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.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "Your response fails your own test! :)"

I lost you here. Why?

Originally, you said:

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

So, I took your test of sound Christian teaching correctness to be that if it brought someone to Christ, then it was correct. Then you said:

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 took this to mean that Jake was the true Christian. However, Jake failed to bring the man to Christ because Jim succeeded in sending him to satan. Therefore, Jake's true Christian teaching must have been incorrect because it failed to bring the man to Christ.

... because that is [what] Protestantism is all about: find out what you think the Bible said and find a church that fits you. If you can't, start your own.

I would respectfully disagree that Protestantism is all about coming up with one's own theology and then finding validation in one of a million different Protestant churches. I see that as an unfair stereotype. I know it wasn't true in my case. I chose my church because of its emphasis on following the Bible generally, not because of any pet belief that was relatively unique to that church. The only reason I am a Southern Baptist is because they were the first REALLY Bible believing church that I found. I could just as easily have wound up somewhere else, as long as the heart of the church was focused on God and the Bible.

[annalex]

Regarding Jim and Jake, I understand what you mean. This is a nice parallel to the interpretation of "saved":

For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8)

The above is quoted most effectively by Protestants as they defend the salvation by faith alone. (They also quote many other passages, but this is one where "saved" is not in the future tense; likewise Romans 8:24, 11:5, 1 Corinthinas 1:18, 15:2, Ephesians 2:5, Titus 3:5).

Well, is "are saved" referring to a completed event or continuing process? Likewise, is "Jake sent him to Christ" referring to a completed event or continuing process? The quotes alone do not say (checking with the original Greek of the Epistles, "este sesosmenoi" is no help, as the same dilemma exists in Greek). We need to look elsewhere for the answer, and we find it:

But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved. (Matthew 24:13)

Likewise, Matthew 10:22, Mark 13:13, and dosens others where "save" is also in the future tense or conditional mood, point to salvation being a lifelong process. That view is also consistent with multiple excoriations to do works of charity for the sake of the salvation (most explicitly in Matthew 25, Phillipians 2:12).

Going back to Jake, my meaning becomes clearer if we observe that it is possible to be sending one to Christ without the poor devil arriving there. Still, Jake spoke the truth, did he not?

***

I would respectfully disagree that Protestantism is all about coming up with one's own theology and then finding validation in one of a million different Protestant churches.

It is less true of the Baptists than of doctrinaire Protestants, I admit. This is why I like them; after all my own wife is a Baptist. Of course most Protestants of every description today simply go to church they know and love in a positive experience of Christian faith, and could care less about protesting anything or developing their own doctrine. Still historically, all branches of Protestantism developed as I describe: someone reads the Bible, feels dissatisfied with the religious practice he finds around him, protests them, convinces others, and voila, a new denomination is born. Also, when one discovers religion as an adult and seeks to join a church, the Protestant denominations would all, typically, try to convince him by describing their doctrine, when the Orthodox or the Catholic would say simply, this is the Church Christ founded, come and we'll tell you what you need to know in the fullness of time. No marketplace of ideas where I come from.

[Forest Keeper]

[Re: Rom. 3:23] If you read Chapter 3 from the beginning, it speaks about the Jews and the fact that they received the Law (v. 2). It then asks, is it something for which the Jews should be excelled (v. 9), and answers, -No. The Jewish law does not redeem. Previously, in Chapter 1, the pagan Greeks got their treatment and were found even worse. Both Jews and Greeks have "no fear of God before their eyes" (vv 11-18). St. Paul concludes that "by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified" (v 20).

It is in this context that he declared that "all have sinned and need the glory of God". It is clear now, is it not, that "all" refers to the Jews who rely on the law of Moses and the pagan Greeks who only have natural law. It does not refer to the Christians at all, -- it describes the state of mankind before the sanctifying grace of Christ.

This kind of reasoning is precisely why I am a protester. Sometimes it seems that the only way for Catholicism to work is to throw out the plain meaning of the verse. Notice that the verb and form used in Rom. 3:23 is EXACTLY the same used in Rom. 5:12 -

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— ...

I don't see any reasonable interpretation that says this does not refer to ALL of mankind, save Jesus. This is why I will not trust any hierarchy. The need for a preferred philosophy requires stretching scripture into the most unnatural shapes. I know that you will say that your hierarchy has special insight directly from God, but it doesn't make sense to me that God would write so cryptically. ("All" doesn't mean "All") I think of Christianity as being a revealed religion, not to just a few hierarchs.

[Forest Keeper]

Man was created in the image and likeness of God. The image of God contains Free Will. Its part of our being. It has nothing to do with being a parent who wants to be a friend so lets the kids run wild. :)

If I see my son pursue a course I KNOW, because of my experience, will lead him to doom, I will stop him because I love him. You (and Tertullian) seem to be saying that God either can't or won't do that for us. How is this love when He has a million times more authority over us as I have over my own son?

