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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clearly, Jesus does recognize and praise several demonstrations of faith in the Gospels. I know that. My only point is to remember that it is God who made it all happen

When did I say anything about man doing something worthy ALONE? We keep going back to this - which is something neither of us has ever said. Men are exalted for responding to God's graces - throughout the entire Bible. Does this bother you? God seems to revel in it! Yet, you desire Him not to share of Himself, so that He "gets all the glory"? Brother, love means we share of ourselves. If God is love, God exalts other people. But no one who is exalted is proud! It is the HUMBLE who are exalted, not the proud! Thus, your worries are misplaced.

Oh, come on! Are you really one of those who says there are "thousands" of different Protestant denominations?

Even if I agree with that, how does that disprove my point - "I had thought that common sense - having {dozens} of different denominations that all equally claim to be led by the Spirit - would be enough for you to determine that the Spirit does not lead on the dogmatic front to individuals."? The question to you remains the same. How does the Spirit lead Christians in diametrically opposed directions on key elements of the faith? The ONLY response is that the Spirit is NOT leading people in this manner. It is literally impossible, without the Spirit overwhelming our human nature, for men to figure out alone and indepedently of each other a common set of beliefs. Protestantism fails here. The individual was never meant to be the determiner of God's Revelation. God's Revelation is given to men, not figured out independently at everyone's whim.

Tradition trumps scripture! You cannot take scripture on its face. You must filter it through the Church's lens to arrive at an interpretation that matches tradition. It is the scriptural meaning that changes, not the tradition. That is the only way HOW to read scripture.

We ALL read the Scriptures through "lenses", including you. You have your Protestant goggles on when you read Romans 3 - claiming that ALL are wicked. EVERYONE has a paradigm that they read ANY book through. A book is not alive. The people who read it are. With the Bible, God gives meaning to it as we read it - sometimes, being different then for someone who read it 500 years ago. This is called the living Tradition of the Church - how we read Scriptures TODAY. Tradition is HOW we read Scripture. In some cases, this Tradition extends back to the Apostles.

No, I remember that, I just don't trust people playing the telephone game with doctrine that is not in the Bible.

I told you already that oral traditions from the Apostles (such as infant baptism) ARE written down! What telephone game? We aren't relying on someone passing down a teaching by word of mouth! However, I understand that you have been taught that everything must be in the Scriptures explicitly to be believed. What I am curious about is "where is that rule located at within the Scriptures?" Where is the "Table of Contents" in the Scriptures? Where does it say that men are saved by faith alone? Should we go on? There seems to be a double standard here. Anything that Protestants believe but is not in Scriptures are OK. But if the Church believes in something for 2000 years and not denied by written Scripture, then it is not believable? Let's be consistent. Get rid of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura.

But you evaded my question. Is the Koran or the LDS bible "like" the Holy Bible? We both know that billions have been fooled with false teaching. God told us it would be so. Honestly now, how many DEVOUT Muslims and Mormons do you expect to see in Heaven? Scripture tells you the answer plainly. My answer would be "extremely few".

YOU are missing the point! A person born in Saudi Arabia, born and raised a Muslim, will consider the Koran God's Word directly given to the prophet. It is not a matter of following false teachings...They point to the Bible's perceived inconsistencies and consider it NOT the Word of God. The Bible disagrees with some of the teachings of the Koran. Why should a Muslim take the Bible as superior to the Koran, when they have been raised with it and indoctrinated to follow it?

MY POINT is that ONLY an OUTSIDE witness can testify to the truth of the Bible over the Koran or the Book of Mormons. You need outside evidence to show that the Koran is wrong, that the book of Mormons is wrong. When you have two books side by side, an are perfectly unbiased, tell me, how are you going to tell which is correct? Unless you are aware of its history and the witness of the Church, I don't see how you would be able to determine that the Gospel of Thomas is not Scripture but the Letter of Philemon is Scripture. You seem to evade that over and over again...

