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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You make Dionysius' point for him. If man corrupts himself, that corruption does not come from God.

If you think I'm subscribing to man's "free will" their fall, I wouldn't be so rash. The only way any of this could have happened is if God ordained it to happen. Man corrupts himself but this is all part of God's plan. The problem I find with a lot of non-Calvinist folks is they don't understand that Calvinism does not make God the "author of evil". It simply states that God ordained Adam step, Adam fell and the rest is history.

What we disagree about is Total Depravity. Christianity has never subscribed to this doctrine--it is an invention of Calvin.

God doesn't consider man to be evil, but under the influence of evil.

Gen 38:7 But Er, Judah's firstborn, was evil in the sight of the LORD, so the LORD took his life.

He considered at least one to be evil.

What we disagree about is original sin. This wasn't an invention of Calvin but is documented through Augustine writings.

You have Calvin and Augustine viewed throught the eyes of Calvin and scripture interpreted through the eyes of Calvin. Where is +Theophilus (god lover) of Antioch, +Irenaeus, +Athanasius of Alexandria, +Basil, +Gregory of Nazianzus, +Gregory of Nyssa, +John Chrysostom, +Cyril of Alexandria, +Macarius, +Maximus the Confessor, +John Damascene, +Simeon the New Theologian, +Greogory Palamas?

Man corrupts himself but this is all part of God's plan. The problem I find with a lot of non-Calvinist folks is they don't understand that Calvinism does not make God the "author of evil". It simply states that God ordained Adam step, Adam fell and the rest is history.

Well, what Calvinists don't understand is that most Christians don't view God as a master computer programmer.

I gave you about five verses that states otherwise.

I don't filter scripture under the lens of Calvin. I study how the Fathers, saints, and theologians of the church understood scripture and the experience of their participation in the life of the Holy Trinity throughout the 2000 year history of Christianity. In my opinion, this is the only thing that can prepare the ground for reading scripture.

Incredibly you ignore all these verses and make the statement that God doesn't consider man to be evil

I don't play Jeopardy: "Alex, can I have 'One verse quotes from the Bible' for 200?" You can twist it and turn it any way you want. How did the Fathers, saints, and theologians understand their experience of the Holy Trinity over the past 2000 years? Now that is a category that can help to understand scripture.

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.

If true, wouldn't this be proof that God writes His law with clearer ink on the hearts of some rather than others? If God's ink was pure for all, then would not all be saved? Again, who would turn down God with full information?

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.

I'm not yet familiar enough with Luther's writings to declare with authority, but it would seem silly to me if he based everything on Rom. 3:28, when he had such a treasure trove of other passages to back up his ideas. For example, Eph. 2:8-9, or Rom. 5:1. To you, Paul seems to try to hold to very different theologies within his own writings. On the one hand, faith alone saves, on the other, faith plus good deeds saves. Catholicism does not appear to be able to resolve this other than by rewriting the verses to conform with the theology. Our side offers Perseverance of the Saints, which leaves the scripture alone, and restores Paul to credibility.

FK: "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.

I would just use the same authority that you use, namely God. Specifically, the Spirit. You declare the authority of your leaders based on the fact that your leaders said they had authority and interpreted scripture to say that they had authority, and the ability to pass that authority down throughout time. My point, of course, is that I cannot simply declare authority of my own account. The Church does that and shuts out the rest of the world. I reject its self-claimed authority to do so.

You do realize that if 5 Baptists read the same chapter of Scripture, they'd get 7 interpretations among them, don't you? :)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. ... :)

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?

We have a Two-O'Clock every other Wednesday. And, funny you should mention it, but Jesus is an amazing bowler. Even when he throws a gutter ball, he always gets a strike! Of course, I never say anything ...

"I didn't say you stole the car."

[various possible interpretations...]

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.

I understand what you are saying, but you are throwing out the plain meaning first, in order to consider the other options. I always take the plain meaning first, unless other scripture requires an interpretation to be consistent. Your side only takes the plain meaning when it does not interfere with both scripture and all of your Tradition. In those extra cases, the meaning of scripture must be massaged into a new form. My experience is showing that there are a multitude of those extra cases.

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).

Oh Please... Sure, I'm saying that Paul meant in Romans that Jesus sinned because he didn't discount that idea in the Book of Romans. Paul was completely lying in many other Epistles where he expressly says that Jesus was sinless. (Of course, this is all through Catholic plain meaning.) This logic just doesn't hold water.

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.)

Could you point me in the direction of the scripture where Peter tells us to beware of Paul's writings?

FK: "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.

What, I'm avoiding the reality on the ground that all your interpretations are right because you and your hierarchy say so? Yes, I suppose I am avoiding that "reality". I'm still invincibly ignorant, you know. :)

I never said that interpretation was never needed. I think both of us would agree that interpretation is proper when there is a "plain meaning" contradiction in scripture. The problem with you all is that you also have to interpret tons and tons of scripture to make it fit with your Tradition. After all of this, there doesn't seem to be much left of original scripture in plain meaning, at least on the important things. That makes scripture virtually useless to the layman, and subjugates it to tradition. Scripture is always twisted to fit Tradition, not the other way around.

