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.

You really didn't answer my point -- namely that if TULIP were the clear and unadulterated teaching of the Apostles, then why don't we see it and other Reformed distinctives explicitly expounded by writers of the post-Apostolic period?

I really don't know what the Apostles taught outside of scripture, and I can't speak to how much of it was written about by others. My answer was to point out that both sides believe in things that may require some inference from scripture. TULIP is based only on scripture and no outside writings. That makes it different from much Tradition, which is not mentioned at all in the Bible. If any teaching is rooted firmly in scripture, like TULIP, then it carries 100 times the credibility with me as any teaching that does not appear in scripture.

... then how is it that there is not one of the early Church fathers that Calvinists can point to and say: "There, now that man teaches exactly what we teach, worshiped exactly as we worship, and is one of us."

Well, you all and Catholics can't even come close to the standard you use here, so I don't know why it should be applied to our side. I believe Harley has given lots of evidence that Augustine held many views we would find favorable.

Even if one were to claim that the Church became corrupt and only kept those writings that support its approach, this wouldn't explain why the "official Church" wouldn't have records of how it had stamped out the proto-Reformed "heresies." We have many writings that report in great detail various heresies.

I really can't speak to which records the Church kept and which they did not. I can't know. But, if it is true that the Apostles taught doctrine that was very opposed to Reformed theology, then a very unappealing (to me) alternative presents itself. Either the Apostles taught in complete riddles, or they wrote in complete riddles, or both. It would mean that scripture does not mean what it says. To me, that goes against any idea of a revealed faith.

On the other hand, your question of how key teachings about the Virgin Mary aren't in the Bible really isn't terribly on point. After all, we Orthodox have never claimed that everything we believe is explicitly spelled out in Scripture, so why would you expect to find it all there?

I wasn't trying to say that every belief you have must be in the Bible, even though I hold that view. I'm sure there is plenty of Tradition that does not offend the Bible and which is fine. Many of the rituals we have in our church are not spelled out word for word in the Bible, but are Bible-based. Rather, I was pointing out that since Mary is so cherished in the Church, it just seems odd that extremely important doctrine concerning her, that differentiates her from all others, is no where in scripture. What other figure of her stature is comparatively overlooked in terms of scripture?

Keep in mind also that unlike in Roman Catholicism, the vast majority of monastics in the Orthodox Church are laymen. Very few are ordained clergy ... In the Orthodox Church, being a member of the clergy is viewed as an act of sacrifice and service, and not one of authority.

I didn't know that at all. Then, do your clergy have the literal authority to forgive sins? Do they have the literal authority to stand in the place of Christ and act as Him?

As it is, the kinds of things that happened in the Catholic Church after Vatican II are nigh on to unthinkable in the Orthodox Church. The laity just wouldn't stand for it.

It sounds like your laity is very similar to ours. As much as we love him, if our pastor ever tried to pull anything like what you may be referring to, he would be out in the street on his butt in three seconds! :) Forever!

I was pointing out that since Mary is so cherished in the Church, it just seems odd that extremely important doctrine concerning her, that differentiates her from all others, is no where in scripture.

Not only are there no such references in Scripture, we are expressly cautioned NOT to pray to anyone but Christ. (I posted the following Scripture the other day. I really like it, so I'll post it again. 8~)

"Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." -- Acts 17:22-31

And I stand by my statement. You feel that in order to be perfect you must have complete wisdom and knowledge. I don't

Yes, a perfect being is perfect, HD. You can stand next to your oxymoron and even hug it for all I care: to be perfect means to have no flaws.

Please show me where God commanded that they would die if they touched the fruit

He didn't; that was her mistaken belief. But please show me where the serpent gives the fruit to Eve, as you asserted earlier.

Gen 3:6 "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat..."

All the serpent did was to say that they would not die if they ate the fruit.

As to why she believed the serpent is another question. It seems she followed the same path we all follow: looks good, feels good, tastes good -- must be good. Have you ever made a choice based on that when you should have known better? If you are human, you have.