I laugh when you repeat that you "could write a letter...". From my understanding, that is exactly what L. Ron Hubbard did! And today millions are fooled, and sadly, they are also lost.

That's the point! This is ALL based on FAITH! We have faith WE are right, they have faith that they are right! The point is that someone can write a "letter" and call it from God and convince other people that it is. Thus, we need an outside witness to tell us - Hubbard, you are crazy... We base our entire religion on faith! Faith that the Apostles REALLY DID see a man risen from the dead. Faith that a man REALLY DID claim to be God and cure other people. Faith that the Apostles performed miracles. Faith that God has spoken and acted in the history of men...The Ten Commandments were given to Moses by God - FAITH. That the Jews crossed the Red Sea - FAITH. It is ALL FAITH. And that is the way God wants it. He wants us to come to Him, even when it doesn't appear that He is there (such as Job!)

Again, by your arguments, the Bible wasn't written for us at all.

It was written for the community, the Church. Was the Scripture EVER given to individuals in the Bible? Did God hand out scrolls to everyone? No, God gave His Word to particular men and women, who shared it with the community at large. This was written down and shared with the future communities. The Bible is NOT EVER shown as something given to each individual of the community. If you want to follow how the early Church did things, then you ARE to comply with the leaders of the community. I am sure you have read the Acts of the Apostles?

The Bible does have plenty of outside verification to authenticate it, but none of it is needed.

Utterly ridiculous. By reading the bible without any verification, you might as well be in the same category as the Muslims and Mormons, who "get a feeling in their bosom" to "know" they are reading the Word of God. They don't think they need outside verification, either. However, those of us who demand it CAN SAY that the Koran and the Book of Mormon is NOT the Word of God. God gave us intellect to use it. We are to test all things. We are to also test to ensure that we DO have the Word of God. We are told not to believe everything we hear. We are to test their word. What is wrong with that?

I don't agree that people need to determine the truth of the Bible. Truth is truth.

Based on what evidence do you know that the Bible is truth? If I write something and say it is the truth, what makes me wrong? Just because something says it is the word of God doesn't make it so... How can you prove it is without this outside verification?

People need to discover the truth that is already there.

Your whole argument is based on a circular argument... "The bible is the Word of God" Why? "Because the Word of God is found within the Bible"... Until you move outside of that circle, you aren't going to prove anything. I would be interested to know how you would prove that the Bible is God's Word with a Muslim or a non-Christian, using no outside evidence.

That can't be right, because I still believe the Bible is self-authenticating

Sorry, brother, but your constant assertions without ONE bit of evidence doesn't make it so. Until you can prove to me WHY Philemon belongs in the Scriptures, is considered God's Word, based on its OWN merit, you might have something. We have gone over this over and over. How do you know Paul even wrote it??? If you were to go into a court room today to prove that the Bible is the Word of God based on YOUR evidence, you'd be laughed out of court. You have a seemingly random collection of books from unknown authors written 2000 years ago - and we don't possess ONE SINGLE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPH! All we have are copies! Self-authenticating? Please. Don't you think you are being a bit stubborn here? You base your beliefs on a book that you can't even prove is God's Word, as opposed to the Gnostics version, or Marcion's version, or the Koran, or...and so on.

I was taught that the Bible was God's inerrant word, and I had read enough chapters, and seen the wisdom and internal consistency, and so I believed. We believe the Bible authenticates itself apart from the RCC, so there is no irony.

You have contradicted yourself. YOU WERE TAUGHT! Thus, you didn't come to that conclusion yourself. The teachings of the Catholic Church came to you through Protestants and you discovered that the Bible IS REALLY the Word of God. You didn't come to that conclusion yourself, thus, the Bible is not self-authenticating. You accepted the witness of those who told you, heard their preaching, saw their witness and life style, and accepted what they claimed. That is HOW we know the Bible is the Word of God, not by opening it off the library shelf and reading it!