Sort of, but what it means is that God is neither the author of nor responsible for Evil; we are.

On this we are in full agreement. :)

Once we attain theosis, if we attain theosis, then we have no ability to sin because we wouldn't sin, our entire essence being focused on God rather than the self. But FK, that seldom, very seldom, happens in this life.

OK, so then for the "regular" saved person theosis is achieved after physical death. I'm sorry if I am asking you to repeat yourself, but after death, what seals the deal? Is it an immediate judgment of the life led, or is there activity that occurs after physical death that is needed?

[Forest Keeper]

I think the point the Protestants are making is that He foreknew what would happen before He even created man and gave him free will -- and He proceeded to make man anyway, knowing that he shall fail.

Yes, that is exactly right. This is why I struggle so much with the idea that God loves all equally, since He knows what's going to happen and has the full power and authority to affect it.

But, that is assuming way too much about God. Let's just say that He foreknew the effects of their decisions: If they sin, they fall; if they don't sin they stay.

But you're implying that God both loves us all and that He doesn't care whether we choose Him. He has the full power and authority to affect the outcome, but you seem to be saying that He will sit on the sidelines and let us march off into our doom.

[Kolokotronis]

"If I have given you that impression, then I have been in error, and I apologize. I believe that the process of sanctification is very distinct from salvation. I see the truth of salvation as a single moment in time, from our point of view, with future included events (works). I believe sanctification only begins after salvation is accomplished. Sanctification, in part, teaches us how to love God, and appreciate His love for us more. Sanctification is a lifelong process (after salvation) and brings us closer to God. Salvation, according to me, is what gets us into heaven."

I didn't understand what you were saying. For us Orthodox its quite the other way around. What you call salvation we might say is the first time the Holy Spirit takes up in our souls.

"Does this mean that spiritual gifts are not bestowed until after physical death? (Maybe I am misinterpreting "battle is over"?) Regarding the last sentence, does this mean that man is spiritually dead until theosis? If so, then most people spend their entire lives spiritually dead?"

No, but the state that +Thalassios is speaking of is way up near the top of the Ladder. The death to life comment is a comparison of this life and True Life. Compared to True Life in Christ, our life is like a state of death.

"[+Gregory Palamas :] "Through this life it [the soul] makes the body conjoined to it immortal, so that in due time the body attains the promised resurrection and participates in eternal glory."

Sorry for coming up with such a weird question here, but does this mean that a soul doomed to hell will be without body? (From the context, I'm assuming that a lost soul will not make the body immortal.) In that case, how can there be "weeping and gnashing of teeth"?"

Kosta answered this one as well as I could.

""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,...

This is another good point that I haven't been able to understand. Isn't it clear in this passage that we are stronger than the hand of God? God's hand is strong, but not strong enough to overcome our desires? To me, interpreting "no one" into "no one except me" renders the whole verse useless. It completely negates the point of the verse."

Why do you think this negates the scripture verse? Is it because you believe that once you have gained salvation the struggle is over? From an Orthodox pov the struggle usually continues through life and since it is we who cut ourselves off from God, not other people, what +John Chrysostomos says seems self-evident.

[kosta50]

You say that God makes the same offer to us all, but the determinative factor is what our response to it is, by our free will.

You know, the Bible is full of examples where God allows us to run our own destinies and exercise our corrupt, but free will. Take, for instance, Genesis 6:3

"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man..."

and then later on (6:5-7)

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

Doesn't sound like He was much in control there, does it? Nor does it sound like that was His plan. Obviously, there is more to this then to conclude that God was surprised, but it is clear that He had a change of heart and wanted to destroy that which He originally created.

But out of love for humanity, and because of the few just among us (in a Hebraic sense of "just"), He gave man a second chance (and many more since then). He then revealed Himself to the Hebrews and made a Covenant with Israel, the people of God. But the people of God betrayed His love over and over and made His Covenant corrupt once more.

And then He made a Second Covenant, that made the first obsolete as we learn in (Heb 8:7), which quotes the Old Testament:

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second."

as St. Paul concludes (Heb 8:13)

"In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

So, obviously what we do on earth does affect our salvation. That certainly does not mean that we are passive riders on His conveyor belt, where he placed some on one and others on the other belt, and now some destined to salvation and other to perdition.

From these verses, none of this seems scripted and pre-ordained. What happens to us in this world, in this time-space bubble outside of the eternal continuum, is our dominion and God helps and even sacrifices Himself for us when we are in dire straits, but He gave us life to live and to come to the Truth on our own with His unceasing help and blessings.

