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.

However there are MANY cases in scripture where our Lord specifically told people their sins were forgiven

Nowhere does that suggest that Jesus meant FUTURE sins, as well. Otherwise, WHY did Christ give the Apostles the ministry of forgiveness of sins AFTER THE RESURRECTION??? There is nothing in the Scripture that suggests that a person could not fall away. Remember, all of the letters of the Scripture were addressed to OTHER CHRISTIANS. And over and over, the writers warn them to persevere, to beware not to fall away, to not be tepid in their faith.

Please note while our Lord Jesus opened this man's eyes, he didn't understand who the Messiah was until Christ revealed Himself to him. Where is the "universal call" that we hear everyone telling us about? The Lord doesn't do the same for the Pharisee and specifically states their "sin remains".

Jesus over and over called to the Pharisees! Jesus noted it was THEIR BLINDNESS, their stubborn hearst, not Christ's lack of calling that kept them in the dark. They REFUSED to believe that Jesus was offering something that was outside of their little box they built for God.

Regards

So God only protected the first generation from error?

FK: In a word, YES. :)

Where exactly does the Scripture even IMPLY that? This sounds like another man-made tradition that keeps men away from God...

It's not so much that scripture says this, but it doesn't support your position either. We both know the Bible has plenty of verses that warn us to beware of those who come and teach error. I am not asserting that those verses are directed at Catholics! :) I am saying how can we know who they are talking about? I would attempt to know by measuring any teaching against the Bible.

In the end, it comes down to authority, I suppose. Who do we believe has given us "God's Word"?

I agree with you.

Do you agree that God could have chosen "perfect" men, men of supreme skill and ability, sinless in every way, to be His corridor of passing His Word to others?

If I am following you, then I would agree with you in answering 'no'.

There is plenty of Scriptural evidence to suggest that "the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth". Either we believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding a group of men to interpret God's Word when called upon to do so (during heresy), or we have NO CLUE on what God has taught as His Word.

So, God is not the pillar and foundation of the Truth? There are verses that say this? I don't agree with your either-or scenario. You are saying it is either your system, with your people, or there is chaos. That's not true, God gives us His word. Sure, there are some who misinterpret it, and they will have to answer for it someday. That is fine with me. I don't believe that popularity equals truth.

When if every Christian was Protestant? And when if someone asked "Is baptism necessary for salvation?" THIS IS A CRITICAL QUESTION! Protestantism CANNOT answer this simple question.

You are right in that some would be wrong. :) But, as I said before, I don't see baptism as necessarily critical. Faith is what is critical. I can't say I know for sure on this, but it makes sense to me that the vast majority of those who are saved and have achieved any reasonable level of sanctification, choose to be baptized, at least if they never have been, because they know Jesus said we should be. I can't think of any people I know, whom I'm guessing are saved, who have not been baptized either as an infant or a believer, or as in my case, both :).

FK: Indeed, what would have happened if the Jews and Romans had not used their free will to kill Jesus? I don't know, maybe, perhaps, THE ENTIRE DOWNFALL OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH! :) OT prophecy would have been destroyed, and Jesus' own words would have made Him a liar."

This hardly follows. For what you say to be true, God would have to be unable to know what choices individual human beings would make. God is outside time itself, which is itself a created thing. Past, present, and future as we experience them do not apply to God.

I have no problem with God being outside of time and already knowing everything that is going to happen as we experience it. God did know. But, even when you suppose the POSSIBILITY that the Romans and Jews did not "kill" Jesus you would require that the Bible would have to be completely written around the other scenario. God would have had to invent a completely new way to salvation.

IOW, you are saying that God's plan is built around the decisions of men. I think that takes away from God's sovereignty. You also take away from Jesus that He gave up His life voluntarily to save us. You are supposing that Jesus could have lived until old age, but that men overpowered Him using their free will and killed Him. By this, Jesus is a very weak God indeed.

All that is necessary is for the source of prophecy to know what did, does, and will happen. This argument from prophecy in support of predestinationist theories implies that the only alternative is for God to be inside time, experiencing it in the same as as his creatures do, waiting with bated breath to find out what is going to happen in human history. He is, of course, not.

