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

Protestant Reformed Theological Journal ^ | April 1999 | Garrett J. Eriks

[HarleyD]

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erasmus On the Freedom of the Will

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luther's Arguments Against Erasmus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Battle of the Biblical Texts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To put it in a word: the result of your exegetical license is that by your new, unheard-of grammar everything is thrown topsy-turvy. When God says: 'I will harden the heart of Pharaoh,' you change the persons, and take it thus: 'Pharaoh hardens himself by my long-suffering'! 'God hardens our hearts' means: 'we harden ourselves while God postpones punishment.'

Showing the absurdity of what Erasmus says, Luther says that this view means that God shows mercy when He sends Israel into captivity because then they are invited to repent; but when Israel is brought back from captivity, He hardens them by giving them the opportunity of hardening in His longsuffering. This is "topsy-turvy."

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

As soon as God presents to it from without something that naturally irritates and offends it, Pharaoh cannot escape the acting of the divine omnipotence and the perversion and villainy of his own will. So God's hardening of Pharaoh is wrought thus: God presents from without to his villainous heart that which by nature he hates. At the same time, He continues by omnipotent action to move within him the evil will which He finds there. Pharaoh by reason of the villainy of his will, cannot but hate what opposes him, and trust to his own strength; and he grows so obstinate that he will not listen nor reflect, but is swept along in the grip of Satan like a raging madman.

In his consideration of Jacob and Esau in Romans 9, Erasmus denies that this passage speaks of predestination. Erasmus says God does not hate anybody from eternity. But God's wrath and fury against sin are revealed on Esau because He knows the sins he will commit. In this connection, when Romans 9 speaks of God as the potter making a vessel of honor and dishonor, Erasmus says that God does this because of their belief and unbelief. Erasmus is trying to deny the necessity of the fulfillment of God's decree in order to support the freedom of the will.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Main Issues and Implications of Each View

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erasmus had supposed that by stressing the smallness of the power which man can exercise, and of the merit which he can gain in his own strength, he was softening the offence of his Pelagian principles and moving closer to the Augustinian position, which denies all merit and ascribes salvation wholly to God.

According to Luther, Erasmus does not succeed in moving closer to the Augustinian position. Instead, he cheapens the purchase of God's grace. Luther says:

This hypocrisy of theirs results in their valuing and seeking to purchase the grace of God at a much cheaper rate than the Pelagians. The latter assert that it is not by a feeble something within us that we obtain grace, but by efforts and works that are complete, entire, perfect, many and mighty; but our friends here tell us that it is by something very small, almost nothing, that we merit grace.

The Pelagians base salvation upon works; men work for their own righteousness. But Erasmus has cheapened the price which must be paid for salvation. Because only a small work of man is needed to merit salvation, God is not so great and mighty. Man only needs to choose God and choose the good. God's character is tarnished with the teaching of Erasmus. This semi-Pelagianism is worse than Pelagianism, for little is required to earn salvation. As Packer and Johnston say, "that is to belittle salvation and to insult God."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Importance of This Controversy Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jo kus]

Now we have our Church/church leaders stating Jews, Muslins and who know who else are covered under the covenant of God.

Isn't the New Covenant open to ALL men? Didn't Christ die for the remission of the sin of the WORLD? Paul in Romans wrote that EVERYONE had God's "Law" written on their hearts. They had NO EXCUSE for not following God. I see the Catholic position as the natural development of Christ and Paul's teachings. Your view appears to be rather exclusive, similar more to the ancient Jews than to Christianity and the concept of catholicity (universal).

I believe I can rest assured in my salvation but I can't know about others based upon what scripture tells me.

Listen, Harley. I feel that today, if I were to die, I would not go to hell - I feel that Christ abides in me. Proof of that is that I obey the commandment, I love others. Not perfectly, certainly. But 1 John is a wonderful testimony on how we can know we are abiding in Christ. And it is by our love. So yes, I, as a Catholic, can say I have moral assurance that I am "saved". I don't know absolutely, but based on God's promises in Scripture, I feel pretty sure.

My concern, brother, is PRESUMING that I am of the elect and that I CANNOT FALL. This is totally against Scripture. We must continue to walk in Christ. Just because I walk in Christ today doesn't guarantee I will continue next year in Christ. All of us go through crisis of faith, bouts of doubt, temptations, etc. Paul warns against presumption. He HIMSELF says he continues his work so as not to be disqualified! Thus, I disagree with you here. That Harley can know he is of the elect - so that even in 20 years, you KNOW you are saved. There is nothing in Scripture that guarantees that. We base our judgments of walking in the Lord based on today or the past, not the future.

You've told me that even though you must come to God you really don't know if you have God's grace. Therefore you must work for God to secure your salvation.

I didn't say I couldn't know I have God's Graces! 1 John, again, clearly states that if I am obeying the commandments, if I am loving, then Christ is abiding within me. The Church teaches that we receive graces as a result of the Sacraments - even if my disposition is imperfect - I still receive grace. I receive grace when I read Scriptures or pray. Of course I can know I am receiving grace. The question is whether all of this has ANYTHING to do with the distant future.

