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.

[kosta50]

Evil can only be the result of the free will to reject God. If there is no free will, there is no possibility of evil, FK [Kosta to FK]

I must disagree. satan's efforts certainly lead to evil in our world. We are fooled all the time into making bad decisions [FK]

FK, the only difference between us and animals is that we have reason. Reason is the only source of free will because it is capable of acting in concert or against our needs.

Without reason, your decisions are made by necessity (of your nature). Animals do not know God and do no sin (willingly against him). Intelligent creatures (angels, demons, humans) all know God, and it is through this knowledge that sin becomes possible: when we act, by virtue of our reason, against God.

If Eve made an informed free will choice to disobey God, then why did Adam get all the blame?

Because in the Bible "man is the head of a woman" and he takes the blame, and the credit. But, we don't act or agree or do what's in the Bible nowadays, do we? For instance, there are few women in Churches whose heads are covered, and that is decreed in the New Testament. And Protestants have women "bishops" whereas the NT says that a bishop (always referred to as a male) shall be a "husband of one wife..." etc.

Gos specifically told Adam not to eat of the tree, and it was Adam's responsibility to make sure Eve knew that as well. But she was "given" to Adam and therefore Adam is portrayed as someone who carried the responsibility for both of them. She could say "I was fooled," but Adam listened to her, someone who was supposed to listen to him, and that was his downfall: he was irresponsible in addition to being arrogant and proud.

We are born with a sin nature, through Adam

I hear this over and over and wonder what that means. We are born spiritually separated from God. God gave us body and soul. Bodies have needs. Our needs are not in themselves sinful but how we go about satisfying them that is -- our intent and direction. We can't change our body, but we can restrain it with our mind, our intellect, our reason. Some do, and some don't. No matter how you turn it, it's always your intellect that makes a difference whether you sin or not.

No manner of intellect is enough to freely choose God on our own

God gave us intellect to make choices, FK. If He didn't want us to use it to edify or mortify ourselves with it, he would have left us without it. It's not man-centered anything: it's being what God made us, body and soul.

I think you are confusing intellect with being intellectual, educated. Nonsense. We all know God's laws because they are inscribed in our hearts; we are all subject to God's laws, because by our reason we know good from evil. By knowing what is not good and choosing evil we commit sin.

You imply that we think God forces us to sin. None of this is correct

Yet God is in full control and ordains our steps? Did God not 'set up' the whole scenario in the Garden of Eden so that Adam would fall, as Harley D implies? What do you call that, FK?

IIRC, you do not believe in the sin nature of man, but the Catholics and the rest of us do

Our nature is corrupted with our will. We have a propensity to sin because our will is not always in harmony with the will of God. In fact, it almost never is! By we are the authors of our decisions, knowing good from evil, and therefore of evil, on a daily basis.

You won't distinguish between free will to do good in God's eyes, and free will to do evil

Oh, I do make that distinction very much so! We know what is good and what is evil; God made sure we do by inscribing His laws in our hearts, by revealing Himself to man. We choose evil not because its evil, but because it seems good. We convince ourselves that it is good or good enough. Just as Eve "saw that the fruit was good to eat." We make tose decisions daily, FK, when we jump from one lane going 90 mph to another in between cars and barely miss a collision. As you watch people do things you ask yourself "what were they thinking?" Surely they know better. but they choose to do the wrong thing because when people make decisions they don't ask "is this what God would want me to do?"

[kosta50]

God knows my inner thoughts, satan doesn't. God knows exactly what buttons to press in me to get what He wants.

That kind of rationalisation scares me FK. You need to guard against such self deception. There have been numerous exmaples of people committing crimes and saying "God told me to do it." What you said above is probably what Eve was thinking as she bit into that fruit.

[jo kus]

Sorry, no contradiction here. :) Why do you reject the truth that real faith comes with real love for God?

"Real" faith? Does the Scripture define the difference between "real" faith and "unreal" faith? If I was to broaden my definition of faith to include love, hope, repentance, conversion, and perseverance - well, then I guess I am saved by "faith" alone. However, faith does not include all of these other attributes. They are distinguished from each other in Scripture! Thus, we are NOT saved by faith ALONE. We are saved with combinations of all of the above.

"What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?" James 2:14

"if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." 1 Cor 13:2

As you can see, a faith that lacks works of love is pointless. Notice how the Bible DISTINGUISHES between faith and love. One CAN have faith, "real" faith, without love. REAL faith to move mountains! Does it get anymore real than that??? However, this is not a question of "real" faith, but adding love (from God) to our faith (from God). James and Paul agree, but defining the opposing sides of the same coin.

Faith without works is dead. James.

Works without faith is dead. Paul.

If you don't have faith AND works (of love), then you are dead. Thus, faith ALONE, without love, doesn't save anyone.

Regards

[Kolokotronis]

"Does God knock on everyone's heart equally, since God loves everyone? If so, then whose intellect would choose hell over heaven?"

The Fathers certainly tell us that God does exactly this, with the possible exception of a remark or two from +Augustine which are outside the consensus patrum.

+Anthony the Great in the 3rd century AD wrote:

"He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same. We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him, but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way, but it is our own sins that prevent God from shining within us and expose us to demons who torture us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him to change, but that through our actions and our turning to the Divinity, we have cured our wickedness and so once more have enjoyment of God's goodness. Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind."