Regards

If God wanted, (REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY) wanted all men saved, He would do it. To deny this fact is to deny God's sovereignty-something I would be VERY hesitant to do. It is ludicious to think that God want all men in heaven but 1) He will not step in to make sure man can go to heaven for fear of violating man's free will (Like watch a small child jump off a cliff and not doing anything to stop them.), or 2) man is so intelligent that they are capable of deciding for themselves whether they want to go to hell. (This is a big DUH!!!)

This is a false analogy. Hell is a place without God. If men want to be without God, that is where He sends them. We are not talking about a small child killing themselves in this life. We are talking about God coming into union with a particular person, or not.

One of my favorite Psalms, 81, shows what God does with us:

I heard a language I did not understand. "I removed his shoulder from the burden; His hands were freed from the baskets. You called in trouble, and I delivered you; I answered you in the secret place of thunder; I tested you at the waters of Meribah. "Hear, O My people, and I will admonish you! O Israel, if you will listen to Me! There shall be no foreign god among you; Nor shall you worship any foreign god. I am the Lord your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt; Open your mouth wide, and I will fill it. "But My people would not heed My voice, And Israel would have none of Me. So I gave them over to their own stubborn heart, To walk in their own counsels. "Oh, that My people would listen to Me, That Israel would walk in My ways! I would soon subdue their enemies, And turn My hand against their adversaries. The haters of the Lord would pretend submission to Him, But their fate would endure forever. Ps 81:5-15

Sounds like this one from Christ. Can't you hear God's PINING for us?!: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate; Matthew 23:37-38

Or from Paul: For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting. Romans 1:20-28

In each of these examples, we see how God greatly desires that ALL men be saved, BUT men turn away from God - out of love, He allows them to continue to perdition. A life without God is what they want, then that is what they get. Thus, your analogy falls short, because we are not talking about eternal non-existence (as a child's death in the material world), but spiritual "death", an eternal life without Love.

God desires all men to be saved, but some do NOT WANT to be saved. "Saved", to us, means being healed from our slavery to sin. But some people, after receiving this knowledge, STILL desire to follow their own ways. God greatly desires we willingly come to Him (see above). But He doesn't force us - He gives us what we want - a life of slavery to sin.

Regards

FK: "So, my "are highly favored" has the tense wrong?

It is not just the tense that is wrong. King James translates "charis" most everywhere as "grace". But this verse, for no reason that I can understand, the "charis" in "kecharitomene" becomes "favor". The difference is, of course, that grace is not just favor but unmerited favor. ...

Jerome's Latin translation, "gratia plena" -- "full of grace" has all the elements of "kecharotomene": reference to divine grace and completeness. ... The original in Ephesians 1 is different, as is, of course, the meaning. The word there is simply "echaritosen", "graced" or "gave grace".

Thanks for the info. I don't have the background to make an argument on this, so I tried to find someone who apparently does. Here is "an argument" that seemed to be up your alley. The speaker is using something called an ALT Bible (?) See what you think:

[FK: Please note that my original reference to Eph. 1:6 is completely independent of this argument, so I'm not the only one. :)]

[On "full of grace"] "Greek word is a perfect, passive participle. The passive indicates the action is done to the subject. And when the active party is not specified, as here, it generally is a "divine passive" meaning God is the active Subject."

"So the verse is saying Mary was bestowed or received grace from God. The point is, she is the recipient; she does not have grace to give to others as Catholicism would have it. The Greek word can also mean "favor" or "kindness," so any of these translations would be appropriate."

"The cross reference in my version is because Eph 1:6 is the only other place this verb occurs in the NT. The verse reads:"

1:6 to [the] praise of the glory [or, splendor] of His grace [or, of His glorious grace], by which He bestowed grace upon [or, showed kindness to] us in the Beloved,

"Note, that the same grace that was given to Mary is given to all believers. So there is nothing "special" about Mary's grace. ..."

"1. If they [Catholics] want to use "full of grace" it still should be rendered as "having been filled with grace" (again a perfect, passive, participle)."

