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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FK: " ... can Mary forgive sin like a priest can? I am zooming in on what the correct prayer is to Mary. Is the prayer to Mary in a worship sense so that she will procure God's graces and then pass them along, or is the prayer to Mary for Mary's prayer to God to pass the graces through her? I still haven't figured out why all the middlemen?" :)

First, I again commend you for your attitude towards these ideas that are likely new to you. I will try my best to explain all of this to you. Mary does not forgive sins in the sense that a priest could because we don't see Mary. The only reason a priest has been given this power from Christ is that He meant to continue on His ministry of Reconciliation to men in time (see 2 Cor 5:17-20). Through "us", Paul says, God pleads for us to return to Him. Thus, the priest is the hands and voice of Christ.

Thank you very much for the kind words, and for your questions about our beliefs. I appreciate your answer, and I've noticed that there have been several times when we both look at a certain passage and I see it as being directed toward all believers, and you may see it as being directed to the clergy. This is a perfect example. It seems to me that the key here is, who is "us" or "we"?

2 Cor. 5:17-21 : 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

If in this passage "we" and "us only refer to the clergy, consider what that means for the layman. First, the ministry of reconciliation is only for the clergy because it was given to only "us", the clergy. Paul is specifically EXCLUDING all other believers in this whole passage.

Second, this is bolstered by the fact that the message of reconciliation was ONLY given to the clergy. Other believers cannot have the message from God or His word, they must get it from the one and only source, the Church.

Third, only the clergy are Christ's ambassadors. Laymen are unfit. This is so because of the key word "therefore" in v. 20. That relates to the exclusive giving of the message of reconciliation to the clergy.

Fourth, only the clergy can become the "righteousness of God". Laymen cannot become the righteousness of God, because the "we" and "us" only referred to clergy. The only time Paul references "the world" is in v. 19. All other times he says "we" or "us", so it must be exclusive. Either Paul means only clergy and no one else, or he means all believers, and no one else.

I still admit that I don't get the exact relationship with Mary. You said in the earlier post that Mary was the "co-metiatrix of Christ's graces". That appears to be a unique title. :) It's funny, I believe I heard on the news earlier that the author of the famous book "God Is My Co-Pilot" croaked. Concerning people, red flags always go up for me whenever I hear co-"anything" associated with God.

God does not create life directly, but allows His creatures to (He acts indirectly through them, of course).

Here is the famous "abortion" passage, and BTW I am very thankful to Catholics for the great work you all do in this area :) :

Ps. 139:13-16 : 13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. (emphasis added)

(I had to throw in 16, just for fun :) But, does it really sound like David is talking about a cooperative effort here, especially in 13? Does it occur to David to refer to his parents as secondary causes? Or, does it appear that David is giving God full credit for being the only cause of his existence?

God acts indirectly through our actions to bring other people to Christ - so we can be co-redemptive in our actions.

Co-redemptive? I just can't accept this. God might use me as I would use a hammer to pound a nail. Since God loves me, He lets me experience being a very "happy hammer" if He saves someone after I have spoken to Him. But, I did not swing myself, and the nail (IN THIS EXAMPLE! :) did not get driven because of me.

Infallible teaching is not "based" on Scripture, but is based on the Apostle's teachings - they first came orally. Then, some of the Apostles wrote letters and narratives. These were accepted by the Church as being in line with what they had ALREADY LEARNED. Later, some men wrote down the oral traditions (like infant Baptism) as coming from the Apostles also. This was accepted by the Church and later declared infallibly suited for belief among Catholics under the guidance of the Spirit. The Scripture and this Tradition CANNOT disagree. They work together.

I thank you and appreciate your explanation, but the reason I copied the entire paragraph is that it jumped right out at me that there is one thing missing. :)

(A man with free will can reject any "guidance", right?)

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

Thanks for the difference between Ecclesiastical Tradition and Apostolic Tradition. I do need to be reminded. :)

What came first, the oral teachings of the Apostles during the first 20-30 years or the Scripture writings?

Sure, the oral teachings had to come first for the NT. I think I was thinking of all the teachings that has been declared infallible across time, including the one about Mary in 1854. I'm asking the following because I don't know, :) are you saying that each and every Tradition that has been declared infallible by the Church over the last 2000 years has also been declared to have been taught by the Apostles during their time on earth?

... Note in verse 15 [Gen. 3:15], it says that "the woman" (singular) will have enmity between "you (serpent) and "her" offspring. This is certainly not referring to Eve, because Eve had JUST SINNED! How can Eve have enmity between herself and Satan? I doubt she remained sinless, either.