Again, you are saying that God builds around man. God doesn't have to be inside time for predestination to work. God just has to be in full control, which you appear to deny.

FK: ... either Jesus was super duper lucky for things to turn out the way they did in order to accomplish what the Father sent Him to do ...

Why would Jesus be super duper lucky to know what would happen? To say this is to imply that I am saying that Christ was ignorant of the future. Please don't insult non-Calvinists that way.

I didn't mean to be insulting, I was trying to show that God does not work around man. And, I gave you an "OR" statement along with the above. It was: "maybe it's possible that God actually had a hand in arranging that all the necessary things took place." If you think I accused you of the first, it then appears that you reject the second. God's sovereignty is lowered again.

Did Christ pretend to hunger, pretend to thirst, pretend to suffer pain, pretend to be tired, pretend to sweat?

No, because it was God's intention that Jesus go through these things as a man on earth. It was obviously not God's intention that Jesus grow old and die of natural causes. I know that because it didn't happen and God always gets what He wants. He has that kind of authority.

The Calvinist/predestinationist theory does indeed hold together, as do many theoretical constructs, but only if one is willing to believe that God created a humankind full of automatons, rather than creatures who are created in the image of God -- free to choose God or not.

I can understand your aversion to God being in control of everything. I used to believe just as you about this. However, if we truly believe in a sovereign God, then I don't see any other answer. How powerful is our God? Of course, we don't experience being automatons, we don't know the future. But, God is still in full control, even of the sin He knows about but does not create. About a week ago, Dr. Eckleburg posted an excellent link to an article that is dead on point with our discussion. At least you can know where we are coming from much better than I can say it. :)

SOME THOUGHTS ON PREDESTINATION by B.B. Warfield

"If Mary is the woman in 15, then who is the woman in 16? Are you saying that God switches from Mary to Eve in one verse?"

One of the most important things to understand about patristic teaching in the Orthodox Church is the concept of recapitulation.

A given Scripture doesn't necessarily refer to only one event. One sees this all through the OT prophets, where their words clearly refer to events of their own day or immediate future -- and yet the Church saw that these same statements had other meanings, referring to events far in the future.

As an example, look at the prophet Malachi. He says that Elijah will come, and in the Gospels, Christ makes it clear that this referred to St. John the Baptist. Yet, there is yet something more. In the Septuagint, the text is very specific. It says that "Elijah the Tishbite" will come as a forerunner to the arrival of Christ.

The Orthodox Church sees this as being *also* a very literal reference to the original Elijah, who did not die, returning at the end of time as one of the two witnesses in the book of Revelation.

The woman in that passage of Genesis refers simultaneously to Eve and to a future woman, in the opinion of the Church, in verse 15, for Christ is both the offspring of Eve and of the second Eve, Mary. Whereas in 16, it refers only to Eve, and secondarily in a broader sense to all of fallen womankind.

It's not so much that scripture says this, but it doesn't support your position (that God intended that His Church would be protected beyond the first generation) either.

Frankly, I find that illogical. Why would God ensure ONLY the first generation was infallibly teaching Christ's Gospel AT ALL if He didn't intend to ALWAYS protect it???

Are you saying that Paul wrote that "...the church of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15) ONLY while HE was alive??? God would have the Church as the pillar of truth only for some 30 years! There is no evidence of that ANYWHERE in the Scriptures, or the writings of ANYONE who came after the first generation! Tell me, why would God only protect the first generation? Don't you think He would want the second generation to have the Truth - by which we are set free??? Are we to believe that God only preached the Gospel unadultered to the very first generation? I can see why Protestantism is so confused...

I would attempt to know by measuring any teaching against the Bible.

Does the Bible ever make itself as the measuring stick of what we believe?

So, God is not the pillar and foundation of the Truth? There are verses that say this?

"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

I am not saying that God is not TRUTH. But His Church is for us, for us humans here in the visible world, the pillar and foundation of the truth. Without it, we wander between various doctrines that happen to tickle our ears. Men's intellect is clouded. We NEED the Church, an INFALLIBLE guide, to tell us what Christ taught and objectively so. In the visible world, Christ acts through His Church. Whether He is ministering to people through the ministry of Reconciliation, whether He is healing them of their spiritual wounds, whether He is giving "birth" to them by being "born from above", whether He is sharing of His total self to us through the Eucharist, or whether He is giving us the Truth - the preachings given to the Apostles that have found their way to us.