"2. They would then have to render Eph 1:6 as:"

"to [the] praise of the glory of His grace, by which He filled us with grace in the Beloved,"

"The point is, no matter what the translation, whatever is said of Mary MUST be true of all other believers as well. So translate as they will they can't evade the fact that nothing is said of Mary that is not also said of all other believers."

"So if Luke 1:28 somehow "proves" Mary is sinless and immaculately conceived, then so are all believers. The first IS true; we are sinless as a result of being forgiven in Christ, but we weren't born that way, and neither was Mary."

This is a summary of Mary's role in the economy of salvation, from the Holy Father's encyclical:

41. Outstanding among the saints is Mary, Mother of the Lord and mirror of all holiness. In the Gospel of Luke we find her engaged in a service of charity to her cousin Elizabeth, with whom she remained for “about three months” (1:56) so as to assist her in the final phase of her pregnancy. “Magnificat anima mea Dominum”, she says on the occasion of that visit, “My soul magnifies the Lord” (Lk 1:46). In these words she expresses her whole programme of life: not setting herself at the centre, but leaving space for God, who is encountered both in prayer and in service of neighbour—only then does goodness enter the world. Mary's greatness consists in the fact that she wants to magnify God, not herself. She is lowly: her only desire is to be the handmaid of the Lord (cf. Lk 1:38, 48). She knows that she will only contribute to the salvation of the world if, rather than carrying out her own projects, she places herself completely at the disposal of God's initiatives. Mary is a woman of hope: only because she believes in God's promises and awaits the salvation of Israel, can the angel visit her and call her to the decisive service of these promises. Mary is a woman of faith: “Blessed are you who believed”, Elizabeth says to her (cf. Lk 1:45). The Magnificat—a portrait, so to speak, of her soul—is entirely woven from threads of Holy Scripture, threads drawn from the Word of God. Here we see how completely at home Mary is with the Word of God, with ease she moves in and out of it. She speaks and thinks with the Word of God; the Word of God becomes her word, and her word issues from the Word of God. Here we see how her thoughts are attuned to the thoughts of God, how her will is one with the will of God. Since Mary is completely imbued with the Word of God, she is able to become the Mother of the Word Incarnate. Finally, Mary is a woman who loves. How could it be otherwise? As a believer who in faith thinks with God's thoughts and wills with God's will, she cannot fail to be a woman who loves. We sense this in her quiet gestures, as recounted by the infancy narratives in the Gospel. We see it in the delicacy with which she recognizes the need of the spouses at Cana and makes it known to Jesus. We see it in the humility with which she recedes into the background during Jesus' public life, knowing that the Son must establish a new family and that the Mother's hour will come only with the Cross, which will be Jesus' true hour (cf. Jn 2:4; 13:1). When the disciples flee, Mary will remain beneath the Cross (cf. Jn 19:25-27); later, at the hour of Pentecost, it will be they who gather around her as they wait for the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 1:14).
Deus Caritas Est (English)

EXPLAIN, not by prooftexting, in your own words why why, why do you pray if God does not change His mind!

OK, sans prooftexting then and in my own words:

We pray because God wants us to. It's also very good for us. It is how we communicate with God, which He says He wants. God does not change His mind, but we do not know how He has already made up His mind, so for us who are subject to time, it is worthwhile. We experience "answer" to prayer because we are subject to time. This is one way God has chosen to interact with us, given our limitations. While I do pray for what I "want", I also try to include a prayer for God's will, because I know that is what is ultimately going to happen. It's good for me because it reminds me of how great God is.

Explain why we need to be redeemed if God makes us sin.

You continue to be the only one on this thread to assert this. Harley never has. I never have. Show us the posts. God does not cause sin, God allows sin to happen (doesn't prevent it) for His own purposes. We need to be redeemed because we are born dead in the sin nature and are unfit for heaven. Only Christ can make us fit.