+John Chrysostomos taught:

"It is not God who is hostile, but we; for God is never hostile."

We are free to accept or reject God's grace yet without that grace we can do absolutely nothing to effect our theosis. Thus, without limiting the power of The Spirit to go wither it will, we believe that the uncreated energies of God which we receive at baptism enable, but do not require, us to respond to God's grace and live in accordance with His commandments and thus become further strengthened and more like God by grace. As +Symeon the New Theologian says:

"The roof of any house stands upon the foundations and the rest of the structure. The foundations themselves are laid in order to carry the roof. This is both useful and necessary, for the roof cannot stand without the foundations and the foundations are absolutely useless without the roof - no help to any living creature. In the same way the grace of God is preserved by the practice of the commandments, and the observance of these commandments is laid down like foundations through the gift of God. The grace of the Spirit cannot remain with us without the practice of the commandments, but the practice of the commandments is of no help or advantage to us without the grace of God."

This grace is with us from the beginning of our existence:

"For truly the assistance which God gives to our nature is provided to those who correctly live the life of virtue. This assistance was already there at our birth, but it is manifested and made known whenever we apply ourselves to diligent training in the higher life and strip ourselves for the more vigorous contests." +Gregory of Nyssa

You ask why anyone would reject this grace and since people clearly do, the teachings of the Fathers must be nonsense. The fact is, FK, that people don't "choose" hell; they choose to reject God because becoming like God is difficult. It requires that we reject our nature. The Evil One is a great liar who tells us that God, because He is all merciful and loving, will ignore our choices to reject Him and that those choices will have no consequences. But when we come to the end of our earthly lives and find that we have cut ourselves off from God and have no hope, when we find ourselves tormented by the same love which surrounds others who made other choices to cleave to God, the Evil One reminds us that God's "justice" is inexorable.

[jo kus]

satan's efforts certainly lead to evil in our world. We are fooled all the time into making bad decisions. Just like with Harley's point about Eve. If Eve made an informed free will choice to disobey God, then why did Adam get all the blame?

Both were to blame, not just Adam. You are incorrect to say that HE got all of thet blame...

For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 1 Tim 2:13-14

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 2 Cor 11:3

The only reason why Paul mentions Adam in Romans 5 as being responsible for sin is that he is representative of mankind, being the prototype. In the first creation, we take on the attributes of this first man - esp. his propensity to sin. When made a new creation through the second man, Jesus, we take on HIS nature, the propensity towards holiness - as now, we have within us a new Spirit. Paul, in 1 Cor 15 and Rom 5 makes this comparison - not to exclude Eve from her part in the first sin, but because Paul is making an comparison and drawing out the effect that being in Christ means. Just as we are like Adam, we will be like Christ

The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven. As [is] the earthy, such [are] they also that are earthy: and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 1 Cor 15:47-49

There is no need to mention Eve for Paul to make his point. What IS interesting is that less than 100 years later, people ARE making connections between Mary and Eve.

Generally speaking, we act according to our nature. IIRC, you do not believe in the sin nature of man, but the Catholics and the rest of us do.

Catholics don't believe that man has a "sinful" nature. We have a PROPENSITY to sin as a result of concupiscience. IF our nature was evil, then Jesus Christ did NOT take up our nature during the incarnation. The POTENTIAL exists for man to be sinless, in Christ (as Mary has shown). It is NOT our nature to sin - God created us GOOD. As a result of the Fall, we were wounded without the ability to reclaim that lost sanctifying grace on our own. That much we agree. But we disagree on anthropology.

Our intellect, as opposed to our nature, to choose to sin comes into play after salvation, for sin happens, even though we have a regenerated heart, and God is not the author of evil

Our intellect and will come into play in choosing evil, regardless of whether we are regenerated or not. Paul makes his case in Romans 7 - that even AFTER this regeneration, he continues to sin, he continues to battle the FLESH - which does NOT stop tempting us. We do not lose concupiscience AFTER Baptism. This is why sanctification is a necessary part of the salvation formula. Baptism is merely one step in the process of our divinization.

Does God knock on everyone's heart equally, since God loves everyone? If so, then whose intellect would choose hell over heaven? It doesn't make sense.

God does NOT knock on everyone's heart "equally", although He knocks on everyone's heart "sufficiently". I have already explained why someone would choose "hell" over "heaven". The afterlife requires faith. It is something not seen yet. Thus, someone CAN make the choice to turn from God, and do one's own will - without consideration of afterlife consequences (because that person does not believe in the afterlife). No one is choosing "hell". They either don't take it seriously or don't believe in its existence.

Doesn't God bless some more than others with intellect? Is this God's love for all?

Intellect is not required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Directing one's will to God's Will is required. The intellect guides the will, the desire to do the good. But one does not have to be "intelligent" to know and interpret that Law written on their hearts. People, even the incredibly simple, know about justice, mercy, compassion, love, and contrition, even if they cannot define them.

God does not cause us to do evil, although He remains in control of all things.

I don't see the distinction you make. It would be better to say "God allows evil for HIS own purposes. God does not cause evil". Thus, MAN is the operating agent and cause of evil. Would this be agreeable to your point of view? Classic Calvinism would say that God inevitably ALSO causes evil and actively reprobates men to hell. It is at this point where we would part company.

