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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Paul says over and over again, "By no means" shall we go back to our old lives. We must persevere. But I don't take perseverance to mean perfection as you appear to do. I wonder why Paul doesn't back up any of these types of passages with "so run to your priest after any one of these sins or you are lost". Again you make the perfect case for ping-pong justification. Saved one day, lost the next. You appear to say that God doesn't give anything for keeps. He just loans us grace that we must earn through our future deeds to keep. In your example from Galatians, you have Paul damning anyone who ever experiences hate, or anyone who has a few drinks too many now and again. If someone rapes and murders my loved one, and I feel hate, then I have just damned my soul to hell. After justification, it's damnation to them all, UNLESS ... well, Paul never tells us around these passages.

FK: "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 just mean that if Paul really is advocating ping-pong salvation, he seems to only give the "ping" side and never the "pong". If that's true, I find that odd.

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?

Yes, Baptism is an obedience to God. Jesus tells us to be Baptized, and a regenerated heart wants to obey. But if someone is truly of the elect, then nothing can cost him his salvation, not even the failure to be Baptized. None of us are perfectly obedient to God.

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.

But your added circumstances take it out of an analogy to heaven (something very good). All you do is kill the analogy, you don't address the issue. God's "offer" is nothing like a tainted $1,000,000 :)

My possibilities are based on historical records that show that infant baptism was practiced by the early Church and was NEVER refuted. Ever. By anyone. Until the latter Protestants (following Luther). So where is your evidence to support your side?

There are historical records to show all manner of practices in ancient times that were false, but were accepted by the practitioners at the time. Popularity doesn't make something right. Besides, who within the Church was ever in a position to refute it. You can't even refute it to this day, or you will be ex-communicated. That certainly does solve that problem and preserve unity, but it adds nothing to the strength of any argument. "We're right because everyone agreed" (under threat of being kicked out and eternally damned).

As usual, my evidence comes from the Bible. Every Baptism I am aware of in the Bible was that of a believer. You are forced to throw in a bunch of "what ifs" and "maybes", just to suggest your view is possible. I am content with what the Bible actually says.

Thus, you base the idea "the Scriptures are from God" with the same logic that Joseph Smith claims that the Mormon Scriptures are from God.

Wow! Then that must mean that the scriptures don't speak to you on any kind of a personal level at all. They must be merely words on a page to you. You read them, consult the Church, and they tell you what to think about them. Nothing more. It's nothing like that for me.

So your claim is that the Church is wrong in everything it says and God protected "His" book from the errors of this same Church?!

I don't think the Church is wrong in everything, just those things in which it disagrees with the Bible.

Without the witness of the Church, how do you know that the Gospel of Thomas is NOT Scripture?

I don't think the Church had anything to do with the writing of the Bible, therefore I do not need its witness.

We rely COMPLETELY on the Church to tell us what is God's Word, because God doesn't come down from heaven and tell all mankind "This is my book. Listen to it"

You rely on the Church because you are forced to if you want to be a Catholic. That is fine. I rely on God Himself because I am not so forced. You have already been shown why we can know that the Bible is God's word from within the Bible itself, and you disagree. OK.

It shouldn't be surprising that infants would be baptised IF infants were circumcised.

I'm sure it is likely that it did happen, my disagreement is with its meaning. Certainly most or all of the early churches practiced some sort of error, at least in the beginning. They were still getting the hang of this brand new thing. (No shame on them from me for innocent mistakes.) Isn't that why Paul wrote many of his letters, to guide them and correct error? And yes, I will be up front and say that I am unaware of anything in the Bible that specifically prohibits infant Baptism by name. I just take inference from what is there.

How could it be a "local" council if the decisions were applied universally? Circumcision was no longer required. Anywhere. Most scholars see two decisions and separate councils in Acts 15. The first is the circumcision question, a universal decision, led by Peter. The second is the dietary decision, a local decision led by James. Paul did not follow this latter decision in some of his communities, for example, in Corinth, or when he writes to Rome.