I don't believe that popularity equals truth.

Since when did being Catholic equate to being "popular"? But that is to be expected, as Christ said that His Church would suffer, just as He did.

But, as I said before, I don't see baptism as necessarily critical.

That is YOUR opinion. You are not infallible, and you would certainly admit that you might be wrong. IF you can be wrong, how can you KNOW you even are "saved"? Christ didn't leave us orphaned. He gave us an infallible guide to KNOW what He left us. The Truth. We KNOW Christ's teachings. (well, "we" don't, but the Church teaches it to those willing to know it). WE are certain that Baptism IS critical for salvation. The early Church who heard the words of the Apostles testify to its necessity - both inside and outside of Scripture, regardless of your opinion.

The problem with your means of coming to Scripture is that you rely totally on your OWN knowledge - what you come to rationalize and what you come across as you read. Did God really intend that we stumble across His teacings, some of them being correct, others not? Did God intend that men have a Master's Degree in Scripture exegesis? To be able to speak the original languages? Hardly. This is a works salvation, brother. You are relying on your own ability to know God's Truth, rather than rely on the Spirit guiding His Church to bring us to all truths.

Faith is what is critical. I can't say I know for sure on this, but it makes sense to me that the vast majority of those who are saved and have achieved any reasonable level of sanctification, choose to be baptized, at least if they never have been, because they know Jesus said we should be

The vast majority of Jews were circumcised into the People of God at the age of eight days. Jesus said "do not keep the little ones away from me". But that is what you do by making your own faith the only means by which we come to God. You are saying that one must EARN God's salvation by believing enough. If you don't believe enough, then your sinner's prayer didn't "take" and your salvation was never accomplished. I find this an interesting turning of the tables...Correct me if I am wrong, brother, but aren't you saying that unless one has enough faith, one cannot come to God? But faith is entirely a gift!

No, God has given His salvation freely to people. For nearly 2000 years, the vast majority of God's people first came into His presence as infants. The Jews understood this concept of "free gift"! The baby did nothing to earn salvation. The parents and community stood in proxy for the infant - promising to raise the child in the faith. Christianity merely continued this with infant baptism.

I can't think of any people I know, whom I'm guessing are saved, who have not been baptized either as an infant or a believer, or as in my case, both :).

God works through the ritual of Baptism, as He promised that He would, as prefigured by Christ's own baptism.

Regards

I'm probably just thick, but the your position seems to be a tautology: those in Heaven after they die are those who, while alive, were going to Heaven after they die. By this logic, the elect are identifiable only in retrospect.

One key question is "identifiable" to whom? We say that those who are predestined for heaven are named from the beginning of time, so God obviously knows, but we do not as far as others are concerned. We also say that we CAN know about ourselves from scripture, but some have not realized that yet. I'm not sure whether it is a tautology or not, and that may depend on the POV. We explain the way we do because so many, including some of us :), switch back and forth between God's POV and ours. It is so important to distinguish between the two. We can't know with the certainty that God has, but we can know with all human certainty.

The plain meaning of this passage [Hebrews 6:4-8] is that those who fall away from Christ are damned, but the recipients of Paul's letter had not fallen away, but done pleasing works and service.

I suppose I'm with you so far, but I suspect for different reasons. :)

The bolded sections completely transpose cause and effect.

I'm afraid I do not follow you. To which causes and effects are you referring?

Nothing in 1 John 2 states that the sinner was never "saved;" indeed, John anticipates that the recipients of his letter have sinned, but exhorts them to take Jesus seriously by living according to his teachings.

It's interesting that you like a plain meaning in Hebrews, but you don't like the plain meaning in 1 John. Do you agree that the word "light" is associated with salvation and the word "darkness" is associated with an unsaved person? If so, then "still in the darkness" means that such a person is still as he was born, unsaved. The message is that claiming to be in the light does not make it so. The truly saved person will move toward conformity with Christ, so if that doesn't happen, the person remains in the original state, lost. That's how it appears the author is interpreting Hebrews 6.