What happens in this space-time bubble of our world does not affect His will and desire to see man in Paradise, because, although He would prefer that all be saved, He does not force all to be saved; thus, no doubt some will end up there and some won't, and some are there already. But those who are or who are on their way way are the elect because they willingly followed the footsteps of our Savior, and not because they were made to do so. When +Paul says we were predestined to be saved, he simply knew what their free choices will be; it doesn't mean He actively "put a spell" on them. :-)

[Kolokotronis]

"If I see my son pursue a course I KNOW, because of my experience, will lead him to doom, I will stop him because I love him. You (and Tertullian) seem to be saying that God either can't or won't do that for us. How is this love when He has a million times more authority over us as I have over my own son?"

It isn't "can't", its "won't". We have free will as part of our created essencesn because God wanted it that way. He is constantly showering his uncreated energies on us and has restored our original pre-Fall potential through the Incarnation. In short, he has endowed us with everything we need to become like Christ. Its up to us to accept what has been and is given to us. The parent concept works only so far and at some point anthropomorphism becomes a hinderance to a recognition of the complete ineffability and transcendence of God.

"Your ways are not My Ways, neither are your thoughts My Thoughts
As high as the Heaven is above the earth, even so high are
My Ways above yours." Isaiah 55:8-9

"OK, so then for the "regular" saved person theosis is achieved after physical death."

Perhaps better said it occurs after death because the soul can do nothing for itself after death.

"I'm sorry if I am asking you to repeat yourself, but after death, what seals the deal?"

God's mercy. We are told that at the Final Judgment we are judged not by good or evil deeds but rather by how much we have become like Christ (not, I suppose, if we have reached complete theosis, at least I hope not).

[kosta50]

But you're implying that God both loves us all and that He doesn't care whether we choose Him

So, you are implying that a loving God should make us love Him, as much as He makes others hate Him? Tue love is never selfish, FK. What we often call love is self-love or selfishness.

God cares if we love HIm, but He doesn't compel us to love Him. Reason tells us that it is better to choose God over evil, yet evil has the power over us because evil things are something we can see and believe, which is why our Lord reminded us that blessed are those who believe and have not seen (cf Jn 20:29). Evil things we can feel instantly, physically, etc. and although we know they are perishable, while they last they seem forever rewarding.

Faith is hope and hope is of things that have yet to come, which is why it is so difficult for us, subject to sin, to live in hope. Our mind tells us we should, but our flesh says otherwise.

Once your children are grown, no matter how much you love them, you must let them go -- if you love them! It doesn't mean you don't care, it only means that love is giving freedom and not keeping captive.

As for Him creaing us with the kowledge that we will fall, you must look at it transcendentally; otherwise you have an evil God back on stage. :-)

[annalex]

it seems that the only way for Catholicism to work is to throw out the plain meaning of the verse.

To read the scripture one must inderstand the context, that is all. In fact, it often amazes me how complex doctrines of the Church are confronted by the Protestants with single-phrase quotes, -- quotes that come invariably from a lengthy explanation of some other dictrine of the Church. And as invariably the Protestant prooftext collapses once the quote is seen in context. But then, of course, we face this "plain meaning" accusation. The plain meaning comes from the context, does it not? Did I not give and explain the context?

Let us examine Romans 5 now. The same prooftexting rigmarole repeats here. The topic is the connection between sin and death, on one hand and Christ and eternal life on the other. It concludes in verse 21 thus

That as sin hath reigned to death; so also grace might reign by justice unto life everlasting, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The plain meaning here is not that all sin, but that through Christ all are free from sin. Which, of course, includes Virgin Mary, sanctified at her immaculate conception. Romans 5:12 does not contradict her sinlessness at all.

You are familiar with the legal language in which contracts and product manuals are written. There are overloaded with clauses, caveats, subclauses and footnotes in order to escape some or another prooftext that would incriminate the partner of the contract. So we read that lawn mowers are not to be used to do haircuts, that the back side of a ladder should not be used as the front side, that frying pans are harmful if swallowed, etc. I suppose St. Paul could have written Romans in a similar way:

all Greeks and Jews, prior to they conversion by Christ have sinned; where Jews are to be understood for the purposes of this discussion as either natural Jews or converts, as well as members of the household of thus defined Jew, as per the Law of Moses and matrilinearly, while Greeks are to be understood expansively as any citizens or residents of the Roman Empire, or members of their household inasmuch as they keep pagan worship; none in this group or groups shall apply to children before age of reason or the mentally ill, or Virgin Mary at all time of her life. The members of the above group or groups need the glory of God.

[jo kus]

This kind of reasoning is precisely why I am a protester. Sometimes it seems that the only way for Catholicism to work is to throw out the plain meaning of the verse. Notice that the verb and form used in Rom. 3:23 is EXACTLY the same used in Rom. 5:12

Brother, regarding Romans 3. Realize that when Paul quotes the Old Testament, he always considers the context. He is quoting from several of the Psalms. Here is an example from Psalms 5:

For thou [art] not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man. But as for me, I will come [into] thy house in the multitude of thy mercy: [and] in thy fear will I worship toward thy holy temple. Lead me, O LORD, in thy righteousness because of mine enemies; make thy way straight before my face. For [there is] no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part [is] very wickedness; their throat [is] an open sepulchre; they flatter with their tongue. Destroy thou them, O God; let them fall by their own counsels; cast them out in the multitude of their transgressions; for they have rebelled against thee. But let all those that put their trust in thee rejoice: let them ever shout for joy, because thou defendest them: let them also that love thy name be joyful in thee. For thou, LORD, wilt bless the righteous; with favour wilt thou compass him as [with] a shield.