You have Calvin and Augustine viewed throught the eyes of Calvin and scripture interpreted through the eyes of Calvin.

"...one facet of Christian doctrine and exaggerating it to the point where it takes up your entire view and eclipses every other aspect of a long and rich theological tradition is error."

People run around here screaming, "free will, free will" like it something to be defended. They ignore the balance and tension of God's sovereign rule over their lives. The Bible clearly states that we are either "slaves to sin" or "slaves to righteousness" (Rom 6) and we need to wake up to that fact.

I would submit the answer to man's will and God's sovereignty lies in this proverb:

Pro 16:9 The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.

Jam 4:13-16 Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit." Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. Instead, you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that." But as it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil.

Where is +Theophilus (god lover) of Antioch, +Irenaeus, ...

There were a number of people who agreed with Augustine. A whole Council, who you happen to disagree with, agreed with Augustine. I'm sure they were just as acquainted with the early authors (probably moreso) than you or I. Perhaps you're viewing these authors through Platonian eyes?

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 may have forgotten to ask this before, but do you believe that Mary was conceived in the normal sense? Or, was God the "bio-Father" for Mary too? I just looked up the Protoevangelion again, and it seemed like it was a normal conception. So, how was this "Immaculate"? Does the whole thing rest on the fact that God declared that it would be so? If yes, then there were more "Immaculate" conceptions, right? (i.e. Sarah)

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. ... With God, though, WE CANNOT claim that lack of knowledge! We DO know.

Really? That's ridiculous! :) Yes, a three-year-old does not understand that playing in traffic might kill her. If you sat her down and told her that if she played in traffic that she would never see her mommy again, then she would decide not to play in traffic. That's full information. However, you say that we have enough knowledge of God to make a choice, and some choose against. So, even though the choice is between eternal torment and eternal blessings in Christ, some, with this full information, still choose hell? There is no comparison here. You can't make the cookie daughter wiser than the majority of humanity. ... Can you? :)

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.

That is felony child endangerment, Joe! :) God wouldn't do that to His children, He loves us too much. Doesn't the Good Shepherd always take care of His sheep? Does He let any of them get lost? No, of course not! And, He would never let any of them stray onto the highway! :)

That's not an issue. What is at issue is whether God gives everyone SUFFICIENT knowledge to be saved (not that He gives some more than others - that should be obvious that He does).

To you, Paul seems to try to hold to very different theologies within his own writings. On the one hand, faith alone saves, on the other, faith plus good deeds saves.

What??? Paul NEVER says that we are saved by faith alone. What are you talking about? Paul's Gospel is consistent. He never holds faith in contradistinction against love, like Luther did. If anyone holds to very different theologies, it is the Sola Fide group.

There is a huge difference between declaring for yourself God's Authority (which smacks of arrogance, in my eyes) and recognizing that God has given His authority TO SOMEONE ELSE! What is ironic is that you ALSO accept the claim of these same men – such as that they have given us God’s Word unadulterated. What proof do you have besides their word?

And, funny you should mention it, but Jesus is an amazing bowler. Even when he throws a gutter ball, he always gets a strike!

LOL!

Still upset about Romans 3, aren't you... You don’t have much room for talk, after yesterday’s display of ignoring a number of plain-meaning Scriptures, such as John 20:23.

I could list many verses that Protestants twist around from the "plain meaning". EVERYONE looks at Scripture through a particular set of lenses, a paradigm. YOU look at it through the lenses of man being totally corrupt and being unable to do ANYTHING good, even WITH Christ. You look at Scripture through the notion that God does everything and we do nothing. With that in mind, you THEN approach Scriptures. I say that because early Christians did NOT look at Scripture that way. It is only the Protestant Reformation that first began THAT particular paradigm. We, on the other hand, HAD (meaning the first Christians) looked at the teachings of the Apostles - and with these in mind, then read the Scriptures a certain way to take into account the two sources - oral and written. This interpretation remains relatively constant. Consider the Eucharist. Two thousand years of consistent teaching that began with the first century.

Sure, I'm saying that Paul meant in Romans that Jesus sinned because he didn't discount that idea in the Book of Romans

EVEN IF we discount this language issue, I have plainly showed you enough evidence to indicate that Paul was attacking Judaizers, not making a universal statement about all men. MANY Psalms make it clear that men DO come to God. Thus, you would have Scripture contradicting itself. Go ahead. Read Psalm 119. And then read Romans 3 (or the Psalms that Paul is quoting, such as Psalm 15. Are you ready to say that the Word of God is contradicting itself, or does PAUL mean something else than what YOU claim? The context makes it clear that Paul is referring to proud Jews - especially when he talks about the Gentiles who have their own law (the Jews proudly waved around the Decalogue) and that even Gentiles were spiritual Jews (read the end of Chapter 2). Then, in Chapter 4, Paul attacks circumcision - which had nothing to do with being righteous.