But I know that I am a miserable sinner whose only hope for salvation is to have faith in God and do as Jesus said, while you are assured that you are one of the elect.

I agree with what you say here AND God assures me that I am of the elect.

I agree that changes in perspective and identity make this subject hard to discuss. But I do not believe that there is any way that we can have assurance that we are going to Heaven. The closest that we can get is to have faith and follow Jesus' teachings.

I'm afraid I do not follow you. To which causes and effects are you referring?

Those who hear the Word but ignore it are damned. They do not ignore the Word because they started out damned.

It's interesting that you like a plain meaning in Hebrews, but you don't like the plain meaning in 1 John. Do you agree that the word "light" is associated with salvation and the word "darkness" is associated with an unsaved person? If so, then "still in the darkness" means that such a person is still as he was born, unsaved.

No, I do not take it that way. I do not see salvation as a one-time, initiatory event, but rather a process to be worked out. The "plain meaning" of 1 John cannot be separated from the preceding sentences, which anticipate that its readers may have sinned. Sin is the "darkness;" not following Jesus' commandment to love one another separates us from God, and impedes our salvation.

The message is that claiming to be in the light does not make it so.

We agree on that.

The truly saved person will move toward conformity with Christ, so if that doesn't happen, the person remains in the original state, lost. That's how it appears the author is interpreting Hebrews 6.

No, I disagree. It is choosing to sin that keeps us from God. Yelling "Lord, Lord" doesn't cut it; we have to love one another. We must try to keep in the light, working out our salvation with fear and trembling.

"I can understand your aversion to God being in control of everything. I used to believe just as you about this."

Well, I used to believe just as you do, so that makes us even! :-)

It has little to do with my aversion to God's being in control. I, after all, am not the one who determines the conditions of God's existence.

It has rather everything to do with the consistent traditional understanding of Christianity prior to the Calvinist branch of the Reformation: that man has the free will to choose God or reject him. This traditional understanding had come down from the Apostles. If TULIP had been one of the key teachings of the Apostles, one would expect to find it expounded on in detail in the early Church Fathers.

It is God who seemingly (at the risk of attributing human emotions and experiences to him) was/is averse to having the pinnacle of his creation be a sort of flesh and blood robot, whose existence is that of a marionette who only thinks that he is making decisions every day to sin or not -- to choose God or reject him.

Which God is the more powerful -- a God who must control and predetermine every second of the history of the universe, or the God who creates a universe with which he interacts and treats his created beings with the respect of allowing them to choose to love him or reject him?

If a king has the authority and ability to put anyone to death in his kingdom that he chooses, is the fact that he fails to kill everyone in his kingdom somehow proof that he doesn't have that authority and ability? Would his granting of self-determination to his subjects mean that by definition he really didn't have the authority and ability to compell them to do what he wants?

Does a husband have to control every aspect of his wife's life to be the head of the home? Does a parent need to control every aspect of his child's life in order to be the parent rather than a peer? And these are just poor shadows in our earthly life that only hint at what the relationship between us and God is.

The idea that by God choosing to give free choice to certain of his creatures, he ceased being all-powerful really doesn't make sense. The idea that there are only two choices: a God who has predetermined and forced every event of every second of history, or a God who is buffeted and helpless -- is a false dichotomy.

As an Orthodox Christian, I can see why Calvinists came up with the idea of predestination. God had, in the West, developed into a pretty legalistic and juridical concept. A God who seeks vengeance and bloody satisfaction right and left, and who is seemingly pretty hard to please would leave one in a chronic state of anxiety, no matter how hard one tried to please him.

Calvinism took away this state of anxiety by using St. Augustine's speculations on predestination writ large.

One of the things that sometimes strikes people who explore Orthodoxy is the justaposition of a non-legalistic approach to the faith with what is a very morally and ascetically strict Christian life; and a complete unwillingness to state that one is or is not "saved," with a simultaneous lack of anxiety about one's future.

Not only this but if man was truly free to make his decisions, then how would God know what decision man would make BEFORE man was created? Simply by observing? This shows no interaction of God.

Arminians seem to think God only interacts after the fact. God as First-Responder.