Regards

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "How much of God's foreknowledge went into His decision on whom He would pick as the elect? I would say zero, and you can answer for yourself. If you say anything greater than zero, then that intrudes on God's sovereignty.

I respectfully disagree. How does the child making a cookie intrude on her mother's "sovereignty"?

I would respectfully suggest you are comparing apples and oranges. Only God has His level of sovereignty, which is absolute over all manner of existence. The mother is only "sovereign" in that she is running the cookie operation from beginning to end. The daughter does nothing without the mother's allowance. The child forms some cookie dough, and I paint the kitchen. No big deal, others are still watchful of every step and are in complete control.

But to go outside of the mother's sovereignty, suppose there was a scream from outside and the mother had to rush out to see what was the matter. Then, suppose the daughter decided to fill up a new sheet of cookie dough, open the hot oven all by herself, and slip in the sheet. Of course, since she doesn't understand the timing element of it, she waits an arbitrary amount of time and then tries to take the hot cookie sheet out of the oven.

The mother then walks in. Very loosely speaking, under your view, the mother would thank her daughter for the cooperation that she gave in the mother's absence. Under my view, the daughter would be in huge trouble and not allowed to participate in cookie making for some time. You decide which is love.

God is in total control. There is no luck. You are again placing God into time when He "decides". His decisions are based on what He "sees" all at once. His "vision" includes EVERYTHING WE DO!

I see your answer as a contradiction. How can God be in "total control" if His decisions are based on anything other than His will? You say His decisions are based on what He foresees. If God really was in control, He would not even bother to foresee anything, He would just will "whatever" to happen, through means consistent with His nature. You are again erasing the issue out of existence by saying everything is simultaneous, or God is outside of time, THEREFORE EVERYTHING IS A MYSTERY. Your argument has never supported an actual position, it just defends the assertion that there can be no position.

Since God has such "vision", why is it a problem for God to act based on our responses that He foresees outside of time before they even take place?

There, you even made it easier for me. It's a problem because you make God DEPENDENT upon us and our decisions. You just said it, and I must disagree. God is sovereign, not dependent upon man.

God gives EVERYONE sufficient grace to be saved. He died for the sins of ALL men, not just those YOU choose or say. The problem is that men do not listen to that natural law placed in their hearts.

God created man, God gives everyone sufficient grace, only a very few are ever really saved. Did God do a lousy job? Didn't God already issue a total recall of the model once (except for 8)? Are you saying He couldn't get it right the second time either? Again, if God creates all of us and gives all of us sufficient grace, how do so few choose Him and so many choose against? I assume you're not going to tell me it's luck. :)

[HarleyD]

Did you notice in every one of the objections you posted "free will" is argued against with scripture and supports free will with philosophical reasoning? There is a reason for this. Free will, as the Arminian defines it, is not scriptural and not supported with scripture. As much as we would like to think so, the clay cannot tell the potter what kind of pot he wants to become.

Saying my statement, "God ordains things and man carries them out." is not necessarily "incorrect" is like saying someone is not necessarily pregnant. It's either correct or it's not correct. Either I'm absolutely correct or I'm a heretic.

You may feel this is a "crude statement" and denies free will but facts are facts. I can't help it. I don't make the rules. If you feel the true mechanism of "ordaining" and "carrying out" by God is through the "free will of man", then you really don't believe in ANY intervention of God throughout history. By your definition God does everything through man. Consequently there is no reason to pray for anyone or about anything because it is up to us. Nothing in the Old Testament happened except by God allowing men to run the show. Moses wrote the 10 commandments, Joshua felt it was the right time to go into the Promise Land, Solomon acted on his own to build the temple, on and on and on. "If it is to be, then it's up to me." This is the conclusion of Open Theists and is exactly where this philosophical road mistakenly leads.

[HarleyD]

"That doesn't stop some Protestants from making a "canon within a canon" by placing Romans and Galatians above and beyond what Jesus says in the Gospels so as to maintain the false idea of salvation by faith alone."

I thought the position of the Church was that ALL scripture was inspired by God and given equal weight. The writings of Matthew and Mark are no more or less equally important as Paul and Peter. I know that is the belief of Protestants.

It states that "For by grace you are saved, THROUGH FAITH,...". We rest in the promises of God. Any works that we do for the kingdom is Christ working in us.

I'm reminded of Ai (Joshua 7). The children of Israel were commanded by God to go in and take possession of the Promise Land. They refused and God told them forget it then. Instead of heeding God's command not to go they "repented" and decided to attack Ai for "the Lord" much to their demise. They did not have the Lord fighting for them. This only illustrates the point that we can do NOTHING without the Lord's blessing.

I am not interested in a dead heretic's thoughts, but a live Christian's opinion.

I suppose one man's heretic is another man's church father. BTW-What happened to "tradition". Not many of the early Church fathers are still around last I counted. ;O)

So how do you "know" you are right? Again, you appear to be claiming infallibility for yourself.

No. I just saying that I must answer to God for my beliefs. I won't be able to point to Pope Leo and Pope John Paul and say, "This is what he told me to be true." God has given us His word. He commands us to pray for knowledge, wisdom and understanding. It is up to us to be lead by His guidance. This doesn't make me infallible but it is the way God wants us to behave. We are to rely upon Him.