I know people who appeared very strong in their faith. They denied the possibility of falling. They went off to mission in Africa. They saw so much hunger and death, it shook them. They fell away - "how could God allow such suffering to children?" The point - you do NOT know what your future holds. Thus, it is a sin of presumption to make the claim that YOU are of the elect. We cannot see into the future. We must then continue in our walk with Christ. This is not "work". We are not earning anything. But God expects us to walk in faith throughout our lives.

Regards

[jo kus]

I wrote : Salvation has 100% to do with whether or not the person has been chosen of the elect and been given saving grace

you replied : All this time, you've been a crypto-Calvinist!?!?!?!?!

LOL!!! perish the thought! Catholics do believe in predestination of the elect - that God will inevitably steer His chosen back to Him. However, we do believe that the elect freely have chosen God, as well. We don't believe in fate or that God is a puppet master of men. Also, we do not believe that God actively predestines the reprobate - which says that God creates men so that He can send them to hell, regardless of their actions.

Regards

[HarleyD]

"...and the OT it thereby not a witness but a messanger of the coming Messiah."

Yes, I would agree. The OT point to things that were to come.

[jo kus]

Jesus proved it to you and me, but certainly not to everyone, for everyone is not saved.

Paul says NO ONE has an excuse. God has written His Law on the hearts of ALL men, even the Gentiles - but yet, many go off and do their own thing, rather than God's will. If someone is not saved, it is their own fault, as Paul wrote in Romans 1-2.

So what are the credentials that Luther was supposed to have?

In Galatians, Paul wrote that even if an angel of light were to teach another Gospel, let him be anathema. Luther would have to have some pretty solid evidence that he was more than an angel of light, because his gospel was not Paul's, nor was it Christ's. Luther's Gospel is a poor interpretation of Scripture based on a misinterpretation of Romans 3:28, where he ASSUMED that Paul meant "we are saved by faith ALONE". The language does not force one to make that assumption! Paul merely wrote we are saved by faith, not by works of the law. But elsewhere, Paul makes it quite clear that we are saved by faith AND works of LOVE! Thus, faith ALONE is a contradiction to Paul's writings. This is why the Church cast Luther out and you should as well. It is not the Gospel.

We just as easily declare that your leaders do not speak for God because God does not contradict Himself.

You declare it? Under whose authority? Where did Christ give someone other than the Apostles such authority? It sounds like you are taking upon yourself authority that you don't have. Jesus gave the APOSTLES the power to bind and loosen, not the entire community.

I don't know that Luther ever claimed any of his teachings were on a par with a Biblical Gospel.

Luther was a very proud man. He often claimed to be a messenger from God. He ranted and raved about the book of James - saying that upon HIS authority, it should be cast into the river and removed from Scripture. Upon HIS authority!!! He DEMANDED that the Scripture be changed to include the word "ALONE" into Romans 3:28. "If anyone asks why I added this word into Scripture, tell them Doctor Luther will have it as such"....If that is not the devil talking, I don't know what is. Follow whom you will.

If only the Pope has the keys, then how does this fit in with a "consensus" (which I assume includes others besides the Pope) declaring infallible doctrine? Do they not have the keys?

The Pope has ultimate visible authority, but the Apostle's successors, the bishops, are infallible when they come together and teach the faith. The Spirit speaks through the consensus, the sense of the faithful. But it is the successors of the Apostles who "read" this sense/consensus. Only they have been given the power to bind and loosen. Generally, they do not make infallible decisions unless their is a heretical teaching that is playing havoc among the sheep, such as Luther or Arius. Then, the Church is compelled to restate or clarify what the Church ALREADY believes and has taught by consensus.

I suppose I've just never thought of God being that much removed from us.

Spiritually, He is closer to us than ourselves. But visibly, we don't see or hear Him - at least publically. Some claim that God comes to them in visions and so forth. Perhaps He does. But we are not bound to such revelations. The Church remains Christ's visible presence on the earth - His healing and teaching ministry. His authoritative ministry. If there was no authoritative body, I don't see how we'd really KNOW what God teaches. You do realize that if 5 Baptists read the same chapter of Scripture, they'd get 7 interpretations among them, don't you? :)

On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being completely inactive, how active do you see God as being in our lives? I'll shock you and say that I believe it is a 10. :)

So you and the visible and Glorious Christ talk as you and I talk with each other? You sit down and eat with Him, He chews His food? The two of you go bowling? I am beginning to think you are pulling my leg here...

I said : The problem is that we disagree on Bible interpretation, not that Catholic teaching is ANTI-Biblical.

You said :Without being accusatory, what's the difference? :)

Sigh...Language is quite flexible. Words have different meanings. Sentences can be taken to mean many things. Here is an example:

I didn't say you stole the car.

What do I mean? That can be interpreted in several ways...