Explain why Christ came to redeem us when we did nothing of our own to warrant condemnation.

Adam doomed the entire race from the beginning. That's the bad news. The good news is that Christ loved, and came to save some from that fate. I cannot speak for God as to why He set it up that way.

Explain why we need to do anything if God has already pre-choreographed everything for us, and nothing is our own doing, our own will, our own guilt, our own decision. If we are, as Harley D says, exactly the way we are because God made us exactly this way, then what is our role as intelligent beings. Why even be conscious?

We need to "DO" things because God told us to. God wants us to experience our lives on earth to the fullest. Our lives are automatically better when we obey Him. That is a practical reason to follow His teachings. Although nothing GOOD is of our own doing, we certainly don't experience it that way. We feel good when we "make a decision" to do good. It is to our benefit as well. Our role as intelligent beings is to be God's children and follow Christ. Again, I can't explain why God set up the earth to function like this, you'd have to take that up with Management. :)

Both are infallible and both have been written eventually. The only real difference is that it takes more time to cull the contents of Apostolic Tradition. Neither can be "modified", although our understanding of EITHER can vary over time.

Oral teaching is infallible? I must have misunderstood. So, oral teaching that is handed down from generation to generation over thousands of years never changes? Every retelling is always exactly as the first?

Are you saying the teachings of the Apostles were not inspired by God?

I wouldn't imagine so, but I don't know what the extra-Biblical teachings of the Apostles really were. All I have is the say so of interested, extra-Biblical, fallible men. I don't see how oral tradition could be passed down flawlessly over this many years. The only evidence we have that it is all God-inspired is the word of the men who depend on that being true, along with a Bible passage or two massaged to fall in line with this view.

I don't understand how you can toss out their teachings based on whether THEIR hand actually wrote something or not. Did Moses write about HIS own death? But you still see Deuteronomy as inspired by God?

I never necessarily toss out anything, I just test it against the Bible as the Spirit leads me to interpret it. If a required interpretation strains logic and reason beyond all bounds, then I can't accept it. I don't believe God wrote the Bible for the purpose of hiding it from us. As for Moses, doesn't it seem reasonable that Joshua appended the obit?

So I couldn't write an Esther, a Philemon? I don't think it would be too difficult to write something that agreed with what was written before, ...

I don't think you could under the conditions of the original "authors". You have the unfair advantage of having studied the complete Bible as much as you have. None of them had that. You could parrot what the Bible already teaches, but they didn't have anything close to your knowledge. You would have been a "super priest" to them. :)

What is to prevent someone from claiming to write something ELSE that is "Scripture" and claim it is from God? The Scripture says nowhere that the canon is closed! That is Apostolic Tradition!

Well, considering how many extra books have been added to the Bible over the last 1600+ years, I don't see this as a huge problem. I'm sure that if someone did claim to find an unknown work it would be put through every test imaginable and there would be a big fight about it regardless.

I have never argued that external evidence is useless. It is especially useful to disprove something. I was only saying that while there is plenty of external evidence also in support of the Bible's authenticity, I do not need the RCC to bless it for me to know that it is God's word. The Bible speaks for itself.

The Bible is a compilation of letters. Some of them, at first glance, don't appear to belong or are not exactly what you would call "edifying" writings.

Well, that's why we take second, third, and tenth glances. It all still fits. I'm not sure if you are arguing that some evil, ingenious team of miscreants could manufacture an equal to the Bible as a whole. I don't think they could, because I know God would not be behind it.

It is writings such as that [Ps. 58] which led MANY people to believe that there were two separate Gods, the Demuirge of the Old Testament and the God of Love of the New Testament. Can you honestly tell me that Psalms 58 and the Gospel of Luke is written by the same God - WITHOUT EXTERNAL WITNESS??? ... It is ONLY the witness of the Church that tells us that BOTH are from the SAME GOD.