I looked at it again, and I don't see how it could possibly have been two councils. The decision of James is clear enough, but I couldn't find one for Peter. Also what do you say about how verses 4 and 12 work together? Verse 4 is before Peter spoke, and verse 12 happened immediately before James spoke. That tells me that it was one council.

I think you are going to have to show me where the Council of Orange taught something that the Church no longer teaches

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10). – Council of Orange

from jokus post 3732 - I agree, God brought Jonah to repentance - but as St. Augustine says - NOT without man!

By claiming that Jonah repented you have violated Canon 6. As Augustine, the Canon of Orange, and the scriptures point out, there is not anything that we have that we have not been given. This includes our faith and our will. The only reason we are obedient and humble (more or less) is because of God's grace. Jonah was obedient only because of God.

My context does not include a Tradition not specifically found in scripture.

LOL!!! Sure it does. Where does Scripture say that only written teachings are to be followed by Christians? Where does Scripture talk about abrogating all oral traditions? Where does Scripture talk about a Christian community breaking up into smaller groups due to dissension - as a GOOD thing? Where does the Scripture talk about salvation by faith alone? And so forth...

It is "plain" to you because it must agree

The Church accepted the revelation received from the Apostles - BOTH oral and written revelations. From within this revealed context, we have taken our paradigm. We didn't receive a book and were told to figure it out for ourselves. We received a body of teachings, the book supplementing and providing evidence for that body of teachings.

Yes, I am still unhappy about Romans 3, because I think this concoction is just a required effort to give an "out" for Mary.

I am not talking about Mary in Romans 3. I am talking about "all men are evil - no one can choose good". Utterly ridiculous and against Scripture, as I have posted. If you can't understand the verses that I posted in Psalm 14 and Romans 3 - and compare them to Psalm 119 - and notice that YOUR meaning would have Scripture completely contradict itself - I don't know what to tell you... IF "all men are evil, no one comes to God", then explain away Psalm 119 and many other Scriptures that talk about men seeking God, about men being righteous. Or does God's Word contradict? Plainly speaking, Romans 3 CANNOT mean that ALL men are evil, no one seeks God.

The Psalmist is talking about fools, Paul is talking about all men

Wrong. They are using the exact same words! Paul is QUOTING Scriptures verbatim. To understand Paul, you have to understand what he is quoting, not what you try to read into the Scriptures to fit your theology. If you want to understand Scriptures, you have to approach it with a more open mind.

The Jews never said there is no God

They sure did!!!! WHO do you think David was talking about? Gentiles? NO! He was speaking about foolish Jews who in their heart were wicked and evil - who in their hearts did not believe in God - despite what their fathers taught them. He was writings against JEWS! Why in God's name do you think so many Jews often returned to idolatrous methods? Have you not read the Historical books of the OT? It was evil and apostate Jews who were the worst enemies of God's people. Over and over, these wicked Jews brought God's vengeance down on the people.

I maintain that these passages do not directly relate to each other.

They are DIRECT quotes of the Psalms. I imagine your bible even notes that... And if you were aware of what Paul is saying in Romans 1-4, it would be quite obvious that Paul is attacking Judaizers who were proud in their obedience to the Law. Doesn't it become obvious when Paul attacks circumcision - which Abraham was righteous before the ritual? That even Gentiles were "spiritual Jews" by "spiritual circumcision" (Rom 2)? If all men are evil, then Christ took on the nature of evil during the incarnation. Is that what you are saying?

See where you theology leads?

Regards

Well, if your opinion is that there were mistakes in the OT, then you cannot believe the Bible is infallible, by definition

No, that's not what it means. It means that the Bible, as a whole, is infallible and that single verses are not necessarily the whole truth. Because if one verse leads you to think one way, there is usually another verse that modifies the first. Which is why the Bible needs to be understood in its entirety and not in erms of isolated verses.

What Jesus Christ said was not a "fulfillment" of the statement regarding taking revenege, but a correction of the statement, lest we be lead to believe that taking an eye for and eye is justified and what God wants us to do, as the Jews believe. If evil strikes, do not return evil for evil is what Christ is saying.