"I" didn't say it, Fred said it

I didn't "say" it, I wrote it

I didn't say you stole a "car", I said you stole a bicycle

I didn't say you "stole" a car, I said you borrowed it

Such a simple sentence, and you don't have a clue what I meant when I wrote it. And you are going to tell me that the Bible has only one meaning? That is pretty naive, frankly. ALL heresy comes from misinterpretating Scripture away from the writer's intent. Without a point of reference, a living authority, you'll never know what the writer meant, even on such "obvious" statements as "Jesus is the Son of God"

Therefore what is Paul's point, that those who are lost forever are lost forever? If so, this does not appear to be terribly instructive. :)

I already told you many posts ago - that Paul is telling the proud Jews that THEY are not immune from falling away from God. He then give a litany of Psalms written by David directed at WICKED JEWS! Being a Jew doesn't make one holy and righteous. Consider reading the very end of Chapter 2 to get an idea of what Paul is going to discuss in Chapter 3. Context, brother. He continues this line of thought at the end of Chapter 3 (not saved by works of the law) and Chapter 4 (circumcision doesn't save - as Abraham was righteous BEFORE the ritual). Paul is attacking the Jewish idea of salvation, not making some universal statement that all men are wicked (which would apparently include Christ, as Paul never makes that exception anywhere in Romans). This is called reading one's own preconceived theology into Scripture and twisting it to mean something else.

Do you know if they even use a scripture that is compatible with either yours or mine? I've read some of their pamphlets.

You are missing the point. They interpret the Greek using different English words than the author intended - and this is proven by the Church Fathers and their interpretations of Scripture, esp. John 1. The point is that people can come to different conclusions ON THEIR OWN by reading the Bible, some that are diametrically opposed to Christianity. Were you aware that Luther did not rule out polygamy from daily Christian practice? He claimed that the Scripture did not prevent its practice! That's freaky stuff...

Why would the Bible have to be topical to be systematic? Why couldn't God's "system" have been to lay it out just as it is?

Because on the surface, it often appears to contradict itself. It is written by men of different ages, some who appear to give different messages. Peter himself wrote that we should beware when reading Paul, since many people have done damage to their faith by twisting it to their own detriment (oh, yes.)

We obviously do disagree on how much of it was written in plain language.

Sounds like lip service to the party line. If it was written clearly in plain language, there would be no disagreements on key issues. But there is NUMEROUS issues where we disagree over. You are avoiding the reality on the ground.

You have been shown and given access to multiple assurance passages.

As have you. I have given you at least a dozen Scripture verses that show that men can fall away AFTER being 'saved'. Your refusal to deal with this AND the reality that people fall away today tells us that Salvation to Eternal Life cannot be absolutely guaranteed from our point of view. If that doesn't appear obvious from your own experiences, than I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

Regards

[jo kus]

I wrote :Christianity is a revealed religion, not one based on our own private thoughts and interpretations.

You wrote : LOL! I'm laughing because I am very confident that we both deeply and honestly believe this is the absolute truth, and yet look at us ... :)

When one says "revealed", that means it was told to us, given to us. It doesn't come FROM us! The teachings have been passed down to us - we don't make them up by reading a book and figuring out for ourselves what Romans 3 means. That is the difference between our two views. You think "revealed" means that your opinions and feelings are from God. I think that "revealed" means that God gave some men in time a message that was given to succeeding generations.

Regards

[Forest Keeper]

HD: "He ordained the fall of Adam ..."

Where is that in the Scripture?

I'm sure many places, in addition to Harley's Prov. 20:24, here is another one:

Eph. 1:11 : In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, ... (emphasis added)

"Everything" would include the fall of Adam. Here is an excerpt from an article called "Did God's Decree Bring About the Fall?" on the Monergism website that speaks to this:

"God did not coerce Adam to commit sin and fall, but he certainly ordained it. Even an Arminian who thinks that God merely allowed the fall, must admit that before God created the world he already knew what the future would be, and so it was within his Providence for such events to take place, for he could just have easily decided to prevent the fall...but He didn't. But we believe that while God did not make man sin [coercively] he certainly ordained such events to occur. Consider that if God did not decree the fall then evil is something completely outside His sovereign control ... If evil came into the universe by surprise for God, totally apart from His providence, then there are some things He does not know or things He is powerless over and therefore God would, by definition, lack omniscience and omnipotence. And then how do we know whether He will be able to defeat evil in the future if evil is outside God's control even though the Scripture plainly says that God ordains all events that come to pass (Eph 1:11)."

"As for how it could be that God decreed the fall. Obviously it is ultimately for His glory. In it He showed to the angels and all creation His manifest wisdom, justice and mercy and all of His perfections. He does not operate people like puppets. Adam freely chose to rebel ... God did not coerce him... and now fallen men freely choose to reject Christ, apart from grace. You ask, how could God ordain evil? Well, let me give you a clear biblical example which shows that he does, so you don't think I am just blowing smoke."

"Consider that Christ's crucifixion was a certainty which God [planned] in eternity and prophesied would come to pass in the Old Testament. But also consider that men would freely choose to crucify the Son of God. See Acts 2:23 which brings the two together -- "this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death." This concurrent series of events taking place simultaneously is called compatibilism, which is how the Scriptures really answer this question."