Ultimately, it was Eve who had to convince herself that the tree did look good, taste good and was good for wisdom. Once she convinced herself that she needed all that, she sinned. We do what Eve did every day, HD. Because we are not perfect but always make decisions that seem good to us (that automatically excludes God), because we ultimately only love ourselves first and foremost.

If Jesus walked the earth today, was a poor unemployed carpenter and called on people to give up their SUVs, homes, wives, children, everything they owened or worked for, or loved, and follow Him, how many do you think would do that?

It's easy to criticize, but most people have faith only on their lips. Most people have difficulty giving God more than one hour on a Sunday, even that much. We always do what is good for us. Because no one loves Gof with all his heart, mind and soul, not one.

"co-". with. together. jointly. One that is associated in an action with another: fellow. partner. helper.

... There are dozens of verses that speak of the Lord as our helper. I see Scripture clearly showing how we cooperate with God's graces.

Thank you for all of the verses in between these statements. But as you implicitly admit, none of them have anything to do with the concept of "Co-". For "Co-" to apply, BOTH parties would have to help each other. Then it would fit. But as you say, all of your verses only say that God is the only helper, and the person is only the one being helped. There is no "Co-". You give no verses that say we help God.

Is that wrong to believe that God has given us the grace to cooperate in His continuing of creation?

It is only incorrect to take credit for it, just like it would be incorrect for the cookie daughter to take credit for the cookies.

Your effort to "protect" God's sovereignty by denying that we do anything is not necessary. It should be clear that God ALLOWS us to participate in His work - HIS OWN WILL is that we do.

Well, I have to admit that I am one to protect God's sovereignty. :) But, I do not say that we do not participate. Of course we do, and as you said, it is God's will that we do. Otherwise, we would all just sit here and do nothing until we died. :) My "protection" is all about who gets the credit and who makes what happen.

By closing your mouth, rather than spread the Gospel to co-workers who are not Christians, you DO have the power and authority to NOT be a co-redeemer. By acting as a Christian, you are a light to the world of Christ's work.

??? What does this have to do with whether I have the power and authority to be a co-redeemer? In certain cases, I suppose I do have the power to not be a light unto Christ. But even if I did everything right, and I witnessed my little heart out, and then the person came to Jesus, I would not consider myself a co-redeemer at all. I would consider myself a very blessed witness to the sole work of Christ. Here I am, doing the protection thing again. :)

St. Basil once said that if anyone said that Mary was merely like a pipe through which water ran in regards to our Savior, then that person is impious person. God was not a parasite...

Although it's funny, I don't know what is meant by the parasite comment. God uses us as vessels all the time to accomplish His will. Those who love Him are willing. Mary was such. I would even go so far as to say that I don't see Mary as equivalent to the pipe above, because after the water has left the pipe, the pipe is meaningless concerning the water. I think if one could have done a DNA sample on the man Jesus back then, it would have shown that Mary was His mother. Nothing wrong with that, and of course she loved Him and raised Him, etc.

FK: "To say that it happens simultaneously throws the whole issue beyond human comprehension. If you agree to that, then it appears that your real answer is that you don't know."

More properly, we call it a mystery. We don't know EVERYTHING about God and how He works upon time.

OK, that's all I really could have hoped for. :) So, how it is possible that God chooses His elect simultaneously with His elect choosing Him is a mystery. Of course our side would say that from either God's or our POV, He chose His elect first. I can know that because God existed before man, and scripture says He chose us first.

We can believe the message of the Church because we believe that it was led by a person who resurrected from the dead - clear evidence that His message was from God, who alone can raise the dead.(emphasis added)

Acts 9:36-37, 40-41 : "36 In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which, when translated, is Dorcas), who was always doing good and helping the poor. 37 About that time she became sick and died, and her body was washed and placed in an upstairs room. ... 40 Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, "Tabitha, get up." She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. 41 He took her by the hand and helped her to her feet. Then he called the believers and the widows and presented her to them alive."