I don't understand how you can get "universal evil" out of Paul's quoting from the OT when describing how Jews were often wicked. Have you not read the Historical Books? The Prophets? The majority of the time, it was JEWS who interfered with God's plan. THEY were the ones who disrupted God's prophetic Word. Thus, the Jews Paul is addressing have no right to be proud - they are acting just like the wicked men that David attacked in the Psalms that Paul quoted in Romans 3. And they, too, were blocking God’s will! Really, it seems pretty obvious that your explanation doesn't hold water with other Scripture.

Perhaps you still disagree with this interpretation. But can you show it to be false? That is a problem I run into with Protestants. When presented an interpretation that doesn’t fit their narrow view, they claim we are anti-Biblical – based on the fact that Protestants are naturally infallible and have a direct line to what God meant in every passage of Scripture. What is even worse is when they hold to interpretations that NO Christian held to on particular passages for 1500 years, as if Protestants were the first Christians to properly understand God’s word. It’s tiring…See my next sentence…

Could you point me in the direction of the scripture where Peter tells us to beware of Paul's writings?

"...even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you, As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15b-16

Even in this writer's day, people were misinterpreting Paul's writings, TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION. Thank God for the Church, the pillar and foundation of the Truth. Now I can be sure what Paul meant.

The problem with you all is that you also have to interpret tons and tons of scripture to make it fit with your Tradition. After all of this, there doesn't seem to be much left of original scripture in plain meaning, at least on the important things.

Actually, the problem with me is that I don't pray as often as I should, or I sometimes am impatient with my kid... However, you seem to forget that the Scripture was PART of the Tradition given by the Apostles. Thus, the Scripture did not "form" the Tradition. Apostolic teachings were given in both forms. You also have forgotten that people didn't own their own Bibles back then. They relied on their priests and deacons and so forth to teach them the faith. Many men expounded on the faith in what we now call "the Church Fathers". All of this is interpretation of the Apostolic Teachings, both oral and written, that followed from the Apostles themselves.

Scripture was a PART of this revelation given to us by the Apostles. They did not set out to write a systematic theology book. They were writing letters to communities that had requested pastoral help. "What should we do about this man who took his father's wife for a lover?" (1 Cor 5). "What do we do about the Jewish dietary laws?" And so forth. Paul was not intending to write a treatise on faith. Later Christians treasured these writings, no matter how incomplete or confusing they sometimes appear to the reader. They came from the Apostles' hands! They heard the words of God themselves! Thus, you need to approach Scripture a bit differently then some all-encompassing book that Christianity GREW OUT OF! It was the other way around! Christianity produced the Bible through inspiration of God (so the claim that we make goes. The bible doesn't make that claim).

Thus, when we approach Scripture, it is important to keep in mind what the intent of the writer was and how early Christians interpreted it. It was NEVER intended to be interpreted apart from the Church.

Regards

Physically, she was born the normal manner. Spiritually, she was prevented from contacting original sin - or from losing sanctifying grace.

However, you say that we have enough knowledge of God to make a choice, and some choose against. So, even though the choice is between eternal torment and eternal blessings in Christ, some, with this full information, still choose hell?

Brother, the choice presented to us depends on FAITH! It is NOT clear that a person who disobeys God will suffer eternal fire. EVEN IF this knowledge is made available by being taught Christian beliefs on this matter, it still requires faith that after one dies, one would go to hell - if they disobeyed a God that they cannot see. Faith is required to believe in this God AND to adhere to that promise of eternal hell (which we have no empirical evidence for). The daughter of our example, however, can be shown empirical evidence of the result of being struck by a car. The results do NOT require faith. Thus, "full knowledge" is based on faith, not on empirical evidence accessible to our senses.

Again, WHO are the sheep? The ones who hear His voice. We don't know who will continue to hear His voice into the future. Thus, we can only know whether we are CURRENTLY of the flock. God gives us a free will choice to hear His voice and to FOLLOW it. By following God's Will, we are making a free will decision to love God. That is what He desires. He desires our response to Him. God's ways are not our ways.

Regards

What precisely are you defining as evil? A war? Fire raining from heaven? A great flood? Demons spreading lies? God has created and used all of these things to accomplish His purpose.

Amen. Who created Satan? Does Satan run amok of his own free will, thwarting God's purposeful demands of His creation? Is Satan that powerful?

This is where a belief in licentious free will takes us. If we can thwart God's intentions, then so can Satan. All God's creation can stall His desires and deny Him anything and everything.

God becomes one big doofus, scrambling to have people pay some attention to Him, yet losing ground with every day that passes. But that's not the God of Scripture.

"These are the words of the covenant which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which He made with them in Horeb.
Now Moses called all Israel and said to them: “You have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land—
the great trials which your eyes have seen, the signs, and those great wonders.
Yet the LORD has not given you a heart to perceive and eyes to see and ears to hear, to this very day." -- Deuteronomy 29:1-4

And still men insist they understand and believe by their own good free will. But Scripture tells us even when we see the glory of God and witness His "signs and wonders," we remain in the dark unless He gives us a "heart to perceive and eyes to see and ears to hear."

"Pride is still my favorite sin" -- Al Pacino as Satan in "The Devil's Advocate."

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