What you would call a correction (of error), I would call a completion

Certainly what He said was not a completion because the OT verse is complete. What Christ said was not an addition that completed it, but re-defined the whole meaning of it.

I don't take perseverance to mean perfection as you appear to do.

I don't either. Remember, we have Purgatory? However, our basic direction in life must be Christ. IF we do those sins of the flesh, we are given an Advocate who will forgive us of our sins. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is always available to those who choose (through God's Spirit) to return to the Lord's ways. The "unforgiveable sin" is the sin that man does not ask for the forgiveness of.

I wonder why Paul doesn't back up any of these types of passages with "so run to your priest after any one of these sins or you are lost".

I wonder why Paul never mentions the word "trinity", "altar call", "Sinner's Prayer", or "protestantism"....As I said before many times, all of Paul's thoughts and ideas are not written down in the Scriptures...They are letters that we happen to have, preserved by the Church.

Again you make the perfect case for ping-pong justification. Saved one day, lost the next.

Sorry you disapprove of Scriptures. But your "saved one day, lost the next" is clearly an exaggeration.

If someone rapes and murders my loved one, and I feel hate, then I have just damned my soul to hell. After justification, it's damnation to them all, UNLESS ... well, Paul never tells us around these passages.

You have heard of the idea of repentance?

I just mean that if Paul really is advocating ping-pong salvation, he seems to only give the "ping" side and never the "pong". If that's true, I find that odd.

Paul talks about reconciliation, for example, in 2 Cor 5.

Jesus tells us to be Baptized, and a regenerated heart wants to obey. But if someone is truly of the elect, then nothing can cost him his salvation, not even the failure to be Baptized. None of us are perfectly obedient to God.

Baptism is given for the remission of sins. Thus, if you aren't baptized, your sins aren't forgiven. How does that make you of the elect, then?

God's "offer" is nothing like a tainted $1,000,000 :)

God's offer is not given to us with full and entire revelation. It is based on faith. You keep mentioning that "who would choose hell?" Indeed. No one. People choose a life without God. That is the same thing. Hell is an existence without God. Now whether that state means fire and brimstone, who can say? But clearly, people will choose a life without God and His ways. That is what people choose. Life without God's ways, God's Laws, God's Love. A person who willfully does this over the course of their life will not be saved, regardless of Baptism they received 20 years ago.

Regards

I don't take perseverance to mean perfection as you appear to do.

I wonder why Paul doesn't back up any of these types of passages with "so run to your priest after any one of these sins or you are lost".

Again you make the perfect case for ping-pong justification. Saved one day, lost the next.

Sorry you disapprove of Scriptures. But your "saved one day, lost the next" is clearly an exaggeration.

You have heard of the idea of repentance?

I just mean that if Paul really is advocating ping-pong salvation, he seems to only give the "ping" side and never the "pong". If that's true, I find that odd.

Paul talks about reconciliation, for example, in 2 Cor 5.

Baptism is given for the remission of sins. Thus, if you aren't baptized, your sins aren't forgiven. How does that make you of the elect, then?

God's "offer" is nothing like a tainted $1,000,000 :)

Regards

There are historical records to show all manner of practices in ancient times that were false, but were accepted by the practitioners at the time.

Give me an example. And I'll show you that the Church condemned such practices in each case. Where does the Church condemn infant baptism?

Besides, who within the Church was ever in a position to refute it. You can't even refute it to this day, or you will be ex-communicated

Infant baptism wasn't declared infallibly dogmatic until the Council of Trent in the mid 1500's. Certainly during the first few hundred years, you'd think ONE PERSON would write about its incorrect usage in the Church??? Many bishops were in the "position" to question this or any other teaching of the Apostles. The Church constantly is fighting against such people. That is odd that you make this statement.

"We're right because everyone agreed" (under threat of being kicked out and eternally damned).