[Whispering...] Joe, ... come over to the dark side, with me. Believe that this was really the work of Jesus and not Peter. Just like with all the other things we have been talking about. No one has to know, I won't tell. You're right, Joe, no one can raise the dead except God. I can feel the conflict within you. Let go, Joe. With the word, use the force... :)

We do not publically dissent (we are not given authority) from the Church's teachings. A theologian who has properly considered all of the knowledge available would be in his right to disagree with the pre-defined belief of Mary's Assumption.

What is the difference between you and a theologian? Before asking this stupid question, I looked it up in the dictionary and all it said was "one learned in theology". (Thank you Mr. dictionary :) You fit that. Is it an official "office" within the Church?

First, I don't know if your bible version says the word "virgin" or "young woman" in this verse. If the former, you are using the Septaugint version, the latter is the Hebrew version. As I said, ALL prophesy has multiple meanings. The prophet is speaking directly to someone present during HIS time. The footnote is correct.

[On Is. 7:14 :] Well, then thanks for sticking up for my Bible :) In this case, I'm just not sure I buy it. :) As you know it is NIV. The footnotes are by Charles Ryrie. Here's what the verse says:

Is. 7:14 : 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

How can ALL prophecy have multiple meanings? When Jesus said the temple would be destroyed and then rebuilt in three days, what was the double meaning? What is the double meaning of the person referred to in Is. 53? And this:

Ps. 22:16 : Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.

How do you explain the double meaning of this, seeing as how crucifixion had not been invented yet?

But as you implicitly admit, none of them have anything to do with the concept of "Co-". For "Co-" to apply, BOTH parties would have to help each other.

The dictionary doesn't make that claim. Even in the human world, one can help another in a one-way exchange. There is nothing in the definition of "co-" that demands a two-way exchange of aid. That is ridiculous, furthermore, when discussing God. Which CHRISTIAN would even make that claim? Do you really think Catholics believe that WE help God do anything, as if He couldn't do it without us?

You then later show me that you DO understand what I am talking about:

But, I do not say that we do not participate. Of course we do, and as you said, it is God's will that we do. Otherwise, we would all just sit here and do nothing until we died. :) My "protection" is all about who gets the credit and who makes what happen

Yes, we participate. And God gets the credit. However, where there is free will involved, God grants us a reward for our participation. Thus, we do receive credit from God. God rewards us when He commands us to REPENT - and we repent...

It is only incorrect to take credit for it, just like it would be incorrect for the cookie daughter to take credit for the cookies.

Does the loving mother scold her child when she proudly tells her father "Daddy, look what me and mommy did"... In your view of God, the mother would yell at the top of her lungs "HOW DARE YOU TAKE CREDIT FOR MAKING THE COOKIES! I AM THE COOKIE MAKER. YOU MUST NOW BE PUNISHED!!! ARRGGHHH!" This is utterly ridiculous in the real world. What makes you think God is below us on such matters? Doesn't He love to share with His loved ones His glory? God highly exalts us - see Mary's Magnificat when she speaks with Elizabeth in Luke 1.

??? What does this have to do with whether I have the power and authority to be a co-redeemer?

If you are prompted by the Spirit to speak about Christ to an unbeliever, but you refuse out of some shyness or whatever, your power of speech has been inhibited, and the Word of God does not go out to that person. Is this a trick question?

Although it's funny, I don't know what is meant by the parasite comment. God uses us as vessels all the time to accomplish His will.

A parasite uses the host without any care of the host, solely for its own purpose. God does not act that way, but chooses to involve us in His loving work. God doesn't have to come through man's actions to spread His Word!!! When you witness to someone and they seem to heed what you say, don't you feel a sense of joy? That you were part of the equation of God coming to that person? Doesn't the daughter making the cookies also feel this joy, of being part of the equation of doing something with her mother?

I think if one could have done a DNA sample on the man Jesus back then, it would have shown that Mary was His mother. Nothing wrong with that...

Whew! Wonderful... Doesn't Scripture tell us this also?