Over and over, the Psalms speaks of the two "ways". Those who follow God and those who do not. Those who do not follow God, there is not one righteous among them. Not even one. They all follow their own ways...and so forth. This is what Paul is saying in Romans 3. King David was speaking of unrighteous JEWS. Just because one is a Jew doesn't mean he is righteous. One's birth does not determine whether one is saved.

IF one was to say that Paul actually means that ALL men are wicked, then Paul ALSO must mean that Jesus is wicked as well. Paul does NOT exclude Jesus anywhere in Romans 3. Thus, we know that Paul is NOT refering to ALL mankind when he says they are ALL wicked. Only those who turn from God are wicked. Every last one of them. Otherwise, you would have the Bible disagree with the numerous times that it refers to men and women as righteous!!! And Jesus is wicked?

The need for a preferred philosophy requires stretching scripture into the most unnatural shapes.

I wonder why it took Christianity 1500 years to figure out the "truth" of the Gospel according to Luther! If Paul means ALL men are wicked, then ALL men are wicked. That would include Jesus. Simple as that. You can't have it both ways.

Regards

[Forest Keeper]

Thus, there is a cooperation, man does use his knowledge, and God ensures that we make the correct decisions, but not by overpowering us.

BUT GOD DOESN'T ACTUALLY DO THAT DOES HE? :) That's my whole issue here. Most are lost. God doesn't ensure anything, although He could. Why is that if He loves us all equally?

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.

But who is responsible? Where does the buck stop? Does God need a secondary helper to get what He wants? When you say that we can't add anything, that sounds like you are agreeing with me. But, yet you say that we are secondary causes. Who earned the paycheck for the work? I would say that God gets all of the credit for the creation of my two beautiful children. I was a vessel in their creation, but deserve no credit. I made no independent decision of my own merit. I do not think of myself as having cooperated. All the glory of God's creation goes to God, none to me. You might say that God gets all the credit, but you also say we are a cause. Are we a cause because we are used, or are we a cause because we added something from ourselves?

... 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.

OK, this makes it more clear to me. "Man used his own abilities". Therefore, man deserves some credit for writing and compiling the Bible. If true, then I just hope that the men did a good job. I suppose there is no way for us to know for sure if they did. I hope that whatever errors they made weren't "big ones" :)

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".

I can live with that. :)

FK: "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??

Can you show me how men routinely transferred supernatural abilities to other men? God certainly touched many people with special abilities, but I am not aware that it was common that these people then empowered other men. How does a human bestow Godly powers on another?

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?

Yes, Christ said that, but we disagree on the meaning of "Christ's Church". I believe that God intended His Church to include many more of those whose honest Spirit-driven consciences cannot follow the Catholic hierarchy.

Even one sin, you could then argue, would be enough to bring down the whole idea of the Church's infallibility? 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 whole tenor of your argument sounds almost Protestant. :) Now, for the first time ever I have heard from a Catholic, God is willing to step in and prevent a human from screwing something up. I suppose I must assume that God is still fine with letting us doom ourselves to hell, but if the Deposit is on the line, then He will step in? Where is the free will?

FK: "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.

I know that! You're not being fair. Did you read my qualification? I followed with:

(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. :)

You must believe that some self professing Protestants are lost just as you must believe that some self professing Catholics are lost. That is only reasonable. I was trying to discern whether your side thinks that most of my side is lost, or most are saved, or nobody knows, or whatever your view is.

LOL!!!! I've been ordered? Achtung! Common sense should dictate that 2 Timothy is not referring to the NT writings.Paul 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.

When I say that you are "ordered", I mean that you are not free to disagree. Your free will must be quashed for the supremacy of the hierarchy.

I'd like to take a quick look at whether Paul recognized anything in what is now the NT as "scripture". Consider the earlier writing in 1 Tim. 5:18 :

18 For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages."

Now let's look at Luke 10:7 :

7 Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.

Wasn't Luke written just a few years before 1 Timothy? Doesn't it seem that Paul is quoting Luke as actual "scripture"?

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!

I'm an evangelical Protestant, of course I believe in evangelism! :) Let's look at your passage and see if it has "nothing to do with the Bible".

Eph. 4:11-13 : "11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."