"So God foreordained the most evil event in history, the crucifixion, yet He lays blame for it completely on the choice of godless men, according to this passage. You must embrace the teaching in the Scriptures that God ordained an innocent man's death at the hands of sinners, yet they freely did so because they wanted to. You may not understand how God works in such a way without coercion, but you must submit to the fact the the Holy Scripture, through and through, teaches this quite matter-of-factly. Why does God do this? Well, for one, after the crucifixion event we now begin to understand that Christ did this for the good of His people, though we may not have seen it at the time. Prior to His execution, the disciples were told by Jesus, "you do not now understand what I am doing" and even Peter tried to dissuade Him. However, God used evil for good and did so blamelessly."

"There is a similar idea in Acts 4:27-28 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur."

[HarleyD]

Isn't the New Covenant open to ALL men? Didn't Christ die for the remission of the sin of the WORLD?

No, Christ blood covers only those who accept Him as their Lord. Christ did not die for everyone.

Your view appears to be rather exclusive

The Church/church has always held this view until recently. It is a warp perspective on theology and the history of the Church/church to include everyone.

My concern, brother, is PRESUMING that I am of the elect and that I CANNOT FALL. This is totally against Scripture. We must continue to walk in Christ.

Do you believe that our Lord Jesus is powerful enough that He can keep you and will help to see you home? If He wants to save you do you think He will keep you?

He HIMSELF says he continues his work so as not to be disqualified!

Paul was talking about his works and reputation. How many ministers and priests have "ship wreak" their ministries by doing something foolish? Those who are true believers haven't lost their salvation but they certainly have caused a number of people to stumble. Undoubtedly they've lost rewards.

I know people who appeared very strong in their faith. They denied the possibility of falling. They went off to mission in Africa. They saw so much hunger and death, it shook them. They fell away - "how could God allow such suffering to children?" The point - you do NOT know what your future holds.

This is a beautiful and glorious creation tainted by the evil and corruption of man. I'm reminded of this every time I look at a beautiful field or forest and see litter thrown about. It is a perfect analogy of how man corrupts everything of God. And yet He loves us. People see the litter and wonder where is God. They don't see the forest.

People do fall away. John writes they were never believers to begin with. They might seem like the greatest Christian ever but let a trial come their way and they denounce everything. Some have no roots.

Others, true believers like Peter, fall but then shuffle back. It may be the next day, the next month, or ten years. Who knows but I wouldn't make the assumption they have lost their faith. You can't see all ends.

I don't know what the future holds. Our faith is not centered around trying to make sense of a corrupt and dying world along with all the injustices that takes place. Our faith should be centered around understanding that God is just and wise and is going to rectify this entire situation justly. If not on earth then certainly in the our next life.

[AlbionGirl]

Dr. E., I'm not that well acquainted with the Book of Job. These Scriptures are beautiful.

Every single year, without fail, and many more, Lord Willing, when the first snowfall occurs I'm beside myself with love for the Majesty that IS and issues from our Triune God.

[Forest Keeper]

[Jo, quoting FK, who is referencing Kosta:] "Unless I am misunderestimating, Jo would never make a statement like the section I bolded." (Did Blessed Mary accept God on her own? I would say yes she did.)

I am not comfortable with "on her own". ...

I thought that was your view. I have learned much from you, my brother. :)

However, the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception relies strictly on God's initiative - Mary was saved the loss of sanctifying grace at her birth. We believe that this gift and His continuing graces allowed Mary to remain sinless through out her life (which the Orthodox also believe). I believe our [Catholic/Orthodox] point of disagreement is not over whether Mary sinned or not, but how Mary was able to remain sinless. We believe God gave her a singular grace, along with Mary's own pure will (purified by God), while I believe the Orthodox think that Mary was sinless as a result of her raised theosis/divinization.

Yes, what I think I have learned from my Orthodox brothers is that Mary was born in the normal sense and did not sin because she did not have the capacity to sin as a small child. Then, at a tender age, perhaps three, she was given a special grace and there was "The Entrance". She entered the Church for the rest of her upbringing, and through this grace was thereby sinless from the age of reason forward.

[FK to Kosta:] "So, then to be absolutely clear, under your belief, God's love for us means that He prizes our freedom of choice for the eighty years or so that we "might" be on earth FAR AND ABOVE OVER where we will spend eternity. That is God's love for us."

The singer "Sting" said it best "If you love someone, set them free". What sort of freedom and eternal happiness is God giving a person by FORCING them to be in heaven?

Would the cookie mother love her daughter so much that she would set her daughter free to go play in traffic? That's what you are advocating. :) And, again, I disagree with the idea of God "forcing" people into heaven because the obvious connotation is that it is against their will. The gift of God to His elect is an offer they can't refuse, because God gives them the ability to agree that it is so good.

[continuing ...] I am detecting a fundamental difference between what you believe happens in heaven and what the Scriptures state. Heaven is not just an earthly paradise (like the Muslims think).

Heaven is total spiritual union with God. How is that going to happen if a person has totally separated themselves from God's love on this earth? God is granting what that person desires - an eternal life without Him AND showing His justice to us, as well.

And, ... just what part of the second paragraph do I disagree with (because I don't know :)? In what do you detect a disconnect?

[jo kus]

No, Christ blood covers only those who accept Him as their Lord. Christ did not die for everyone.