Of course our side would say that from either God's or our POV, He chose His elect first. I can know that because God existed before man, and scripture says He chose us first.

God acts WITHIN time by keeping it in existence, but He is not subject to it. If he foresaw EVERYTHING during the first day of creation, doesn't it follow that He "chose" us then - but at the same time, He also foresaw our actions in time? The Scripture speaks from man's point of view - God chose us first. And He did. But from God's point of view, His choosing and our choosing happen simultaneously - there is no passage of time that intervenes between His view of His choice and our choice (which is based on His grace that He gives us).

Believe that this was really the work of Jesus and not Peter (the raising of Tabbatha). Just like with all the other things we have been talking about. No one has to know, I won't tell.

Of course - and yet, God chose to raise this girl THROUGH Peter. Wow. Peter baked some delicious cookies, Daddy would say...

Uh, I think it is someone more properly in an official, paid vocation. Such as a college professor, or a Catholic writer (for pay). Theologians used to be mostly clergy (they were the only educated ones), but now, everyone has an opinion! Theologians do not have the same "ranking" in the Church as they once had, because of so many views that seem to border on heresy.

How can ALL prophecy have multiple meanings? When Jesus said the temple would be destroyed and then rebuilt in three days, what was the double meaning?

The hearers of this thought Jesus was speaking about the actual Temple - while Jesus was speaking of His own Body. Thus, multiple meanings.

What is the double meaning of the person referred to in Is. 53?

The nation Israel is the suffering servant of the Lord - while Christians interpret it as Jesus Christ. See, multiple meanings to different people.

Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.

Crucifixion had not been invented yet? When was it "invented"? From my studies of military history BEFORE becoming a practicing Christian, I remember it going back quite some time - the Greeks practiced it before Alexander the Great. Again, I would imagine Jews would refer this to mean something other than crucifixion, but I don't have their interpretation on it. To them, it probably is just a form of describing persecution, like when the Psalms talk about eathing one's flesh. Or do you believe the Psalmist was refering to cannibals?

Regards

It is not a matter of ignoring the second, but rather of understanding where being and truth reside.

If a person has difficulties in reconciling the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New, it suggests to me there is some fundamental error in their theology. There is no difference. People came to God through Judaism in the Old Testament (Caleb and Ruth to name two) just as people now come to God through Christianity. The only difference was the old covenant was imperfect. It was through the completed work of Christ that God placed His Spirit permanently in us to cause us to walk according to His commands.

Christians do not like to talk much these days about the wrath of God. However our Lord Jesus talked far more about hell and damnation then He did of the love of God. The God of the Old Testament that flooded the world in Genesis 6 is the very same Christ that will destroy the world with fire described in Revelations in the New Testament. If someone wants to talk about the love of Christ as it is used in its distorted framework of today, then they need to pay close attention to the wrath poured out in Revelation. This wrath was so great that even the angels stood speechless for a half an hour.

This isn't to say God's wrath is to be focused on exclusively. Its simply that if you understand the wrath and judgment that awaits the world, then you fully can appreciate the grace, love and mercy that God has richly bestowed on us Christians. But God doesn't show love to those who are outside of His covenant. Not to Jews. Not to Hindus. Not to Buddhists. He does not stand outside some door knocking hoping we will open the door. He takes the initiative and, in His great love, grace and mercy, seek and save that which was lost. He drags us out of Sodom.

The trouble is that is difficult for some to comprehend, God doesn't do this for everyone. He goes to the pool of troubled waters but tells only one to pick up their pallet and walk.

That is where the truth resides.

If a person has difficulties in reconciling the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New, it suggests to me there is some fundamental error in their theology. There is no difference.

Sure there is, as you pointed out when you quoted St. Augustine and the relationship between the OT and the NT. God gradually revealed Himself - first hazily through the prophets of the OT, and more concretely and completely through Jesus Christ. We as Christians are to read the OT in light of the NT revelation given to us. Thus, this talk about a jealous, wrathful God is not the true picture of Whom Christ revealed.

the completed work of Christ that God placed His Spirit permanently in us to cause us to walk according to His commands.