So, I think I see how we view this passage differently. You might say that preparing God's people, reaching unity, becoming mature, and attaining the whole measure of Christ have nothing to do with the Bible, but these teachings are accomplished by men. (You said this passage has nothing to do with the Bible.) I would counter by saying that the scripture at the time (including available NT scripture) plus oral testimony that would later become the NT are what would accomplish all of these Godly goals.

My question regarding Philemon is "what INTERNAL evidence do you have that this letter is God-breathed." This is what I mean that the Scripture is not self-attesting.

I am no scholar on Philemon. Do you mean that to pass your test that each individual book in the Bible must independently self-authenticate? I'm not sure I can help you with that on a book-by-book basis. I simply believe that God wrote His word, and there is a lot of evidence saying so, self-contained within the Bible.

[jo kus]

I wrote: there is a cooperation, man does use his knowledge, and God ensures that we make the correct decisions, but not by overpowering us.

You replied : BUT GOD DOESN'T ACTUALLY DO THAT DOES HE?... Most are lost. God doesn't ensure anything, although He could. Why is that if He loves us all equally?

God obviously takes our response into some sort of consideration OR He chooses whom He will for His own reasons. If God loves, He desires we willingly come to Him. Thus, He gives us the means to convert. It is also reliant on us to accept His Graces. We CAN refuse God's Graces, as the NT clearly states. Again, it becomes more clear IF you recall that God sees all as one big NOW. God doesn't live within time. He doesn't "wait" for our response. He knows it already. Thus, it is pointless to argue about God "ensuring" things.

Does God need a secondary helper to get what He wants?

Back to love, brother. Those who love DESIRE the loved to freely participate in actions. Thus, God DOES allow humans to participate in creating life. God DOES allow humans to participate in saving other men. Not because He needs us, because He desires us to participate in the divine nature. All in Scriptures.

When you say that we can't add anything, that sounds like you are agreeing with me. But, yet you say that we are secondary causes.

It is not "either/or", it is "AND". Do you remember the cookie analogy I gave many posts ago? Does the mother need the two year old to help make the cookies? Why does the mother have the child participate in this, if the mother doesn't need the daughter? You need to think outside of the "pragmatic, utilitarian" box that Protestants put themselves into and realize that God does things out of love, not out of necessity. Our existence relies on God's love, not any necessity.

I would say that God gets all of the credit for the creation of my two beautiful children

So you had nothing to do with it? Your wife did nothing? I suspect she's disagree! Saying you participate does not take anything away from God!!! I smile when I write that, because I know that God DESIRES for me to participate in His work. This is love, brother.

I suppose there is no way for us to know for sure if they did. I hope that whatever errors they made weren't "big ones" :)

Our premise of inerrancy of the Scriptures is built on the argument that Christ was God and left an authoritative Church to continue His teachings - promising them that they would be protected. If you approach the Scriptures as merely historical works FIRST, and work your way through history, you will conclude that the Scriptures ARE God's Word. But to do so, you must ALSO believe that God is protecting a PARTICULAR group of men to have written it and interpret it today.

Can you show me how men routinely transferred supernatural abilities to other men? God certainly touched many people with special abilities, but I am not aware that it was common that these people then empowered other men. How does a human bestow Godly powers on another?

By laying hands on them. This is found all over Scriptures, both in the OT and NT. The Spirit found within the prophets were transferred by this laying of hands. By the passing of the mantle. Note in the Acts, ONLY those who had the elders lay their hands on them were considered legitimate teachers of the faith. In other words, you just didn't SEND YOURSELF. Apostle means sent. By someone else.

Ex. Acts 14:22 "and when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commanded them to the Lord."

"For which cause I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace of God that is in thee by the imposition of my hands" 2 Tim 1:6.

Neglect not the grace that is within thee: which was given thee by prophesy, with the imposition of the hands of the priesthood." 1 Tim 4:14

"Impose not hands lightly on any man" 1 Tim 5:22

Power passed through the imposition of hands from one of the priesthood to another. As the Father had sent Christ, so He sent the Apostles - and they sent other men.

I believe that God intended His Church to include many more of those whose honest Spirit-driven consciences cannot follow the Catholic hierarchy.

One should explore WHY they don't follow the "Catholic heirarchy" when it is the same heirarchy that gave us the Scriptures and the very teaching that Jesus was Lord...

Now, for the first time ever I have heard from a Catholic, God is willing to step in and prevent a human from screwing something up.

??? The whole concept of Papal infallibility PRESUMES that, doesn't it? I have already said that the Holy Spirit, not the Pope's inherent abilities, make him infallible. Thus, I am consistently saying that God steps in to ensure that the Apostolic Faith is transmitted without error. I think all Catholics would agree with that.

Where is the free will?