[Forest Keeper]

No. I have said this from practically 3000 posts ago, that we can do nothing without God. What other ways can I write this to make it more clear? It is not EITHER/OR! It is not either God does EVERYTHING or man does EVERYTHING. Have you learned anything on the Catholic perspective that God and man cooperate to bring that man to heaven?

I have heard you every time you have said we can do nothing without God. And, I have also heard you when you contradict yourself with the next thought, that man determines his own salvation by making a free will decision to accept Christ, without God's "interference". Your version of "free will" has always meant "separate from God", or "independent of God". Otherwise, you would say it is not truly free will. Am I wrong?

Yes, you say that God nudges, and He helps, and He guides, but the bottom line decision, the MONEY DECISION, is always on us alone. Free will means you can reject help and guidance, so it really is only on you. THAT is a man-centered theology.

Yes, a pity you so constrict God's sovereignty and ability to communicate through other means than a 2000 year old book.

As I find it a pity that you find the Bible so inadequate that it must be supplemented by the words of popular men.

FK: "The assurance comes strictly from the Bible."

You are misinterpreting the Bible. God's promises are for those who persevere until the end. How have you missed this theme in Scriptures?

Those who persevere are unknown to any human, according to you. God's promises are only for them. How do you not see that THEREFORE, God's promises are of no value to any particular person because no one can know if they apply to him?

"It" spoke to them [the missionaries who fell away], as well...You keep ignoring this, don't you? This theology is misleading many Christians into a false sense of security, one that God is not offering.

I have no idea what (who) spoke to those missionaries originally. Isn't it ironic that you are the one who presumes to know? :)

FK: "The author is obviously talking about salvational "safety"

What does Paul say about that in 1 Cor 10:12?

He says we should never take our salvation for granted, and he was right. To take it for granted would be to cheapen it, and that's wrong. That's different from assurance, in which we have positive confidence in God's promises and we are grateful to Him for them and we seek to obey. Somewhere in heaven I imagine a scale of how many and what kind of sins each of the elect commit after salvation. Those who don't follow your verse very closely will do worse, and those who really follow it will do much better, and be rewarded. All will be in heaven.

Christ's mission on the cross is done. He has earned the remission of the sin of all men, just as Adam earned the lose of sanctifying grace of all men. But His mission to mankind is not done!

NO NO NO! I can't let you get away with that. :) You said Adam cost all of us sanctifying grace, meaning we are all lost when born. I would loosely agree with the principle. :) But then you said that Christ completed His mission by earning the remission of the sin of all mankind. Does that mean He earned it and is keeping it in His pocket until we do something to earn it for ourselves? That doesn't match what you have said before, and it doesn't sound complete at all.

Adam completed our downfall, but according to you, Christ did nothing of the sort in opposite. Christ only bought us a lottery ticket, for a "chance". I just think Christ is much more powerful than this. You appear to be making Adam more powerful that Christ.

[jo kus]

Only God has His level of sovereignty, which is absolute over all manner of existence. The mother is only "sovereign" in that she is running the cookie operation from beginning to end.

We call this "secondary cause". Thus, the mother is sovereign and free - understanding that God has given us everything that we have to make our decisions.

suppose the daughter decided to fill up a new sheet of cookie dough, open the hot oven all by herself, and slip in the sheet. Of course, since she doesn't understand the timing element of it, she waits an arbitrary amount of time and then tries to take the hot cookie sheet out of the oven. The mother then walks in. Very loosely speaking, under your view, the mother would thank her daughter for the cooperation that she gave in the mother's absence. Under my view, the daughter would be in huge trouble and not allowed to participate in cookie making for some time. You decide which is love.

It doesn't work that way. We do NOTHING without God, thus, He doesn't "leave the room", come back, and then we make the claim that we cooperated with the mother making cookies. I cannot stress this enough: We don't work in "shifts" with God - where I work one hour BY MYSELF, and He works the rest of the day - or any such allocation of time. ALL we do is under God's care and auspice. Just the same, since WE choose to do His will (with the supplies that He has given us - cookie dough, etc.), we are attributed with righteousness by cooperating with God's Will. Men do not have to cooperate with God's Will. Thus, we are rewarded for this turning to the Lord.

I see your answer as a contradiction. How can God be in "total control" if His decisions are based on anything other than His will?

Have you ever considered that it is God's Will to give us free will? Isn't it clear that God allows man to choose, sometimes AGAINST God's Will? God ALLOWS evil. He brings good out of it, despite our actions. Thus, He is in control of the final outcome.

You are again erasing the issue out of existence by saying everything is simultaneous, or God is outside of time, THEREFORE EVERYTHING IS A MYSTERY.

I disagree with your prognosis of my point of view. Again, I am sorry you fail to understand what "eternity" means.

you make God DEPENDENT upon us and our decisions. You just said it, and I must disagree. God is sovereign, not dependent upon man.

you can't seem to keep from placing God on a time line, can you? What more can I say? God does not exist on a time line, thus, His decisions are not made in the year 1 or 1900 when looking at you and whether to elect us. His decisions encompass both His Will and our response, which He sees from outside of the timeline.

Regards

[jo kus]

Did you notice in every one of the objections you posted "free will" is argued against with scripture and supports free will with philosophical reasoning?