Where does the Scripture say that the Spirit is PERMANENTLY in us?

Christians do not like to talk much these days about the wrath of God. However our Lord Jesus talked far more about hell and damnation then He did of the love of God.

That's utterly false. While Christ mentions hell on several occasions, He mentions love numerous times...And besides, your idea of "wrath of God" differs from the NT idea. For example, read Romans 1:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions" Romans 1:18-26

God's wrath is not seen as an active power that reprobates, but a passive one that allows the wicked to "dig their own grave". A careful reading of the Psalms also yields the same concept. It is the wicked who are to blame for their separation from God.

If someone wants to talk about the love of Christ as it is used in its distorted framework of today, then they need to pay close attention to the wrath poured out in Revelation

Few people interpret Revelations as literal history of the end of the world, but symbolic, apocalyptic language. "A three feet deep river of blood flowing through the streets?" Considering 4 quarts of blood per person, how many people would it take to get 3 feet of blood to flow down the streets of Jerusalem? This is symbolic language!

But God doesn't show love to those who are outside of His covenant

God desires that ALL men be saved - He died for the sin of ALL men.

He does not stand outside some door knocking hoping we will open the door.

"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. " Rev 3:20

Note, it says "IF ANY MAN...."

The trouble is that is difficult for some to comprehend, God doesn't do this for everyone

God's graces are available for everyone. Otherwise, why would Ezekiel write:

But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: [and] not that he should return from his ways, and live? Ez 18:21-24

The problem is that you don't understand God's great love for ALL men - and that some men refuse this love.

Regards

I was pointing out that since Mary is so cherished in the Church, it just seems odd that extremely important doctrine concerning her, that differentiates her from all others, is no where in scripture. Not only are there no such references in Scripture, we are expressly cautioned NOT to pray to anyone but Christ. (I posted the following Scripture the other day. I really like it, so I'll post it again. 8~)

There are only two saints I have real affection for, the first is Our Lord's Blessed Mother and the other is John the Baptist.

The Magnificat is one of the most beautiful prayers ever, and I think that Mary's plaintive cry to God, her thanks for raising the lowly and lowering the haughty hearkens back to some of the Psalms, where David is praising God for smiting his enemies and the proud and the unjust. There is a continuity there that I really like.

However, I was never really able to form a bond with her as the creature that Catholics assert she is or was. When I would kneel before her statue, I was never able to formulate a natural dialogue. I was always asking myself how to phrase my prayer, should it be "dear Mary, please relay the following to Jesus for me..." Always very, very unnatural for me.

Part of the reason for that is because as a kid a nun had put it in my head that I was immoral, and she also put it in writing, so I never knew how I could approach this creature who was sinless from beginning to end. How could it be possible for me, filthy inside as I was, to approach this pure figure? It wasn't as if she could forgive my sins, only Jesus could do that, and as I grew to have a deeper relationship with Jesus, to approach her seemed unnecessary, and also seemed to take something away from the Power and Glory of Christ. That, coupled with my sense that the unclean couldn't approach the clean, made her somewhat of an impediment to me in my relationship with Jesus.

Also, in Scripture, the dialogue that Jesus has with his Mother seems a little on the harsh side, and so you never get from Scripture anything near a mirror image of the way Our Lord's Blessed Mother is asserted to be by Catholicism. But neither can I totally forget her.

The Passion of The Christ did an excellent job in portraying Mary as a Mother, the scene where she is soaking up His Blood in anguished fervor is how I see Our Lord's Blessed Mother: The Mary of the Magnificat and of her Son's Passion.

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

These Scriptures really speak to me, Dr. E., thanks.

FK: "In John 19:30, what does Christ mean by "It is finished"? I read that the Greek word means "paid in full", as opposed to potentially.