My version actually has the enmity being between Eve and Satan, AND SEPARATELY, between their respective offspring. In 15 God says "And I will put enmity...", future tense. So what if Eve just sinned? Why can't Eve have enmity for satan, after all this she had a pretty good reason to, didn't she? :) If you asked me today if there was enmity between myself and satan, I would say absolutely 'YES'. Under your view, then, there was only enmity between satan and Jesus? satan didn't hate the rest of us? My experience has been different. :) Perhaps this is God saving Eve right here, to make her hate evil.

Verse 16, of course, is to Eve and her descendants, who will undergo painful childbirth and be subject to men. Considering this has been a valid interpretation of the Church for a long time, this certainly is reasonable - and quite in line with Christ's use of the word "woman" throughout the Gospel of John ("woman" would be an unusual name to call His mother, unless it had some other spiritual meaning. Again, the Church, after years of contemplation, picked up on this).

Well, how unusual could it be if one verse ago, "woman" meant His mother?! :) Seriously, I see some pretty sophisticated gymnastics going on here with the Fathers. In my Bible, the term Jesus used for His mother in John was "dear woman", a common term of respect.

In a literary sense, one big thing that bothers me with all of these many examples is that meanings are changed within one clearly defined thought. In 12, "the man", Adam, speaks directly about Eve, "the woman". In 13, God speaks directly to Eve, "the woman". In 14, God then speaks to the serpent and references "the woman" in 15. Then, in 16, it is specifically noted that God is now speaking TO "the woman" again. Then, in 17, God then turns and speaks to "the man", Adam. It's all in the same thought. How could only verse 15 break this train of thought? How could the same word have such completely different meanings for one and only one verse in a long chain of usage?

On your side, I don't know how or if people are "falsely" Baptized. You know how I feel about (infant) Baptism, but of course that doesn't stop the Catholic elect from later coming to the saving grace of Christ (perhaps at Confirmation, an idea I like). At that point, the Catholic "COULD" have assurance, but of course this would never happen because the person would have to throw out Catholic teaching. :) Not happening!

Like I said before, brother, we have a different definition of "saved". Yes, we are "saved" at Baptism, but it is in the sense that we are healed. HOWEVER, this doesn't mean we won't get sick again. This would preclude free will! Thus, our idea of "saved" does not include "eternal heaven". When we discuss eternal heaven, we realize we (Catholics) individually do not know - it is God's choice and we do not know absolutely His mind on the subject. We can have a good idea today, and that's about it. Thus, there is no problem with a person Falling Away/Never was saved to begin with concept. I am of the mind that even people who say the sinner's prayer SINCERELY and would give their life to God at that moment, doesn't mean it will matter to them when they run into something that rocks their faith 5 years into the future.

To us, Baptism is for the remission of all sins. It makes us children of God. It grants us sanctifying grace - if we were to trip and fall and die while leaving the altar, we'd end up in heaven! Baptism does NOT eliminate concupiscience, however! We still can be tempted to sin, although God offers His aid during such times (which we CAN ignore). Thus, a person, despite being Baptised, can still fall away, can still require God's graces again - just as the Prodigal Son needed his father's healing touch again to "know" he was welcome in his father's home. Just like the young man, we need to know we are back in our father's good graces and restore our relationship with him. Sin destroys this relationship. Reconciliation restores it. Thus, we don't have this idea of "healed/never healed to begin with".

Our view is that, for the elect, the first installment DOES guarantee the future actions.

This is God's view, a view that we will never know until our subsequent judgment. Thus, there is no point in placing yourself falsely into such a group with absolute assurance. Yes, the elect will persevere. The problem is that HUMANS place THEMSELVES into this group without considering that they MAY fall away. Men too easily convince themselves of things that are beyond their ability to know.

Regards

I didn't know the "Gospel of Thomas" was considered Gnostic. So, Catholics and Orthodox fully (or mostly) reject it?

The Church most definitely rejects the so-called Gospel of Thomas as Gnostic, along with a multitude of other heretic texts of similar kind.

This is precisely why it took the fathers of the Church hundreds of years to sift through all these texts and reject or accept them in forming the Christian canon (New Testament).

Typically, Gnostic and other "gospels" use actual Gospel material (verses) and introject in between their own satanic verses, or even just single words! Thus, many appear as genuine "inspired" text when in fact they are devil's deception par excellence!

Boy, if so, then the History channel really let me down because I could have sworn they portrayed it as mainstream extra-Biblical teaching

The History Channel is a major source of satanic lies. If I were the devil, I would certainly use it to disseminate lies and make them appear as "mainstream extra-Biblical teachings" because it reaches so many people and because people generally believe what they see on TV.

But they only appear balanced, and their presentation gives an air (a deceptive one for sure) of credibility. They favor certain myths and lies and pass on inaccurate information as "fact" which most people take on faith alone and never check.

