a lot of insight from reading their interpretations of Scriptures.

I suppose you feel like Ignatius, “If I see white and the Church says it’s black, then it is black.” Augustine stated, “I reasoned…”. There is great insight into those two views.

Mere assertions without a shred of evidence. This has been disproved here before. Don't you grow tired of this?

The Semi-Pelagian Theology of John Cassian; Do Arminian Theology, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy Have Similar Roots?

I find it odd that you find that you must deny this very fact. I would think you would proudly tout it.

A big leap of self-determination, as we can't know we are of the Elect in the FUTURE. Certainly, the Elect will be saved - but it is presumption to "write yourself" into that book.

The fact is the ONLY one you can know about is yourself. Paul states to examine yourself to see if you are in the faith (2 Cor 13:5) and he knew he had run the “good race”. Our Lord Jesus says, “My sheep hear my voice and I know them…”. He gave us His Spirit in our hearts as a pledge (2 Cor 1:22).

And how do I know that I’m part of the elect? Feelings? Intuition? Cures from cancer or lighting candles? Not hardly. I base my salvation upon God’s word and His divine promises. Abraham BELIEVED God and it WAS (past tense) accounted as righteousness. God said it and I have faith (imputed to me by God's mercies) that God will bring it to pass.

"God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent; has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken , and will He not make it good? Num 23:19

You don't appear to understand the concept of works in the Bible. Work is not an action, but something we do for pay. Isn't it obvious I can do an action, but out of love and not for pay?

There is not one thing that we haven’t been given-including our works.

By severing YOURSELF from the Family of God, you are "Christian" by virtue of your Baptism, but this has little meaning if we later reject Christ. Re-read Matthew 7:21 again.

As for Matthew 7 (and 25), those who cry out “Lord, Lord did we not do [fill in the blank]” are the ones who are rejected from heaven because they thought they could get into heaven by doing all sorts of “nice” things. Those who were welcomed in heaven were those who stated, “Lord, WHEN did we do these things?” They didn’t even realize they had done anything. Their works was a natural output of their faith.

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