There are a number of Scriptural verses that support free choice. See my tagline, for example.

Free will, as the Arminian defines it, is not scriptural and not supported with scripture.

No one here is defining free will as the Arminian defines it.

As much as we would like to think so, the clay cannot tell the potter what kind of pot he wants to become.

God, since He sees into ALL time, can see our response to His graces. Thus, He is able to take our free will decision into account when forming us. God is not subject to time. God doesn't wake up one day, think about making a HarleyD in 4000 BC, then waits, then makes you, whether of the elect or not, without seeing what you will become.

Either I'm absolutely correct or I'm a heretic.

It depends on what you mean by "ordain" and to what respect God ordains things. I don't think a non-Calvinist would say God ordains evil - that would make Him responsible for evil. Has any Christian ever said that before the heretic Calvin came along?

Nothing in the Old Testament happened except by God allowing men to run the show.

Agreed. But there is a difference between "allowing" and "actively forcing" someone to do something. God, for His own reasons, allows evil. He brings goodness out of man's misguided decisions. Again, I ask you to beware of looking at "God ordaining evil" only from the OT.

Regards

[Forest Keeper]

Sorry, I still don't get it. (re: HA! Listen to the pot ... )

Your original statement was:

By denying the literal, intended sense of Jesus' Words, you do injustice to the passage.

My opinion is that Catholicism infrequently takes the literal meaning of a verse, or the common sense meaning of a verse (or passage). You have consistently held that the intended sense of Jesus' words is something completely different from the words themselves. It is a secret code, only decipherable by the Catholic hierarchy. :) The Bible doesn't say what it says, it in fact says something completely different, all the way up to being in the opposite. My comment was in light of all this, that it is funny that you should accuse me of doing an injustice to the passage, when your meaning of so many passages is so unjust to the words of those passages, of course, in my opinion.

[jo kus]

I thought the position of the Church was that ALL scripture was inspired by God and given equal weight. The writings of Matthew and Mark are no more or less equally important as Paul and Peter. I know that is the belief of Protestants.

You are correct, that is the position of the CHURCH. However, some Protestants do not consider Jesus' view on salvation, but a twisted version of Paul and salvation by faith alone. They repeatedly quote from Romans and Galatians, while ignoring the Gospels (such as Matthew 5:20 vs. ANY idea of Christ "covering" us with HIS righteousness.)

It states that "For by grace you are saved, THROUGH FAITH,...". We rest in the promises of God. Any works that we do for the kingdom is Christ working in us.

Brother, are you saying that faith comes from us? Any work is Christ working through us! ANY! INCLUDING FAITH! Thus, it is ridiculous to say that we are saved by faith alone - as if it comes from us - while love or repentence has nothing to do with salvation.

This only illustrates the point that we can do NOTHING without the Lord's blessing.

I hope that in these many posts, I have made it clear that I agree with you on this - whether God allows us to do evil or imbues within us the desire to do good.

I suppose one man's heretic is another man's church father. BTW-What happened to "tradition". Not many of the early Church fathers are still around last I counted

I never made the statement to "consult St. Irenaeus if you want to know my beliefs". This become even a bigger waste of time (consulting Calvin) because you yourself admit you do not agree with everything Calvin says! How am I to know Harley by reading Calvin?

I just saying that I must answer to God for my beliefs. I won't be able to point to Pope Leo and Pope John Paul and say, "This is what he told me to be true."

But you do! This is the funny part. YOU consider the Bible is the Word of God, based on the witness of the Catholic Church. YOU consider that God is a Trinity of persons, based on the Catholic Church. YOU consider that Jesus Christ has TWO wills, not one, based on the Catholic Church. And so forth. Thus, your foundation of faith is built on the rock of Peter and the successors of the Apostles. Leaving this solid foundation only leads to building on sand.

He commands us to pray for knowledge, wisdom and understanding. It is up to us to be lead by His guidance. This doesn't make me infallible but it is the way God wants us to behave. We are to rely upon Him.

So would GOD give you guidance that disagrees with the Church He established and confirmed during Pentecost? Didn't Jesus say something about a Kingdom that acts against itself is bound to fall? Even if you do not believe that the Catholic Church was the end result of Christ's work of establishing a Church, why would the "spirit" come to men and whisper contradictory words into your ears (such as the Calvin-Arminian feud)?

Regards

[jo kus]

I have heard you every time you have said we can do nothing without God. And, I have also heard you when you contradict yourself with the next thought, that man determines his own salvation by making a free will decision to accept Christ, without God's "interference". Your version of "free will" has always meant "separate from God", or "independent of God". Otherwise, you would say it is not truly free will. Am I wrong?

you are interpreting the Catholic view incorrectly. Back to our mother/daughter and the cookies. Is the mother forcing her daughter to make cookies? It is her will that the daughter do a loving activity with the mother. You would have the mother grab the child by the hand forcibly, hanking her unwillingly to the table and stuff the cookie dough into her hand. NOW MAKE THOSE COOKIES NOW!!! Man doesn't "determine" his own salvation. God judges man based on his response - by GOD'S STANDARDS, not man's. Read the Beatitudes if you want to know God's standards of obeying His will. My "version" of free will NEVER removes God from the picture!!! This is totally ridiculous and a terrible injustice to my position, as I have time and again said that God comes to us to aid us in ANY good deed to move our will. I have repeatedly quoted Phil 2:12-13 as our view on cooperation. I am baffled on your inability to ascertain what "cooperation" means and how it somehow takes God out of the picture!!!