God desires that His teachings are truly available to people, to come to the knowledge of His truth. Knowing the Gospel, then we are free to decide to follow Him or not. If we COULDN'T know the truth (such as the typical Protestant), then how can we be assured that we even believe what God has taught? Sure, we know the Scriptures, but the same verse can be taken in different 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. :)

I apologize. What are you asking me here? Whether Protestants will enter heaven? Of course they will. Christ said that tax collectors and harlots would enter the Kingdom before the religiously self-righteous, so why would I expect holy Protestants who are ignornant of the Catholic Church's true claim will not be there? I can't even know if I myself will end up in heaven, absolutely speaking, so I can't answer for you. I would say that if all things were equal, a Catholic has more access to the "tools" that God has given the world to come to Him and receive His graces.

Basically, God has given us a one acre yard to cut. The Catholic Church is the John Deere Lawnmower. Protestant communities are various other tools, from a weedeater to a pair of moustache trimmers...But they are only such BECAUSE they are somehow still teaching what the Church teaches. There is nothing in opposition to the Catholic Church's teaachings that are salvific. A person can be saved IN SPITE of being a Protestant - because of his unknowing ties to the Catholic Church. I don't know if this is helpful to you understanding what the Church means by "no salvation outside of the Church", but I am trying my best.

I mean that you are not free to disagree. Your free will must be quashed for the supremacy of the hierarchy.

Free will means doing what God intended me to do, not whatever I feel like doing. Following the Church grants me MORE free will because I can learn more about what God has in mind for humanity by following her teachings. I can more effectively come to God through her.

Wasn't Luke written just a few years before 1 Timothy? Doesn't it seem that Paul is quoting Luke as actual "scripture"?

Are you saying that Timothy was reading Luke while a youth? Otherwise, your argument is merely deviating from the whole point of my argument.

So, I think I see how we view this passage differently. You might say that preparing God's people, reaching unity, becoming mature, and attaining the whole measure of Christ have nothing to do with the Bible, but these teachings are accomplished by men.

When I say that Eph 4 has nothing to do with the Bible, I don't mean that the teachers do not use Scripture. I am saying that the Scripture ALONE is not mentioned. It doesn't say ANYWHERE that men are to use ONLY the Scripture to teach men. The Bible is not mentioned at all - yet men are able to perfect other men to be better Christians. Thus, the premise, that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, is denied by this passage. IF another means of coming to the faith is given (Apostlic men), then the Bible CANNOT be the SOLE rule of faith!

I would counter by saying that the scripture at the time (including available NT scripture) plus oral testimony that would later become the NT are what would accomplish all of these Godly goals.

I would say you have absolutely NO evidence to make such a statement. That is a presumption based on "Bible alone". NOWHERE does the Scripture say that IT encapsulates ALL oral tradition. NOWHERE does the Bible say "after the Scriptures are written, ignore anything else outside of it". No. It even tells us to FOLLOW oral traditions:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. 2 Thes 2:15

I find NO command within Scriptures that tell us to "do not follow Oral teachings no more". THAT, brother, is clearly a tradition of men invented during the Protestant Reformation. Can you show evidence to the contrary? That you are following a rule that is not even found in the Bible? That you disobey a command found in the Bible that was NEVER rescinded or abrogated?

Do you mean that to pass your test that each individual book in the Bible must independently self-authenticate?

IF the Bible is self-authenticating, then EACH BOOK MUST be, as well. The Bible was not written as one big book, but is a compilation of letters taken from different writers of different times. For heaven's sake, we don't even KNOW WHO wrote most of the New Testament letters, without external witnesses of the Church! Were some forged? Paul specifically warns others of this possibility!

I simply believe that God wrote His word, and there is a lot of evidence saying so, self-contained within the Bible.

You don't want to admit that if it wasn't for the Church, you wouldn't even KNOW WHAT WAS the Bible...At least Luther admitted this regarding the Church and her protection of the Word of God and its transmittal to future men.

Regards

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "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.

I agree I was asking for speculation, but it wasn't on salvation, only on Catholicism. I wouldn't venture to guess whether Bill Clinton is saved, but I think I could say that he is not a good Baptist, based on what I know of his beliefs and conduct. The last person I see in him is Christ.

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.

An excellent answer, thanks.

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 ...

Amen, brother. I also think that God teaches that we shouldn't beat ourselves up about such a loved one, I didn't witness to her enough, etc. Satan is the accuser, not God. So, I'll find out when I find out, and whatever the answer is, I'll be able through God to accept it.

[Forest Keeper]

HD: "Joseph kept Mary a virgin until she gave birth to our Lord Jesus and now and then His family would visit with Him."

Annalex: "Note that it does NOT say that the family included children born of Mary or that Joseph did not keep Mary a virgin after Christ's birth."

So Mary had a perpetual headache throughout her marriage? Was Joseph gay? :) Why would he not touch his wife as a husband? There are many Bible verses evidencing that Jesus had blood related siblings. How do you interpret them all away?

[Forest Keeper]

During the process of theosis, our personal free will can lead us to grace or sin.