I didn't ask "did Christ's blood cover only those who accept Him". I asked "Did Christ die for the remission of the sin of the entire world"?

The Church/church has always held this view until recently. It is a warp perspective on theology and the history of the Church/church to include everyone

Warped? Christ taught that EVERYONE was our neighbor and that the Gospel was to go to all men - to help ALL men KNOW more about God. The "law" that is placed on ALL men's heart is not as good as the Gospel preached to men. Original sin has distorted our own conscience of what is right and wrong. However, the very fact that God printed a law on ALL men speaks volumes to this subject that God doesn't desire all men to be saved.

Do you believe that our Lord Jesus is powerful enough that He can keep you and will help to see you home? If He wants to save you do you think He will keep you?

Of course. And He will do just that for the elect. I am pretty sure I am of the elect, if I was to die while typing this letter. But 10 years from now? That is our difference. I don't know I am of the elect, so I can only judge my own actions to gauge whether I am or not TODAY. I abide in Christ if I keep the Commandments. How do I know I will next year? I don't. IF I had access to the Book of the Elect, and saw my name there, well then certainly, I would then KNOW. But I don't have that level of security. Don't you remember those verses I gave you from Ezekiel that stated that a righteous person who did wicked deeds would no longer be considered righteous and would "die"?

Paul was talking about his works and reputation.

I disagree. He didn't care about his reputation - he called himself the worse of sinners.

How many ministers and priests have "ship wreak" their ministries by doing something foolish?

What does Jesus say about those who lead "these little ones" to sin? I recall something about being cast into the ocean with a millstone around their necks! I think it is safe to presume that pastors have quite a responsibility to their flock - failure to live up to it has some heavy consequences that go beyond "losing their ministry"!

Undoubtedly they've lost rewards.

The reward of eternal life.

People do fall away. John writes they were never believers to begin with. They might seem like the greatest Christian ever but let a trial come their way and they denounce everything. Some have no roots.

I am not so sure that is what John meant by saying that. That makes YOU the determinant of your salvation. If you only have "x" amount of faith, then all is well. If you have it today, but next year, you don't, well, then you added up your faith quotient wrong. I don't think so. If a person was obeying the Commandments in love, then Christ was abiding in that person. NO falling away in the future can change that!

I don't know what the future holds. Our faith is not centered around trying to make sense of a corrupt and dying world along with all the injustices that takes place. Our faith should be centered around understanding that God is just and wise and is going to rectify this entire situation justly. If not on earth then certainly in the our next life.

Well said.

Regards

[jo kus]

I thought that was your view. I have learned much from you, my brother. :)

Aw, shucks... Well, I appreciate your openness to listening to a point of view that you do not always disagree with. Most people would have gave up on me by now.

She entered the Church for the rest of her upbringing, and through this grace was thereby sinless from the age of reason forward.

That Mary was sinless, the entire Apostolic Church agrees on. HOW this happened, my Orthodox brothers are not sure - because they have not subscribed to Counciliar decisions after the Seventh one. I pray that some day that will change.

Would the cookie mother love her daughter so much that she would set her daughter free to go play in traffic? That's what you are advocating. :) And, again, I disagree with the idea of God "forcing" people into heaven because the obvious connotation is that it is against their will. The gift of God to His elect is an offer they can't refuse, because God gives them the ability to agree that it is so good.

Your response regarding the cookie analogy on "allowing the daughter to play in the street" is another answer that I am using to judge how our ideas of heaven are different (as I will respond below). As all analogies, the cookie analogy is not complete to describe the relationship between us and God. In the physical world, a three year old daughter does not know that it is dangerous to her health that playing in the street. Thus, the mother protects the child by forbidding the action.

With God, though, WE CANNOT claim that lack of knowledge! We DO know. Let me post this from Paul and I will comment:

"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 1:18-26a

THIS is how God's wrath is manifest. He let's man have what they desire. If man imperfectly desires Goodness, God will grace Him and lead Him to Truth. If man refuses the writing of the Law on their hearts...

"for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness" Romans 2:14-15

...then they will be left to their vile passions. In other words, yes, the mother will let her daughter play in traffic - because the DAUGHTER knows it is against her mother's will, is against the Law of her conscience, and yet desires to do it anyway. She is still a daughter, but the daughter has disowned her mother by this action. Recall the Prodigal Son...

The gift of God to His elect is an offer they can't refuse, because God gives them the ability to agree that it is so good.

I think I should write a "macro" that states "we don't know we are of the elect", so I don't have to type it every letter I respond to you! Of course the elect will not refuse. But you don't know you are of the elect - since your Sinner's Prayer might not have taken. In ten years, you might fall away and then every Protestant will say you never had faith to begin with!

I wrote : Heaven is total spiritual union with God. How is that going to happen if a person has totally separated themselves from God's love on this earth? God is granting what that person desires - an eternal life without Him AND showing His justice to us, as well. And you responded : And, ... just what part of the second paragraph do I disagree with (because I don't know :)? In what do you detect a disconnect?