I find it a pity that you find the Bible so inadequate that it must be supplemented by the words of popular men.

Then why do you read commentaries? Why do you listen to pastors and their interpretations? Are you being hypocritical now?

How do you not see that THEREFORE, God's promises are of no value to any particular person because no one can know if they apply to him?

LOL! The Bible tells us IF we persevere, IF we obey the commandments, we are IN Christ. Thus, the promise is for us, IF we continue to persevere in the Lord.

I have no idea what (who) spoke to those missionaries originally. Isn't it ironic that you are the one who presumes to know? :)

Now, substitute yourself into this scenario - "isn't it ironic that you are the one who presumes to know "who" spoke to you"?

I wrote "What does Paul say about that in 1 Cor 10:12?

You responded He says we should never take our salvation for granted

Perhaps you should read the Scriptures again...

"Wherefore lest he fall. Seems pretty clear to me, by the plain reading of Scripture, that Paul is warning the Corinthians to not be overconfident. His story of the Jews who DIED in the desert is clearly a warning that the SAME is possible spiritually for Christians. Again, you are twisting Scriptures. Read the context of the verses immediately proceeding. Paul is talking about DEATH!

But then you said that Christ completed His mission by earning the remission of the sin of all mankind. Does that mean He earned it and is keeping it in His pocket until we do something to earn it for ourselves?

All sin is potentially forgiven as a result of Christ's work. However, to claim that forgiveness, we must ASK for it! WE must repent and convert. Isn't that clear from loads of Scripture that WE are required to respond to God's graces of faith and repentence? Over and over, God's forgiveness is seen as conditional, based on our own turning to Him. Recite the Lord's Prayer slowly, for example.

That doesn't match what you have said before, and it doesn't sound complete at all.

Adam completed our downfall, but according to you, Christ did nothing of the sort in opposite. Christ only bought us a lottery ticket, for a "chance". I just think Christ is much more powerful than this. You appear to be making Adam more powerful that Christ.

Adam has given us original sin, but WE ALSO freely choose to disobey God. Thus, WE choose death, separation from God. Christ has, in the same fashion, won salvation for men, but again, they must CHOOSE life, union with God (with the tools that God has given us, not by ourselves).

Regards

[annalex]

Did you notice in every one of the objections you posted "free will" is argued against with scripture and supports free will with philosophical reasoning?

That is because only isolated verses seem to contradict free will, whereas the entire body of scripture directly supports it:

Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain

Where do you think Aquinas finds these "counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments"? These are waht the scipture is filled with.

Either I'm absolutely correct or I'm a heretic.

Some statements are correct but used as attempt to prove an error. If you say, "the sun always comes up" I would agree, but not when you continue: "... at night". You are a heretic, but you quote scripture you have no understadning of -- as it is clear form your posts and my corrections to them on this thread alone. Or you say vague stuff that is correct but means little by itself, and think you closed an argument. That is intellectual crudity.

If you feel the true mechanism of "ordaining" and "carrying out" by God is through the "free will of man", then you really don't believe in ANY intervention of God throughout history.

And this is another example of said crudity. Miraculous interventions that overcome the will are common throughout the scripture, as well as acts of God that bypass man and work through the forces of nature.

[annalex]

My opinion is that Catholicism infrequently takes the literal meaning of a verse, or the common sense meaning of a verse (or passage).

At least in my discussions with you I always took the literal meaning. What is typically happening though is that the Protestants tend to look at the scripture myopically and overlook the context. It does not make their reading plain or literal, it makes it incorrect.

There are things in the faith of the fathers that do not come directly from the scripture, such as veneration of saints. But when the scripture is the direct justification for a doctrine, it is read literally. It is not read literalistically as if theology were a Bible quoting bee.

[Forest Keeper]

[Rom. 8:17] Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

IF we indeed share in His sufferings, IN ORDER THAT we may also share in His glory.

I'm sorry, what does this mean? Do you think that we Protestants do not face trials? :) God promises us that we will all face trials. Persevering through these are future included events to the moment of salvation.

Consult 1 Cor 6:9-10, for example, verses written to "saved Christians, heirs of Christ". Seems quite clear by the literal interpretation.

I did consult the passage, and I am amazed that it appears that you would take it this far out of obvious context. Here is the complete thought:

1 Cor. 6:9-11 : 9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. [PAST TENSE!] (emphasis added)

You left out verse 11, which explains everything. Otherwise, anyone who ever commits any of these sins is doomed FOREVER! This passage says NOTHING about running to a priest for forgiveness. THAT is the literal interpretation of 9-10.

And Jews, including Jesus, was circumcised at 8 days. Is God now going from a greater to a lesser Covenant by restricting the members of the Church? Also, YOUR faith??? IF faith is a gift (which it is), then why do YOU need to proclaim it to receive Baptism? It is already within you as a seed given by God when He predestined the elect!

I am not sure I am following you. Are you saying that salvation used to be obtained through circumcision? We need to proclaim our faith in order to be Baptized in order to mimic what was done in the Bible. It is true that those among the elect are predestined to be so, which is another reason why we see Baptism as being symbolic of an already completed event. It is complete to "us" at the point of salvation, and we are to be Baptized soon thereafter, if possible, as an obedience to God.