Thus, I noticed that they will spend inordinate amount of time on interviews with such satanic ambassadors as Elaine Pagles (the author of the book "The Gospel of Thomas") and her small but vociferous crowd on the History Channel as well as the Learning Channel (I believe both are owned by the same global satanic network). At the same time, genuine Church sources are interviewed in passing and barely skimming the surface of an issue. Usually, it is a lower-ranking clergy member or, preferably for the editors of Satanic TV, a dissident clergy member.

Catholic Scripture interpretation does not stop at one level, the literal sense, but also notes a spiritual sense to many verses, some having multiple meanings and senses. Thus, we agree that Scriptures do not ONLY speaking to the clergy, and Jesus is not ONLY speaking to the Apostles in Mat 28:20. The literal sense is "they are indeed speaking about themselves" (clergy/Apostles). It is through them that God intended His message to be given throughout the world. God did not deliver revelation to all men, but to a small group of men. However, WE TOO share in the priesthood of Christ as part of our Baptismal promises and obligations. WE TOO are to spread the Gospel by our witness. WE TOO offer our own sacrifices in union with Christ when we participate in the Mass, the representation of Christ's Paschal Mystery. WE TOO offer forgiveness of wrongs done to us - foreshadowing God's own forgiveness to others. OF COURSE we are to do all of these things. But this does not overthrow the initial literal sense of the Scripture - that the Apostles and their successors are primarily tasked by God to be His most visible works in the world today - and through them, the Truth can be known by men.

Laymen cannot become the righteousness of God, because the "we" and "us" only referred to clergy. The only time Paul references "the world" is in v. 19. All other times he says "we" or "us", so it must be exclusive. Either Paul means only clergy and no one else, or he means all believers, and no one else.

We, all Christians, share in the priesthood of Christ. Thus, we can also become righteous and so forth. But Christ still established a new ministrial priesthood. Such a "system" existed in the OT as well. The Jews were a priestly people, as Moses said - yet there still were ministerial priests who were men's official guides, men who offered sacrifice and were responsible for teaching the people. Today, priests continue this role, participating in Christ's priesthood by visibly teaching and preaching, offering God's healing, and visibly representing Christ's offering of Himself to the Father and to the community.

Concerning people, red flags always go up for me whenever I hear co-"anything" associated with God.

"Co-anything" doesn't mean that this person was NECESSARY for anything. We go back to the cookie analogy again. Was the daughter necessary? The mother choose to include the daughter in her work, not because the daughter was needed, because the mother loves the daughter and wants to share her work with the child. God does the same thing with all of us. Your wife is a co-creator, you are a co-redeemer when you bring others to Christ, and Mary is a co-mediatrix of grace - all because God loves us to participate in the divine nature (says Peter)

does it really sound like David is talking about a cooperative effort here, especially in 13? Does it occur to David to refer to his parents as secondary causes? Or, does it appear that David is giving God full credit for being the only cause of his existence?

Why are you messin' with my favorite Psalm? ;)

Again, you are trying to place God on a linear time scale. The Scripture is often written from the point of view of man, which APPEARS that God has lined up everything in advance. Day 1, this will happen. Day 2, that will happen. However, for GOD, there is no "in advance"! All is NOW. God doesn't "elect" us without seeing already our response to His love. This is because it all occurs simultaneously.

Think of yourself as the trusty sidekick going along for the ride. God is gracing you by sharing His life with us. He doesn't need us. You are confusing "necessity" with "sharing".

(A man with free will can reject any "guidance", right?)

You got it. Thus, there are very poor Catholics who think that abortion is OK, despite the constant teaching to the contrary...

are you saying that each and every Tradition that has been declared infallible by the Church over the last 2000 years has also been declared to have been taught by the Apostles during their time on earth?

Not by the Apostles, but by the Church that followed. We don't have the transcripts of what the Apostles orally taught. We have to go to the writings of men who followed them, the Church Fathers. To Liturgical and Sacramental celebrations. To the prayers of the Church. When we see the "sense of the faithful" leaning in a particular way on a subject, one that seems to have existed for a long time throughout the Church ("always, in every place, by all men" St Lerins), a consensus within the Church, we believe that the Spirit is speaking through the entire Church on a particular belief. The Church identifies this belief among the faithful, one that existed "back to the apostles" and defines something, putting this belief into words and definitions for the faithful (the Church had LONG before believed that Mary assumed into heaven - their was a Church celebration of it in the liturgy back to the 400's at least - but it wasn't officially defined until 1950. The Spirit had already instilled within the Church's Holy Tradition the belief).

My version actually has the enmity being between Eve and Satan

The bible doesn't seem to mention any sort of enmity between the two after the Garden event. Eve is never mentioned personally again in this regards. God appears to be talking about a particular person who will spring from Eve - the Church recognizes this as Mary in 150 AD in writings of St. Justin the Martyr, St. Irenaeus in 180 AD, and Tertullian in 200 AD.