Oh, sorry for not clarifying. Going to heaven is not just a big party in where we show up and have a good ol' time. Heaven is a total union with God. Our will ENTIRELY MATCHES God's will. That is not possible if our free will chooses to turn away from God in a permanent fashion while on earth. WE are responsible for our decisions. Certainly, some decisions are not made with ALL information available. Thus, God will grant the invincibly ignorant :)some leeway when making His judgment on one's deeds. Thus, a person who has claimed "being saved" but turns from God CANNOT unite with this HOLY and DIVINE Nature for eternity.

Regards

[Forest Keeper]

So does man have free will or not? I am confused on your stance here. On some posts, you say that God irresistibly causes us to do everything. Now, you say WE are responsible. ... Am I called to obey the commandments or not?

Yes, man can have either or both dependent and independent free will, depending on the circumstances. (This is just my way of putting it. :) Someone who is "saved", by my definition, does have dependent free will to do good in God's eyes. This person also has independent free will to sin, because God is not the author of sin. In contrast, a "lost" person has no free will at all to do good in God's eyes. He also has the independent free will to sin, but it is because all he has to work with is his original sin nature, so it is a fait accompli that he will sin.

Show me any post where I have said or implied that God irresistibly causes us to do everything, and I will eat my hat! :) I have said that God is in control of everything, but that is a very different concept. We are responsible for our sin, and you are most definitely called to obey the Commandments. I'll bet we'd even agree on the scriptures that say so! :)

I AM trying to understand you, but I am confused. Perhaps it is because we have different definitions of "being saved", and what IS "sanctification" for. Apparently, you believe that sanctification has nothing to do with our eternal destiny, that it only shows proof of our inevitable end.

OK, then I appreciate that you are trying. :) I will do the same.

I don't think I would use the words "sanctification has nothing to do with our eternal destiny". Barring some freak situation, a truly regenerated heart will be sanctified, necessarily. It's like a definitional thing, such a heart will want to grow in the Lord. Therefore, if a self-proclaimed saved person never experiences any sanctification, that would be an evidence that he was never saved. Regeneration is to birth as sanctification is to growth, and God's children will grow in Him.

The problem is that you seem to know you are going to heaven, regardless of what happens after your Sinner's Prayer. (despite our agreement that people fall away)

That has never been my argument since I was kindly showed Perseverence of the Saints, early on in this thread. That gets rid of the "regardless" issue, and proves that it both does matter what happens after what we call salvation, and that God will ensure that it does happen for His elect. Here is an article called Can a Christian lose his or her Salvation? which lays out the position:

"1. Classic Arminianism

• One must persevere in faith to be saved.

• True believers can lose their faith.

• Those dying without faith in Christ are condemned.

“The believer who loses his faith is damned.”

2. Antinomianism

• One need not persevere in faith to be saved.

• True believers can lose their faith.

• Those who lose their faith are saved, since they once believed.

“The believer who loses his faith is saved.”

3. Classic Calvinism

• One must persevere in faith to be saved.

• True believers cannot lose their faith, since it’s God’s gift.

• Those dying without faith in Christ are condemned.

• Those who “lose” their faith never had it to begin with.

• God will preserve true believers and they will be saved.

“The ‘believer’ who loses his faith never really had it—or at least it wasn’t in Jesus.”

Proponents of the first two approaches quote biblical references, but each must strain to explain away the other group's biblical data. How can an Arminian read Romans 8, then tell true believers that they may screw up and go to hell??? Then again, how can Charles Stanley read Hebrews 6 and 10 and tell unbelievers who once professed faith not to worry, that they will be saved??? Any true biblical teaching must “fit” with ALL the biblical data, without pitting one text against another and without having to explain away a single “jot or tittle” of God's inerrant Word. I believe that only the classical Calvinist model takes into account all of the biblical data.

Arminians are right when they say the Bible teaches that only those who persevere will be saved, and they’re right in accusing Antinomians of easy-believism and cheap grace. Antinomians (they wouldn’t use the term) are right in telling committed believers that they are secure in Christ and “once saved, always saved.” But both of these views are wrong is assuming that a true believer can lose his faith and fall away from Christ. Faith is “a gift of God—not by works, lest any man boast.” Paul was confident that, since Christ had begun a good work in believers, He would continue that work until completion (Phil. 1). John said that those who fell away were never really true Christians, since true believers don't leave the faith (1 John 2:19).

Scripture teaches that believers must persevere until the end, but also that believers will persevere until the end by God's grace. As the Westminster Assembly concluded, Christians might temporarily yield to Satan's temptations, even to excess, but like Peter when he denied Christ three times, God will still restore and preserve the faith of the Christian, a faith which God gave in the first place! Peter went on to be chief among the apostles! Two biblical principles must be held side-by-side:

1. You Must Persevere until the End: God's Requirement of His People

God does not merely command us to begin to believe for a time, and then fall away. He requires us to continue to believe until the end, living lives of repentance and covenant faithfulness. Granted, He does not ask for a perfect faith, but He does ask for a real faith, one that produces real, lasting change.

• Colossians 1:21-23

• 1 John 1:5-10; 3:3-6

• Hebrews 10:26-31

• Hebrews 12:1

2. You Will Persevere Until the End: God's Preservation of His People

We will persevere because God preserves us. God will keep us from falling—not one will be lost of all those who belong to the Son. True believers are not able to leave Christ, for Christ is at work within them.