That is a woeful understanding of the development of dogma. There is a period of time before something is considered infallibly dogmatic where theologians of good will can offer understandings that may not match the future's dogmatic declaration. Contemporary theologians would then have chimed in to refute such a person - but NOT excommunicate! People are given numerous opportunities to recant of false teachings before excommunication occurs. The point is that we'd have records of such initial disagreements - even if a person subsequently recanted (such as Berengar and the Eucharist in the 1000's). Infant baptism is clearly a unanimously held teaching until people began the Sola Scriptura idea in the 1500's.

I am content with what the Bible actually says.

The Bible never says that baptism is only for believers, and secondly, we don't know EVERY person who was baptised in the Bible was of rational age. And finally, you are under the misguided presumption that "only what is in the Bible is to be believed by Christians" - an anti-Scriptural concept. Once you get beyond this false tradition of men, things will fall into place better regarding your understanding of historical Christianity.

Wow! Then that must mean that the scriptures don't speak to you on any kind of a personal level at all.

Lots of books "speak" to me. That is the purpose of a writer in most cases! Does that make Shakespeare was inspired by God?

I don't think the Church is wrong in everything, just those things in which it disagrees with the Bible.

You mean YOUR understanding of the bible. It is clear that your understanding is not the only way one can read Scriptures.

I don't think the Church had anything to do with the writing of the Bible, therefore I do not need its witness.

LOL! Prove to me, without the Church, that what you have is ONLY God's Word, and nothing more, and ALL God's Word is included within its pages... Yours is the most ridiculous statement I have heard. Without the witness of the Church, you would think that Jesus was married and had kids. That is what other "gospels" say? Would you then be an advocate of the Da Vinci Code?!

I rely on God Himself because I am not so forced.

Right. God speaks directly to you in a vision... "If even an angel of light teaches a gospel other than mine, let him be anathema". Your Gospel is not the same as the Church, so what does that say about your "vision"?

You have already been shown why we can know that the Bible is God's word from within the Bible itself, and you disagree. OK.

You haven't shown me anything but your assertions that it is so. Merely saying "Philemon is God's Word" doesn't mean anything without the Church's witness to this fact. When if I was to say I thought God was telling me that the Gospel of Thomas is from God? You'd think I was wrong, wouldn't you? Why??? Explain yourself.

Isn't that why Paul wrote many of his letters, to guide them and correct error? And yes, I will be up front and say that I am unaware of anything in the Bible that specifically prohibits infant Baptism by name. I just take inference from what is there

So where is the correction against this incorrect practice of infant baptism? We don't find it anywhere! Wow...

Regards

Lord, give me patience...

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

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

There is none righteous, no, not one. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. Romans 3:10-11

It should be painfully obvious that your theology contradicts the Scriptures found in many Psalms, such as Psalm 119.

May patience be with you. However, you still haven't shown me any contradictions. Whoever the Psalmist was, it's a safe bet that he was already a man of faith. I'm sure he was talking about other men of faith because who could follow in His ways without faith? Paul, of course, was not talking about such men at all. Verse 9 is clear that he is saying that Jews and Gentiles are alike in sin. That must mean before salvation, because after salvation we are no longer slaves to sin, as Paul clearly lays out. Therefore, there is no contradiction, Paul and the Psalmist are talking about different people.

Men DO seek out God. But according to you, NO MEN seek God - since you take the literal and universal definition of "all".

Of course some men seek God. They are the ones who have been blessed with the grace to do so. Paul wasn't talking about them. He was talking about those who are still under the sin nature. That must be so because it is clear that Paul himself believed that he sought after God, right? That is clear to me. However, there is no such obvious explanation for Romans 3:23. In fact, if you wanted to narrow it down, you could look at verse 24, and conclude that Paul was only talking about all SAVED people, since he references their justification. That is even worse for Mary!

[On Ez 18:24:] Keep dreaming. I suppose since you have "x" amount of faith, (as ALL Protestants claim) you can declare yourself saved.

My version of that verse is a little different from yours. Instead of "trespass", mine says "unfaithfulness". Obviously a truly righteous man cannot be in nature unfaithful, therefore, the man must be self-righteous, or, this man was never saved to begin with.