Jesus told the Apostles to not prevent the little ones from coming to Him. But that is what you do by withholding Baptism to someone who makes a faith declaration (which isn't even from them!)

The youngest I have ever seen in my church to get Baptized I think was six years old. All have to be able to demonstrate through a testimony that they understand "the basics". This one did, in spades. It is not uncommon at all to see 8,9, or 10 year-olds do the same in my church. I would consider all of these to be "little ones" Biblically speaking.

FK: "Those who are already saved (already have their inheritance sealed), but have fallen away, will always come back to the Father. He has ordained it."

Saved in who's point of view? The person or God? Since we don't know God's mind, this doesn't help much in "KNOWING" that a 'saved' person will return to God.

Saved from God's POV. I am talking about hypothetically looking at other people. If I see someone I have guessed is saved fall away, I do not know if he will come back, but I will certainly try to be of help in any way I can. That's why I do not make presumptions about other people. If I fall away seriously, then either God will "touch" me directly, or He will move others to do it. Either way, I will be brought back. God says so.

If a person makes a choice where he is not compelled by necessity, it is a free will choice.

Hmmm. That's a new term. What is a choice "compelled by necessity"? Let's say you had a loved one who needed an operation that was very expensive. You didn't have all the money for it, but you thought there was a 50-50 chance you would be able to raise it in time. If I came up to you and said: "Jo, I'll give you $1,000,000 for you pen, what do you say?" When you say 'YES', you would see this as a free will choice? Kinda sounds like an offer you can't refuse, doesn't it?

FK: "The only conclusion, from what you have said, is that God does not love His children equally."

AHH! NOW we're getting somewhere. Yes, that is part of the mystery of God's Providence and election of the predestined. It is apparent that some of God's children will disinherit Him. God loves all humans, but applies His gifts differently to different people. We don't know why.

Wow! I really didn't expect to hear that. :) I developed this idea in other posts subsequent to the one I am responding to now. I can't wait to hear more, when I catch up.

[jo kus]

At least in my discussions with you I always took the literal meaning. What is typically happening though is that the Protestants tend to look at the scripture myopically and overlook the context. It does not make their reading plain or literal, it makes it incorrect.

Agree. I think what FK is getting at is that anything that doesn't meet HIS "plain reading" of the Scripture is not plain reading of the Scriptures. The last 500 posts have shown that "plain reading" is not so plain to all. Plain reading must take into account the Scriptures as a whole and the context in which they are read.

I think he is still upset about Romans 3 and how Psalm 119 over and over disagree with each other (plainly speaking!)

"Blessed [are] they that keep his testimonies, [and that] seek him {God} with the whole heart. They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways". Psalm 119:2-3.

With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments. Psalm 119:10

This continues for the next 166 verses... It is hard to miss the plain meaning.

There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. Romans 3:11

Here is another way that the plain meaning requires interpretation...

"The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good. " Psalm 14:1, and virtually repeated in Psalm 53:1

Is the Psalmster talking about the fool or ALL men???!!! Context, brother.

Why is it so difficult to see that it is the FOOL that Paul is talking about, the wicked - not mankind in general?

Regards

[jo kus]

I'm sorry, what does this mean? {Romans 8:17}

That sharing in Christ's glory is dependent upon our sharing in His suffering. There is a connection between God glorifying us and our action here on earth.

You left out verse 11, (1 Cor 6:9-10) which explains everything. Otherwise, anyone who ever commits any of these sins is doomed FOREVER!

"And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" 1 Cor 6:11

I really think you need to sit down with the Scriptures and read them. Again, you are wrong. Do you really think that Paul is saying "well, because you were washed of your former sins, you are free to commit the same sins again - and you'll still be saved"? OF COURSE we were washed of our former sins. But that doesn't give us free reign to re-visit those sins. Paul CLEARLY says that "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, etc., will enter the Kingdom of heaven." THOSE WHO ARE CURRENTLY doing these deeds! What makes you think that Christians who return to their former ways will STILL enter the Kingdom? That is ridiculous and is ANTI-Scriptural, even in this plain passage.

Here is another example from Paul on the matter:

"Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do (PRESENT OR FUTURE TENSE!) such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" Gal 5:19-21. Then Paul goes on to compare the FRUIT of the HOLY SPIRIT... "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts (have you crucified your flesh from affections?). If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit." Gal 5:22-25

And finally:

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. Heb 10:26-27

I suppose I am again misunderstanding the clear text??? Seems awfully destructive to this concept that those who are baptized or regenerated CANNOT fall!

This passage says NOTHING about running to a priest for forgiveness. THAT is the literal interpretation of 9-10.

Big deal. It doesn't say that Jesus rose from the dead in this passage, either. What is your point?

I am not sure I am following you. Are you saying that salvation used to be obtained through circumcision?

A person became a member of the people of God through the rite of circumcision. We become Christians through Baptism. In both cases, a person has taken the first step towards union with God - although in Baptism, we are much more greatly blessed, as the Holy Spirit HIMSELF comes to us.