I think I am stuck on your calling free will a divine attribute. Jesus never sinned, yet we all do, through our free will. As you said, we even sin after Baptism, during the process of theosis. Therefore, I don't understand how free will is a divine attribute because sinning is obviously not divine. By this reasoning, you might say that Jesus could have chosen to sin, but didn't. I would say that while Jesus did have free will, He never had the potential to sin within Him, so He "couldn't" have.

Remember what the English word "sin" is a translation of, the Greek word "amartia" which means "to miss the mark", the mark being Christ, which is a rather different concept from that in the West.

OK, then would you equate sin with "evil", as I would? Or, is "missing the mark" more like mistake, or something else? How do you see the concept of evil?

[annalex]

Let us understand what sex is first. The original marriage of Adam and Eve was joyful because it was properly directed to the spouse of the same flesh and included God is some intimate way as they were naked before Him (no caricatures please). This joy of triangular union with the right spouse and with God is the essence of Paradise we have lost.

Following the Fall, the union of sacred marriage was darkened and disordered by withdrawal from divine grace and missapplied, concupiscent lust. This is what the appearance of clothing as a necessity of life indicates. Were it not for the original sin, we would walk amid the prettiest young women, all stark naked, and have lust only for our wives. However, God continued to command us to multiply and fill the Earth, and also and at the same time, seek Him and love Him. He wanted to restore the sacred union. So he put in us the yearning for truth and the sexual desire, unitive and procreative in origin, as a foretaste of Heaven. Sex done right, -- in the context of the loving marriage and open to creation of new life, -- is a glimpse at the eternal joy of paradise. Its hormonal effects are tools to an objective, not the objective itself.

Mary had arrived to the unitive and procreative marriage to the Holy Ghost abundantly. Sinless, she was united to Him at all times. Her body gave birth to the perfect new man. She was walking in paradise all her life. The hormonal urgings a lesser woman goes by had no purpose in her; if she had them they were not significant and probably not noticeable to her enlightened mind.

The Catholic world, by the way, is filled with celibate men and women that are not bothered by their celibacy in the least. They have learned to sublimate their sexual energy to intellectual and spiritual creativity. It is not a unique phenomenon.

***

Regarding the verses. The Greek word in Matthew 1:25 is "eos" and it simply means "prior to".

And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 1:25, Douay-Rheims)

kai ouk eginosken auten eos ou eteken ton yion autes ton prototokon kai ekalesen to onoma autou iesoun

Sometimes "eos" means that the action (or in St. Joseph's case, inaction) before the moment it points to has ceased and sometimes it means that the action continued. We understand which is the case from context, and when we need to translate into English, which has a more finely defined words, we choose between "until", "till", "to" or "before". Both Douay and King James translate it as "till"; I am not suprised that mariophobic translations, that abounded in modern times and Harley is using, mistranslate it as "until". It is most similar to the English "till" which also does not have the strict "before, but not after" meaning. For example, if I say "I did not drink alcohol till the blood test" the likely context is that my blood work should be good, not that I went to the bar right after I went to the clinic. But if I say "I did not drink alcohol till I joined a fraternity in college" then the context is, most likely, that I drank once I joined because that is what fraternities are for, are they not? In Matthew 1 the context is that Christ's birth was miraculous, not the relations John and Mary had after the focus of Matthew's story shifted away. It is reasonable to assume that Mathew's focus was on the absence of marital act before the birth of Christ, not after, all the more so since the testimony of Joseph to that effect had to me made at the time of Christ's birth, but testimonies of one's sex life for reasons other than establishing paternity are not common. Matthew simply had no way of knowing what Joseph and Mary's intimate life was the rest of their days.

Go to The Unbound Bible and select any Greek NT as fist choice. Byzantine/Majority (2000) is the easiest to read and is authoritative. Select any other translation unless you fluently read Greek. Configure the criteria New Testament, Matthew, 1, 25. The results should be just that verse. Find the word "eos" ("o" is "omega", looks like "W") in it, copy it and paste it in the search engine. Clear the Matthew, 1, 25 boxes. This will give you the list of all occurences of "eos". See for yourself if it is used in "before not after" sense all the time. For example, see Matthew 23:35 "That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed", -- surely the Pharisees did not stop killing the just after Zacharias. Or see Matthew 27:8 "the field was called Haceldama, that is, The field of blood, even to this day" -- did Matthew indicate here that the field is about to be renamed?

As to the "brothers", Jesus Himself loved calling people brothers and they were not blood relatives; he in fact taught us all to do the same. In large families there is a mixture of cousins, second cousins, half brothers, milk brothers, and of course bolld brothers. It is natural to refer to all of them collectively as "brothers". In Greek to this day "adelphoi" (the word used in the Gospel) is used to indicate all kinds of kinsfolk. Likewise, in the Old Testament Lot is called "brother" of Abraham even though the Bible is explicit about his genealogy and he is his nephew. There is no warrant to assume that "adelphoi" in Matthew 12 referred to physical children of Mary (we are all her spiritual children).