Why can't Eve have enmity for satan, after all this she had a pretty good reason to, didn't she?

If only refering to Eve, why didn't God include Adam, since it was HIS sin that separated mankind from God??? Why would God refer to EVE, but not ADAM? The Jews and the Catholic Church see it refering to someone else.

In my Bible, the term Jesus used for His mother in John was "dear woman", a common term of respect.

Sorry, that is the NIV, not the Greek version. The NIV is notorious for such "paraphrases".

In a literary sense, one big thing that bothers me with all of these many examples is that meanings are changed within one clearly defined thought

Brother, ALL prophesy works that way! Let's look at one we agree on. Isaiah 7:14. Who does the Prophet speak to? Can we agree that he is speaking to TWO groups of people simultaneously, in the same sentence? One for the immediate hearer and one for the future that points to the Messiah's and His mother? Prophesy is hidden with the literal sense or historical sense of the Scripture.

Regards

Could you please explain a bit your beliefs on this subject

I have done that numerous times on this thread. Since you are not reading all of the posts, you can start with post 2483. But here is a cut and paste of that first post on this subject to save a little time:

The majority of Methodists believe in free will, including the many churches derived from Methodism, such as Pentecostals and Assemblies of God. The same is true of those churches derived from the Brethren and Anabaptists movements in Europe. This includes churches as diverse as Mennonite, Amish, Church of the Brethren, and Quaker.

The situation is more complex among Baptists, but many do believe in free will, including General Baptists and Free Will Baptists. As for those churches founded on the theology of Luther and Calvin like Lutherans and Presbyterians, some members do believe in free will. And whatever the beliefs of the early churchmen of the Church of England, today many Anglicans--perhaps a majority--believe in free will (mainly I think from the influence of Methodism on the one hand and the Oxford Movement on the other.)

In Protestant theology, a belief in free will is called Arminian, named after Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch Reformed churchman who rejected much of Calvin's theology, including predestination. In Arminianism, grace is a gift that can be accepted or rejected. It can also be lost without a renewal of the will.

You might find it interesting to note that John Wesley, the founder of Methodism and an Anglican priest who never left the Church of England, took much inspiration from the theology of the Orthodox Church.The majority of Protestants today subscribe to a belief in free will.

So, the majority of Protestants don't believe in predestination or once saved, always saved.

Could you please explain a bit your beliefs on this subject so that I am able to better qualify my statements on this subject in the future.

It is not just my beliefs. I am talking about the majority of Protestants. You can also speak to Forest Keeper, HarleyD, and kosta50 about this.

"Everything you've written contain elements of truths which I wouldn't disagree with. But if this was the Father's will as you acknowledged in the Lord's prayer, what part of the cruxifition was God's involvement? If our Lord Jesus chose His disciples knowing ONE of them was a bad egg, wasn't He setting Judas up-putting him in a position of which He knew Judas would fail and succume to temptation? Is this how you see God working?"

I want to be very careful in how I answer this question, and right now, I have to say that I can't answer it -- or rather would rather not shoot from the hip and then have to undo something. (Something that happens to me entirely too much on FR.)

I am going to scan all of the relevant Lenten Triodion texts in the Holy Week services (and as Kolokotronis can tell you, that is quite a project) to see if this is addressed anywhere in our liturgical corpus. In general, if we believe it, we sing it at some point in the yearly cycle.

I do know that the liturgical texts that I can recall off the top of my head make no mistake about the fact that Judas is doing something that he shouldn't do, and that if he had been "paying attention," so to speak, he wouldn't have done so.

A strong subtheme of the services (or at least that is how I experience them) of Holy Week is for us to identify ourselves with Judas to a certain extent -- to see how what Judas did is so much like what we do all the time through our sins. We betray Christ through our actions and inattention. We do so because we have not joined ourselves to him and have not participated in his life and "gotten it" to the extent that we would not betray him. It is a very moving, even crushing experience.

What I expect that I will find is that the texts will be silent about this mystery -- Christ choosing a disciple who he knows will betray him. That would enter into the realm of speculation that Orthodoxy just isn't big on.

God does choose and act in creation (and Christ choosing Judas was one of those acts) -- I certainly don't want to give the impression (which I perhaps may have) that God is a passive participant in the world. Far from it. But God does not compel our actions and choices to choose or reject him.

I'll get back to you with more thoughts if I come on anything. Otherwise, I'll have to rely on the usual Orthodox "cop-out" for those things where we seem to hold mutually exclusive views simultaneously: "It's a mystery."

We try not to go beyond revelation (or ignore any of it), and we don't come up with theories to try to force incomprehensible parts of revelation into a unified and systematic whole.

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.