• John 6:38-40

• John 10:28-29

• Romans 8:28-39

• Philippians 1:4-6

• Philippians 2:12-13

• 1 John 2:19

This first set of texts cannot be used to refute the second (Arminianism); nor can the second set of texts be used to refute the first (cheap grace). The point that makes the two compatible is the biblical teaching that faith (while commanded of everyone) is a gift from God to His elect. If faith is simply a human action of a free will, then it can be lost. But if saving faith is God's gift, then it cannot be lost. Can professing Christians fall away? Yes, and they will perish. Can true Christians fall away? No, for they are kept by the invincible power of God in Christ. The Bible teaches us that professing Christians who leave the faith were never truly believers (1 John 2:19; and notice the qualification even in Hebrews 10:39).

[annalex]

This is speculation on the scripture. It is not scripture. The only scripture you showed is "works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will", which lacks the detail necessary to falsify or agree with the fine semantic distinctions between "coercing", "foreseeing" and "ordaining" made by the author of Monergism website.

[Forest Keeper]

The error of Pelagius was to say God uses His foreknowledge to elect us before the foundation of the world by looking through that "corridor of time". Pelagius wanted to say it was that God looked down and saw who was good. You want to say that God looked down and saw who would accept Him. There isn't any difference. The Orthodox just simply reject most of Augustine's teaching. However for the Catholics who supposedly revered Augustine it becomes more problematic.

BINGO! Great posts, Harley, both here and in 3269! The argument I have been getting on this is that God chooses us, AND, we choose God, AND, that since God is outside of time, these two things happen exactly simultaneously. How does that work? It's a mystery. I'm not mocking, because there really are mysteries when it comes to God. It's just that I am still struggling with this particular mystery. :) My view is that scripture fully supports that in real time, from either God's or our POV, that He chose us first, and only that led to us ever choosing Him.

[jo kus]

My view is that scripture fully supports that in real time, from either God's or our POV, that He chose us first, and only that led to us ever choosing Him.

Sigh...How can there be a "first" or "before" WITHIN a moment of time that is unchanging??? From God's point of view, all time is NOW. Thus, the first moment and last one are rolled into one moment to Him. How can God NOT see our response to our actions?

God's ways are not our ways. Isn't that clear this also refers to Time?

Regards

[Forest Keeper]

Isn't God's plan amazing to behold? ... Apparently God's been "stirring up" this thread so that He could bring you to the place He wants you to be.

I have not the slightest doubt in either case. :) Thank you so much, Dr. E., for those wonderful passages. I truly feel that this whole experience has been such an incredible blessing.

[jo kus]

Show me any post where I have said or implied that God irresistibly causes us to do everything, and I will eat my hat!

I'll spare you lunch, but you have countless times told me you are of the elect - THUS - you are irresistibly caused to do His Will. We both agree that the elect MUST do God's Will inevitably.

Barring some freak situation, a truly regenerated heart will be sanctified, necessarily.

yes, and how do you know if your heart is truly "regenerated" so that it will not fail to be elected? You have already told me that if you subsequently fell away, your knowledge of your "regeneration" must have been false!

Therefore, if a self-proclaimed saved person never experiences any sanctification, that would be an evidence that he was never saved.

That is why Catholics place the "salvation" event at the end, then we don't have to worry about such subterfuge and second-guessing and double talk. When Paul says we are saved as a result of our Baptism, he is speaking of our first step to eternal life - NOT that we have automatically received it. He is clear that we can fall away from this Baptismal saving.

Answer me this... If a Protestant of your brand does good deeds, is walking the walk, etc. and makes the claim to be of the elect - but then falls away, what happened to all of those good deeds? Who did them? HOW DID THIS PERSON DO GOOD? BY HIMSELF OR BY CHRIST? The problem with your view is that you discount all of the good that a man did - saying that Christ NEVER was within Him to begin with! But it is clear from Scripture that we can do nothing good WITHOUT GOD! So how did that fallen away person do good if He never had Christ to begin with? Oi. If you can answer that, you are on your way to explaining this "now you see it, now you don't" theology.

I wrote : The problem is that you seem to know you are going to heaven, regardless of what happens after your Sinner's Prayer. (despite our agreement that people fall away)

You wrote :That has never been my argument...

AHHH! [more hair flying around]. Oh boy...

You :He {Jesus} 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....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

You: 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. [while you know your final status]

Me: So why does a Protestant KNOW he is saved after repeating it [sinner's prayer]?

You : You have been shown and given access to multiple assurance passages. Your leaders interpret them all out of existence, or assign new meanings to them contrary to plain meaning.

Me : Why doesn't God grant you full information? How do you explain that someone who calls himself the elect not know everything about God?

You : But God did grant me full information. That is, all the information I needed to come to Him. He made me an offer I couldn't refuse, so I experienced the "choice" of choosing Him. No one can ever know everything about God, but we can aspire to know everything that we need. That is available to the elect [you].