[HarleyD]

Our Catholic friends will undoubtedly tell you that a number of early Protestant fathers such as Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc all believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. I believe this was simply because many of these leaders carried the "baggage" of the Catholic Church from where most of them came; not because of critical biblical study.

Matthew 1:25 shows Mary to be a virgin UNTIL she gave birth. There are other places in scripture that talks about the brothers of Jesus. While some suggest the meaning of this word could also mean "cousin" I remain skeptical. James (from the book) identifies himself as the "brother" of Christ; others books written by Peter, Paul and John do not do this. Another point is that God only came to Mary once choosing to work through Joseph after they were married; since Joseph was now head of the house as God intend. But there is no mistaking the conjunction "until" in Matthew 1:25 which even John Calvin had a hard time explaining away.

To me the problem isn't with Catholic doctrine of Mary being a virgin because we all would agree that she was and remained a virgin until Christ was born. The problem is that this virginity is elevated far beyond reasonableness which has spawned other errors, the chief believing Mary was not tainted with original sin in order for Christ to be born. New Advent states:

In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."

Personally I think they’ve made a grave error. Mary, IMO, had just as much original sin as everyone else. Sin is passed on by the male. It is not carried by the female.

This is where this perpetual virginity has led the Church; to compare Mary against Eve. Jesus is to Adam as Mary is to Eve and as Jesus was untainted by original sin so was Mary. Thus Mary becomes a “co-redeemer” in the work of Christ by being untainted with original sin, she freely gives herself to God unlike Eve who gave herself to temptation.

While this is very poetic it is wrong theologically speaking. The scriptures plainly says that Eve was deceived (2 Cor 11:3, 1 Tim 2:14). In other words, Eve was duped. This is important in that sin came into the world through the willful act of Adam-not Eve who was the FIRST to eat of the fruit. It was through Adam that the world was corrupted and condemned-not Eve. (We'll leave out why God didn't give Adam the wisdom and understanding of his action for now.)

One more note of interest as I was looking something up. Please look at how the Catholics interpret Gen 3:15

Book of Genesis (3:15): "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

And here is the actual translation from the Hebrew:

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The Catholic Vulgate completely altered the text and the meaning of Gen 3:15 between “crush” vs “bruise” and “she shall” vs “it shall”. I won’t go into the first point of “bruising” which they also changed. As far as explaining why they changed the Hebrew text from “it shall” to “she shall” our Catholic friends claim:

(2) The second point of difference between the Hebrew text and our version concerns the agent who is to inflict the mortal wound on the servant: our version agrees with the present Vulgate text in reading "she" (ipsa) which refers to the woman, while the Hebrew text reads hu' (autos, ipse) which refers to the seed of the woman. According to our version, and the Vulgate reading, the woman herself will win the victory; according to the Hebrew text, she will be victorious through her seed.

New Advent on Mary

In other words, they simply ignore it saying that their version agrees with the WRONG translation of the Hebrew text. They agree with a mistaken, bias translation from a Catholic father then what the original Hebrew text actually states! This, btw, was a similar experience that Luther discovered with indulgence; a doctrine built around a poorly translated piece of text. Our Catholic brethren are fond of talking about the inconsistencies of the King James Version. Yet here is but one inconsistency of the Latin Vulgate yet they refuse to change it. I wonder why?

[annalex]

You are correct that "she shall crush" is a mistranslation, both the Sepuagint and the Hebrew original have the masculine pronoun referring to the seed. The commentary to that verse in Douay says

15 "She shall crush"... Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head.

It is acknowledged as St. Jerome's mistake. You are wrong however to insist that anything deep comes out of the mistranslation since the entire verse still speaks of the victory of the Woman.

I explained both the reasoning for perpetual virginity and the lack of scriptural support for the denial thereof in my previous post.

The parallel between Adam and Christ and Eve and Mary is perfect. Adam is the first to sin and Christ is the first to redeem. Eve is listenes to Satan, questions him, and agrees with the Devil. Mary listens to the angel, questions him, and agrees with God. Adam sins through the mechanism of the seduction of Eve cooperatiing with Satan, and Christ redeems through the mechanism of His incarnation through Mary cooperating with the Holy Ghost.

[Forest Keeper]

[From Athonite Archimandrite Sophrony:] "... We must not wait for God to force Himself on us without our consent. God respects and does not constrain man. It is amazing how God humbles Himself before us. He loves us with a tender love, not haughtily, not with condescension."

I would certainly agree that Jesus defines ultimate humility. Praise and glory be to God. Where I think we disagree is over whether He showed humility out of respect for us OR out of love for us. I would say these are completely different reasons. If you made a list of people you respect, what would they all have in common? They would all MERIT your respect, wouldn't they? Many of them would even have something or some quality that you do not have. I don't see how man can merit God's respect. Love, of course, requires no merit.