I don't think it is fair to compare one passage from the OT to one from the NT and then say they are incompatible without the guidance of the Church. In many senses, the OT and NT covered very different material. Any comparison has to be against the work as a whole. To understanding, the Spirit will lead us as He will, and on His timetable.

So, oral teaching that is handed down from generation to generation over thousands of years never changes? Every retelling is always exactly as the first?

Yesterday or the day before, I explained that Catholics don't follow "oral tradition" passed down for thousands of years! "Oral" Apostolic tradition, as I have explained it, is just a teaching that didn't get placed into 1 Corinthians. This doesn't mean that it wasn't written in the Didache, which was written only a few years later. The point is the source of these teachings are both Apostolic - whether Scripture or Apostolic Tradition.

You have yet to point out to me where the SCRIPTURES say we are to drop all oral traditions taught by Apostles. Why are you following an extra-Biblical - NO - ANTI-BIBLICAL teaching? And you give Catholics a hard time because "Mary is sinless" is not written in your concordances?

I don't know what the extra-Biblical teachings of the Apostles really were. All I have is the say so of interested, extra-Biblical, fallible men.

Yes, the same ones who saw Jesus risen from the dead, who wrote the Scriptures, and who taught the next generation of Christians. It appears that the second generation of Christians completely flubbed the teachings of the Bible - since we know that the Apostles consulted the Bible first when they taught. Sorry for the sarcasm, but we just seem to be going round and round with the same lines. You refuse to see that the same Christians who lovingly protected the Scriptures and vouched for their authorship are the same ones who vouched for and wrote down the Apostles "other" teachings such as infant baptism. I find this lack of logic frustrating, I suppose. It appears that you believe that they are ONLY trustworthy when when protecting the written teachings - as if the other teachings were not worthy to be continued.

I don't see how oral tradition could be passed down flawlessly over this many years.

See above. They were WRITTEN, just not in the letters of the Apostles...

I don't think you could under the conditions of the original "authors"

Meaning what? Let's just switch gears. Tell me how you know that Esther is part of the Word of God. And don't tell me because it is bound with the rest of the books in the Bible! If you found the Esther scroll, aware of its existence along with many other writings, how would you decide that it belonged?

My point is that INTERNAL EVIDENCE is insufficient to determine the canon of Scripture. Thus, the Bible is NOT self-attesting.

You could parrot what the Bible already teaches

Anyone could, and do it in 50 AD. Many DID do it.

I have never argued that external evidence is useless

No, you said it wasn't needed. I say this is ridiculous, it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to determine that THIS is what God is - not a duality, a ying and yang, not a non-personal God like Allah, not many gods, not "no" god, not the Gnostic vision of levels of dieties, not a Jesus with one nature, divine, in a "man" suit. You are totally lost as to WHAT is truth by relying only on the hundreds and hundreds of writings available that discuss the attributes of God. The Bible is one book among many, actually, 73 books among many. Without the reference of the Apostlolic Church, you wouldn't know if the Nicean Creed was orthodox, or heterodox - while the Gnostics were REALLY correct and Jesus was married and had a kid...You would have no clue whatsoever without outside witness and evidence that the Bible is THE teachings from God - the others are imitations.

The Bible speaks for itself.

So what does it say about Esther belonging within its bindings?

Well, that's why we take second, third, and tenth glances. It all still fits

That's special pleading. How are you going to convince a non-Christian that Psalm 58 is in synch with the rest of the concept of a loving God? And can't a Mormon say the very same thing? "It all still fits"? Or the Muslims? "No, you have to read it in Arabic". "No, the original Arabic". Come on.

"...because I know God would not be behind it.(a fake Scripture)

In all seriousness, I ask you "how?" And don't bother with the "Spirit will tell me". The Mormons say that EXACT same thing... And those naive people are wrong.

I don't think it is fair to compare one passage from the OT to one from the NT and then say they are incompatible without the guidance of the Church

Now we are getting somewhere! Not only "I don't think it is fair", but "I don't think it is POSSIBLE"!

Regards

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