I think a better perspective is to begin by accepting God's predestining will for all our lives, and then to see everything in light of this truth. If we possess Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ, then we are assured everything, good and not-so-good, is for our benefit and will bring glory to Him who loves us.

"After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, FEAR NOT, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward." -- Genesis 15:1
"And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, FEAR NOT; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen" -- Revelation 1:17-18

All these months of discussions on Predestination have strengthened my belief in God's active and total control of His creation.

Anything less demotes God to a member of the audience, rather than the writer/producer/director -- in that order. He thought it; He did it; He continues to do it. All for His glory.

Your bible footnotes don't make sense. Which sin leads to physical death? That is contrived. ... - and now, your bible tells you that even the smallest sin leads to spiritual death? All sin is unrighteousness - but smaller sins do not separate us from God entirely. ...

Well, I looked up one of "my guys", Matthew Henry, to see what he said about it and he actual agreed with the footnotes. He gave an example of sin leading to physical death as a capital murder in a land with the death penalty. Another example is what happened to Ananias and Sapphira. I don't see it as contradictory for my side to say that all sin leads to spiritual death. For example:

Rom. 6:23 : For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

---------------

From what I gather from our previous posts, you don't think our sins separate us from God at all - and now, even the slightest sin kills our soul?

I'm not sure to which posts you are referring. Sin is THE THING that eternally separates us from God. That's the bad part. The good part is that, for His elect, Christ paid the penalty for all those sins out of justice and love. It is sort of like the old story of the judge who found his best friend appearing before him on a $200 speeding ticket. The judge knew the friend could not pay and faced jail. Out of justice, the judge found his friend guilty, then out of love he came down from the bench, reached into his own wallet, and paid the cashier the $200.

Perhaps you should consider reading 1 John quickly. He talks over and over about obeying the commandments. THAT is how we know we are saved and have eternal life...

I don't see any problem. John talks about both having faith and walking in faith. I agree with that and it is a primo example of why OSAS doesn't work on its own. John never says we can never know until after we die, he speaks in the present tense. We can know now. I thought you didn't accept that. Walking in faith is "an" evidence that our faith is true. Not walking in faith, on a permanent basis, is STRONG evidence that the original profession of faith was not true.

Of course, it must be left up to God to sort out "close cases". I was remembering my early comment that perhaps I was unknowingly "invincible" in college :), but I may need to rethink that.

So where am I saying that something comes from us ALONE? What I am saying is that God expects us to USE the gifts He gave us - the power to choose Him. ... WICKED men do not seek God. But do you really think that ALL men do not seek God?

Well, you say that God's EVERYTHING that He gives to us is only the power to choose, not God choosing us, as my side says. Since God's EVERYTHING fails so often with people not choosing God, I don't see it as having a ton of value. God loses so often if He really gave us EVERYTHING we have and desires all to be saved. God's EVERYTHING evidently does not include an offer no reasonable person could refuse. Heaven or hell? What rational person would choose hell if he really had EVERYTHING he needed? So, that must mean that something comes from us apart from God to distinguish between those who choose Him and those who do not. If not, and if God stands out of the way on the final choice, then what is that "thing" to distinguish between those who choose and those who don't?

Well, the same holds true for "sinner's prayer" as well. Otherwise, why do so many feel the need to repeat it, or later wonder whether it "took"? This makes the "sinner's prayer" a works-oriented salvational tool.

No, I think there's quite a difference. We say our salvation is complete from the beginning of time from God's point of view. The sinner's prayer just help us to know it too. It doesn't cause election from God's POV, but it is necessary from our POV. God ordained that His elect would come to Him through some equivalent of a sinner's prayer (faith). We don't believe that God sits there with His giant eraser, constantly blotting out names in the Book of Life on a second to second basis, and then re-writing them back in later as the case may warrant.

There is no "need" to say the sinner's prayer more than once if it was effective the first time. But of course, many people don't yet have a full understanding of their faith and may feel a need to say it again. There is nothing "wrong" with saying the sinner's prayer multiple times, it just isn't needed a second time from the POV of a mature Christian. My pastor actually alluded to this idea this morning by comparing it to saying "I do" at marriage. Does anyone really understand all that it means when they say it? NO. Some people repeat their vows, but likewise it is unnecessary, but useful to the people involved if they so choose to do it.