Perhaps I am getting the wrong message, but the above quotes from you in the last couple days are telling me that you think you are of the elect - today, tommorrow, next year, and forever. There are even more from earlier converstations. Your posts are full of such claims that you are of the elect! Why do you think I keep trying to tell you that people fall away???

Proponents of the first two approaches quote biblical references, but each must strain to explain away the other group's biblical data

In this very thread, I have posted NUMEROUS verses from Scripture that are IGNORED by Calvinists such as yourself. Let's be honest. Over and over, I have given you Scripture that you have not responded to or TRIED to explain away, such as my tagline, but not convincingly at all.

Scripture teaches that believers must persevere until the end, but also that believers will persevere until the end by God's grace.

When Scripture says this, it is presuming that one is WALKING IN THEIR FAITH. For what good is faith without love? Also, what is ignored over and over is that a believer today does not guarantee a believer next year. If you want to persevere, you must believe UNTIL THE END.

Can true Christians fall away? No, for they are kept by the invincible power of God in Christ

A true Christian can only be identified in the present, not the future. We are judged by our fruit NOW, not by speculating what we "should" provide ten years from now.

Regards

[HarleyD]

I asked "Did Christ die for the remission of the sin of the entire world"?

REMISSION: Release, as from a debt, penalty, or obligation. Forgiveness; pardon.

Did Christ die for the release of sin for the entire world? No.

Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, "We see," your sin remains" John 9:41

Warped? Christ taught that EVERYONE was our neighbor and that the Gospel was to go to all men - to help ALL men KNOW more about God.

This has nothing to do with everyone being our neighbor and serving humanity or help all men to KNOW more about God (the outward call). It simply is that God's Son didn't die for everyone.

The reward (loss) of eternal life.

God's grace once again, eh?

If any man's work which he has buit on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." 1 Cor 3:13

That makes YOU the determinant of your salvation.

I'm not the determinant of my salvation.

1) God said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved" (Acts 16:31).

2) God said He'll keep me safe. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand." (John 10:27)

3) I believe God's word.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

that He chose us first, and only that led to us ever choosing Him.

Amen.

"We love him, because he first loved us." -- 1 John 4:19

It's important to keep the order straight.

"And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God.

For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake" -- Phil. 1:28-29

Isn't this amazing Scripture? Paul is telling us that the ungodly see our lack of fear as a sign of our ruin.

But we are not to fear. Indeed, we know our certainty is "a token of our salvation," God-given and God-ordained because He rose from the dead and it's all true -- we have been saved by His mercy alone. None can hurt us nor pry us from His grasp.

[kosta50]

I believe our [Catholic/Orthodox] point of disagreement is not over whether Mary sinned or not, but how Mary was able to remain sinless. We believe God gave her a singular grace, along with Mary's own pure will (purified by God), while I believe the Orthodox think that Mary was sinless as a result of her raised theosis/divinization [jo kus]

Yes, what I think I have learned from my Orthodox brothers is that Mary was born in the normal sense and did not sin because she did not have the capacity to sin as a small child. Then, at a tender age, perhaps three, she was given a special grace and there was "The Entrance" [Forest Keeper]

Jo is right in the first part of his statement – Orthodox/Catholic disagree why, but not if she was sinless. God simply foreknew her choices from eternity. So there was no need for God to intervene. But we certainly share with our Catholic brothers the view, the only possible view, that she had to be sinless in her life, and by her own choice.

Catholics consider Immaculate Conception a unique Baptism, but do not assign BEV Mary any special or superhuman qualities by it any more than they would to any baptized individual – we are still subject to sin and death. Immaculate Conception is necessary because of the Augustinian view of the Fall to which the Catholic Church and all of Western Christianity, as a Roman Catholic derivative. The East never held that view and it was not a theological issue of schism as long as it was not proclaimed a Roman Catholic dogma in the mid 19th century.

So, ... under your belief, God's love for us means that He prizes our freedom of choice for the eighty years or so that we "might" be on earth FAR AND ABOVE OVER where we will spend eternity. That is God's love for us [FK to Kosta]

The alternative is worse, FK, because it suggests that God prizes our mindlessness more than our freedom. I have no doubt that God values our freedom of choice in His own way because anything else is coerced or compelled. And true love must well from within and not be created from without.

You see, the New Testament is like a beautiful rose that opened up and revealed its full beauty. It is in that Scripture that we begin to understand God as Trinity, a perfect loving relationship of three divine Hypostases in one divine Essence, a completely different God (from our POV) and a completely new theology altogether; same God, different level of knowledge of Him.

It is through the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ that we begin to relate to God personally and are indeed commanded to equate our belief with love and not with the Law. For if we love God, we will obey His commandments. The reverse is not true necessarily. So, the basis, the very foundation of our faith and what this is all about is love, love of God form us first and foremost and then our love for Him. One of my fortune cookies said "You will many loves, but only one true love." That would be God.

My point is that yes God cares about us and our freedom because only the free can claim not to be compelled. And we are truly elect of God if we come to Him on our free will, out of love. Can we fall in love on our own? Yes, of course we can. The more you learn about something, the more you feel drawn to it. Thus, God draws us to Him by love, but he does not violate our freedom. We are free to choose and He knows what our choices are.