It is true that those among the elect are predestined to be so, which is another reason why we see Baptism as being symbolic of an already completed event. It is complete to "us" at the point of salvation, and we are to be Baptized soon thereafter, if possible, as an obedience to God.

WHY? If God has already predestined you for election, what is the purpose of Baptism - per your theology? Obedience to God? Would this remove you from the elect, then?

I would consider all of these to be "little ones" Biblically speaking.

The "little ones" in Luke's Gospel includes infants in the Greek.

I do not make presumptions about other people. If I fall away seriously, then either God will "touch" me directly, or He will move others to do it.

Or you are never saved to begin with, according to your theology. I have discussed this very same topic with people who "KNEW" they were saved and KNEW it for years. Then, they fell away from the faith. So this "knowledge" they had was false, in retrospect, wasn't it?

"Jo, I'll give you $1,000,000 for you pen, what do you say?" When you say 'YES', you would see this as a free will choice? Kinda sounds like an offer you can't refuse, doesn't it?

And if you got that money through ill-repute, would the situation be the same? I CAN refuse this money. People do it all the time. It is called "principle". Some refuse to accept money, even though they desperately need it. Some would not take it if it was "blood money". Sorry, people are not so willing to dismiss their principles as you seem to believe.

Wow! I really didn't expect to hear that. :) {that God gives His gifts unequally}

This shouldn't be a surprise. Christ Himself tells us this in such places as the Parable of the Talents (Mat 25). God expects us to give EVERYTHING that He gave us BACK TO HIM. Our faith, repentence, desire to love, etc., FREELY. The man who received ONE talent did nothing with what he received - and was prevented from entering the Kingdom. Scary thought for those who are quietists and think that God does everything.

Regards

[Dr. Eckleburg]

If you feel the true mechanism of "ordaining" and "carrying out" by God is through the "free will of man", then you really don't believe in ANY intervention of God throughout history. By your definition God does everything through man. Consequently there is no reason to pray for anyone or about anything because it is up to us. Nothing in the Old Testament happened except by God allowing men to run the show. Moses wrote the 10 commandments, Joshua felt it was the right time to go into the Promise Land, Solomon acted on his own to build the temple, on and on and on. "If it is to be, then it's up to me." This is the conclusion of Open Theists and is exactly where this philosophical road mistakenly leads.

LOL. So very true. The inconsistencies mount as God is forced to dance to the fife and drum of men...

He's either God or He's not. We are sentient beings and we think we're autonomous; we think we're acting apart from any force other than our own instincts and desires, sometimes influenced by God, but certainly not controlled.

But if we believe in a sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient Creator of heaven and earth and everything therein, then logically we must assume we are living lives already ordained by the very definition of the One who created everything.

If God knows tomorrow because He created tomorrow, then tomorrow will follow the course set down by God's perfect, determining will.

And while we may feel like every moment we live is the first time that moment has been conceived of, in reality, that moment was determined by God from before the foundation of the world, most especially before men's volition could act upon that moment, or even conceive of that moment. Because NOTHING precedes God's predestining will, especially not any possible good action or right decision on the part of the fallen creature. "There is none righteous; no, not one." (Romans 3:10).

God spends a lot of time in the Bible explaining human nature. Because of our first father, we are sinners and incapable of saving ourselves, just like the Jews were incapable of saving themselves through the very Laws God had given them.

Did this surprise God? No. This was God's plan in order to show the world that NOTHING can save men except Jesus Christ.

Only Christ's payment for our sins can wipe the slate clean, both in the Old Testament and the New. And when the time came that was appointed by God, Christ was born to illustrate and implement God's perfect plan of salvation.

No laws, no good works, no human will can save the fallen sinner. Only the recompense of Christ's blood can atone for our sins, blood shed for those who have been given faith in Him.

And none of us knows the names of the elect. Thus we preach to all men so that all the sheep whom Christ came to gather will hear the words of truth, and be saved.

All according to His perfect plan for His creation, ordained, determined, written and willed by Him from before the foundation of the world. Every jot and tittle.

And that understanding is a stupendous, liberating, profoundly reassuring gift to His saints. Unlike what has been termed here, "the gift of free will," which is pretty laughable. A gift that apparently can lead to damnation is no gift at all. It's vanity and hubris and true anxiety.

We're told the devil works in "subtlety and mischief." And part of his warfare is to whisper into our ears, "Do as you will. You can do it. You're free."

But when we acknowledge God as our light and Savior and only hope, we are grateful that our will is subservient to His in all things.

No one is prevented from believing. And all who possess Trinitarian faith do so because it is the will of God. That's not a contradiction; that is the reality of the God who reveals Himself through Scripture and the working of the Holy Ghost.

"And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." -- Acts 13:39

And who believes?

"For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." -- Acts 13:47-48

Chosen to believe.

I don't think an understanding in Predestination is necessary for salvation. However, unlike the false assumption of "free will," it is a true gift from God, given at His pleasure for the peace and joy and comfort and safety of His sheep. The only losers regarding Predestination are those men and institutions who seek to convince other men that we are autonomous beings, and thus we can and should hand over our lives and liberty to them.

God's will first; man's will follows. It may seem unfair to us at times, but if "fairness" were God's primary interest in us, we would ALL be damned. None of us would refuse the serpent's offer.

Thankfully, "Mercy triumphs over judgment." (James 2:13).