The article merely outlays the promises made to the elect.

So every epistle that uses the familial "you can know", or some form of it, doesn't at all refer to the readers of the letter, or to Christians in general? Instead it refers only to the mysterious elect and no one can know he is a member of that elect until after death. That would make these some very strange letters.

Again, as you have suggested, we STILL continue to be free to sin. And you again have stated that sin kills the soul - which means that God has left it. Will we enter heaven with a dead soul? If we willingly turn away from God, what happens over and over in the Scriptures?

Sin does kill the soul UNLESS it is reconciled and fully paid for. Christ paid for all the sins of His elect, past, present, and future. Those with dead souls do not enter Heaven, because they are not in Christ, not of the elect. If we willingly turn away from God, many different things happen over and over again in scripture. Some are smoten (?) :) immediately, some die lost (Judas), and some are forgiven and come roaring back (David, Peter). I don't think there is any set formula in this case.

FK: "...you seem to be denying the friendship between Jesus and His disciples."

Intimate details about one's parents are not a necessary prerequisite of friendship. I, incidentally, never shared any such with my roommates, and I have kept friendship with some of them to this day. Remember the "honor thy mother" part in the scripture?

I have never been talking about sex talk here! :) If you are at the water cooler at work and someone asks you if you have any brothers or sisters, do you really feel you are betraying your parents sex lives if you answer?

It is you who takes the scripture that does not say anything about Mary and Joseph following the birth of Christ, and insists on the least favorable to Mary interpretation, ... Was Lot Abraham's brother?

Believe me, I have nothing against Mary. I love Mary. :) She must have been extremely special to be the one chosen. What I do have is a ton of scripture that appears to apply to all humans. My view is that Mary was 100% human and not divine. I thought you agreed with that. If there were exceptions in the Bible for Mary to all those verses, or even just some exceptions that would make the rule apparent, then I would be with you. But, there are none, absolutely none. So, what can I conclude from my POV?

No, Lot was not Abraham's biological brother, but I have already said that I know the Bible sometimes uses the term as you do. I could just as easily say: "was Andrew the biological brother of Peter"? Or, was everyone is those days an only child? :)

If James was Mary's stepson from a previous marriage of Joseph, and therefore older, then his age, close to Mary's, would not make him a good caregiver because he might become frail together or even before Mary.

OK, at least for argument's sake, I can see that. Thanks much for the links.

Also see the excellent InterestedQuestioner's post on Jesus's brethren: [on another thread]...

I did, and it was very interesting and reasonable sounding post. Had it been to me I would have had a few comments/questions:

The problem with this interpretation [that Jesus had half-siblings] is that, according to Scripture, some of the people listed as his brothers appear to not have had the same Mother as Jesus.

And along the same lines:

Another problem with this theory [of multiple Christs with God and Mary as "parents"] is that the Mother of two of these brothers is still alive at the time of the Crucifixion, which would mean that Joseph either divorced Mary later on, was actually a divorcee at the time of his espousal to Mary, or that Joesph was married to more than one woman. Those are all problematic contingencies if we attempt to force them upon Scripture.

I am unfamiliar with these scriptures and would very much like to know what they are. Is one of them from a later statement : "Elsewhere, however, we learn that Joses and James actually had a different mother. (Mr 15:40, Mr 15:47.) If so, is it really clear that all these passages are talking about the exact same people? We've already seen how many "Marys" there are, and how many there were named James. Plus, even in Mark 15:41 it says there were many other women there.

Another interpretation is that these "brothers" were cousins of some sort or other. (First cousin, second cousin, third cousin two times removed....) It's not an unreasonable argument, in that Scripture often mentions brothers and sisters when it is in fact seems to be talking about some other relationship. There are many examples of this, ...

I agree there are examples of this, and examples of "brother" being used in purely the spiritual sense. To this day we refer to "our brothers and sisters in Christ". But especially in Mt. 13:55, et seq., that identifies Mary by name and Joseph by profession, and then lists brothers by name (and unnamed sisters), it just seems the flow of the sentence is meant to mean biological half-brothers. The people couldn't have known the truth about the Virgin birth, so it would have been normal for them to think of regular bio-brothers, since they identified in the same sentence what they thought to be both his bio-parents.