Jo: Yes, it is paid in full. All we have to do now it to go to the bank and withdraw against this infinite account. We do it all the time when we ask for forgiveness. IF it was done in the sense that we no longer have to ask forgiveness or receive Christ's graces applied to us, then why would Jesus say : ... [John 20:22-23]

I don't know that I understand your analogy. Once a debt is paid in full, the account is closed. The balance is zero. There is no account from which to draw. It is finished.

I see Christ paying for the sins of His elect and our continual asking of God for forgiveness of our sins as two separate issues. What Christ did on the cross was perfect and perfectly complete. He paid for the sins of His elect and forgave them their sins past, present, and future. When we ask God for forgiveness now for our sins, it is not to earn our way into heaven. (I know you have said before that you do not believe in that, but, suddenly, now we have to go to this bank of yours and do works to "make a withdrawl" to get our salvation after Christ finished His work on the cross. Maybe this goes back to "works" only being for pay, which again stands the scripture on its head. The scripture doesn't say what it says.)

Asking for forgiveness, after being saved, is an obedience to God, as He commands that we do so. It is for our own good, and when we obey Him we love Him. It is part of our sanctification.

"The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye and believe the Gospel" Mark 1:15 Doesn't this imply that we have the choice to do one or the other?

Not at all. One thing Jesus was doing is teaching us that the whole world is a mission field from our POV. Of course, He already knew who would be saved and who would be lost. Yet, He spoke to many of the lost anyway. Why would He waste His time?

"He that believes on him is not condemned, but he that does not believe is condemned already because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" John 3:18

Thus, forgiveness of sins is based on REPENTING. It is conditional, brother.

He that is predestined to be of the elect will believe and not be condemned, etc. Do you believe in single predestination or not? :) For the elect, the forgiveness of sins is based on what Christ did on the cross. Repentance, for the elect, is a future included event.

Things are not black and white. I think Paul is talking more about a general way of acting, not our each and every sin or good deed moves us in and out of being slaves to sin, or slaves to righteousness. Does the latter become the former EVERY TIME THEY SIN, and vice versus? This would be a DAILY back and forth! Thus, one venial sin doesn't kill the soul.

But your whole faith is based on a ping-pong salvation model. :) Confess today and you are saved. Commit mortal sin tomorrow and you are lost forever. Go back to confession the next day, and you are saved again. Don't you go back and forth again and again your whole lives? This seems inconsistent with what you are saying above.

We have different views of "being saved", as I have painfully told you. How could David be damned if he hadn't died yet before his contrition. He was in an "unrighteous status" with God. He was not considered righteous in God's eyes as a result of his sin. But when he returned to God, David was restored.

I know that we have different ideas of salvation, but when you say that a person's status can't be known until death, even if a hypothetical, then you are evading. I have been told by Catholics on this thread that if you commit a mortal sin, and never are forgiven, and there are no special "outs", then the person is lost. That's the ping-pong model. In all of my examples such as this, it is assumed that nothing changes. My point was that under your system, if David never did ask forgiveness, then he would have been damned.

FK: "Here is where we go back to the "time" and "simultaneous" issue, so I'll hold until I read your response to my earlier post."

God saw David in his mother's womb, In the shepherd's field, slaying Goliath, committing adultery, morning over his sick infant, weeping over Absalom, and dying all at once. What's the problem? God saw David's return to Him within time.

Your original comment was: "Is someone in Christ when a Christian murders or commits adultery? You be the judge. There is more to being a Christian than a name. Only those who DO THE WILL OF THE FATHER IN HEAVEN shall enter the Kingdom." I responded "You mean like David, on both counts? ..."

My problem is that you are "simultaneously" (OH-HO) using God both inside and outside of time to suit your purposes. When you make a point, God is inside time and magically does what you need Him to do. Of course, when I make a point, God is magically outside of time and so nothing applies. Then you add the fact that everything happens simultaneously and is a mystery. David used his independent free will to come back, God saw it in advance, AND God and David chose each other simultaneously. I suppose the word "mystery" really does apply here. :)

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.