"So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. (John 19:25)

Now, we can see that there were a lot of Marys at the foot of the Cross with Jesus when he was dying. The Scripture I would like to call your attention to, however, is "standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary...." Now, if we take this translation in an entirely literal sense, Mary has a sister named Mary. ... Perhaps a more plausible reading of this verse is to say that the language used in this Scripture did not distinguish between sister and cousin or other relative, even though our language forces us to translate in such a way as use a word that either conveys one class of relationship or the other.

My simple little interpretation of this would be that the verse speaks of four people: (1) Mary mother of Jesus, (2) her sister who is unnamed, (3) Mary the wife of Clopas, and (4) Mary Magdalene.

Matthew Henry...gave an example of sin leading to physical death as a capital murder in a land with the death penalty. Another example is what happened to Ananias and Sapphira.

I don't see it as contradictory for my side to say that all sin leads to spiritual death.

The argument was that you claimed that ALL sin leads to spiritual death. Certainly, murder leads to spiritual death. ALL sin POTENTIALLY leads to death in that a person can make a habit out of sinning, gradually losing any contrition or desire to make amends. It is a common argument of the saints to say that minor, venial sins gone unchecked can lead to mortal, deadly sins. But 1 John clearly tells us that ALL sins do not kill the soul:

If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. 1 John 5:16

I don't see either in the Old Testament or the New Testament where God expects a man to be absolutely perfect and sinless to be considered righteous in God's eyes. Many men and women of the Bible were called "righteous", but all had their charecter faults, and most turned from God at least in a temporary moment in the telling of their stories. Abraham lied. David committed adultery and murder. Zechariah doubted God. Joseph had considered putting Mary away. While sin hurts our relationship with God, it does not kill the soul. We are not separated from God as a result of every sin. I believe the concept that you mention is a Protestant line of thought, not a Biblical one.

Sin is THE THING that eternally separates us from God. That's the bad part. The good part is that, for His elect, Christ paid the penalty for all those sins out of justice and love.

Ah, another Protestant error. Christ died for ALL men, not just the elect. I believe this forgets that God loves all men unconditionally. Here is where we can easily misunderstand each other. Catholics believe that there is "objective redemption", which is Christ's one sacrifice for all men that opened the gates of heaven potentially to all men - "God desires all men be saved". However, we also believe in "subjective redemption", which is how the individual is saved. How do we apply Christ's work to our individual self? It is apparent that not all men choose to use Christ's gifts and blessings won by Him. God offers us freedom. However, some CHOOSE not to see God's ways as "freedom". Some people choose to follow their own will, calling THAT freedom. God calls us to repent and believe the Gospel, the Good News - that God has provided objective redemption to all men. The Call is not heeded by all men, though, is it...

John never says we can never know until after we die, he speaks in the present tense.

Good call. Not the future tense! We can "know" TODAY!!! Thus, we can't call ourselves ABSOLUTELY the elect, since we can't see into the future. Sin exists. Even for those who think they are of the elect, those who are walking in Christ TODAY. Isn't it clear that men must persevere in Christ? The future is unclear to US.

Not walking in faith, on a permanent basis, is STRONG evidence that the original profession of faith was not true.

You are basing your salvation on an event of the past that you have NO control over anymore. Your salvation is not dependent on what you proclaimed 10 years ago, but whether you are walking in Christ today! I don't see the reason for "wondering" whether your proclamation was "true" 10 years ago. What does that have to do with today? By your fruit, you shall be known - TODAY. But if you fail to yield fruit "today", then you are to be rooted up and tossed into the fire... The Divine Gardener will do what is necessary for us to bear fruit - IF we accept His pruning (sufferings and testings) and His watering (graces). Does the "yield of a tree" this year depend on how the seed "proclaimed" its faith 10 years ago?

We can know if we are saved by how we act "today", not 10 years ago. Also, we cannot presume that we WILL be saved 10 years from now based on what we do today. Past performance does not guarantee future results... All of this, of course, is from our point of view, not God's. We don't know His point of view on our destinies.

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.