Why would the Spirit intercede if all is done? How is His intercession the execution of God's promises?

Some promises are executed and completed immediately, other promises cannot be completed until a certain amount of time has passed. This is the latter. Jesus promised that He would send His elect the Spirit to look out for us always. Therefore, if one believes in God's promises, then it is safe to believe that the Spirit will not cut and run sometime during the life of the elect, after salvation.

FK: "All of God's elect will ask for forgiveness via God's grace."

Yes, but your theology's fatal assumption is "only the elect ask for God's forgiveness". Thus, those who recite the Sinner's Prayer are of the elect. It doesn't follow that asking once for forgiveness makes one of the elect. Hasn't Scripture told us that people DO fall away?

You are adding something to my theology that I never said. I said that all of the elect will ask for forgiveness via God's grace. All others who ask for forgiveness will do so without God's grace and it won't "count". As I have said before, just saying the sinner's prayer DOES NOT transform one into a member of the elect. The elect were predestined. All of the elect will say some equivalent of the sinner's prayer (i.e. come to Christ).

So now you are saying that the Apostles, by their own power, raised the dead??

No, I'm saying that God raised the dead, and the Apostles were witnesses.

Brother, are you familiar with the Lord's Prayer? ...AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US...

Sin is not only against God, but it is a disruption of our relationship with other people. If I were to murder someone's wife, doesn't that somehow effect my relationship with that woman's family???

I don't think you are understanding my point at all. Of course the Lord's prayer says that if someone harms us, we are to forgive them. And if you murdered someone's wife, you would have also harmed that person's family. However, I, who did not know the woman or her family, could NOT forgive YOU because I have no standing, or authority to do so. That's the difference. You didn't harm me, so how can I forgive you. It is the same with priests. Yes, you claim authority for them, and I disagree. But, there is no way you can argue independent standing.

You believe that love is something that is forced upon someone else. I suppose rape is a good example of love in your eyes. "Sure, the woman felt good afterwards, you know it was for her own good".

Well, that's mighty sweet of you there, Joe. Thank you.

Verse 9 {of Romans} is clear that he is saying that Jews and Gentiles are alike in sin

Really? I thought Paul was directly quoting the Psalms! The Bibles that I have looked at ALL refer to the appropriate Psalm verses that he quoted. Seems interesting that what Paul says at the very end of Romans 2 is then contradicted by saying ALL men sin!!! WHY does Paul talk about a Law written on the hearts of Gentiles - who are OBEYING IT!!! Whew...I don't know what else to tell you.

Therefore, there is no contradiction, Paul and the Psalmist are talking about different people.

Right. That is why Paul DIRECTLY quotes them. Romans 3 is Paul's LONGEST series of quotes directly from the OT, but you would have Paul mean them to be unrelated to their context??? What hoops Protestants must jump through to maintain "all men are evil"...

Of course some men seek God. They are the ones who have been blessed with the grace to do so.

But aren't they men? Are not men who have been blessed with grace to follow God STILL considered men????

In fact, if you wanted to narrow it down, you could look at verse 24, and conclude that Paul was only talking about all SAVED people, since he references their justification. That is even worse for Mary!

OF COURSE Paul is talking about "saved" righteous people! But you said ALL MEN are evil!!! Paul is not talking about all men and their particular nature, but evil, wicked men who refuse to turn to God. Some men DO NOT refuse to turn to God. Some are pagans who have the Law of God written on their hearts, for God's sake!!! They are spiritually circumcised, and are Jews by faith!

My version of that verse is a little different from yours. Instead of "trespass", mine says "unfaithfulness".

My version was the KJV. I am betting yours is the NIV, which is not a literal translation, but a dynamic one. Be wary of dynamic translations, because the editor's interpretations are part of the Scriptures. You are no longer reading God's Word, but someone else's interpretation of what God is saying...

Obviously a truly righteous man cannot be in nature unfaithful, therefore, the man must be self-righteous, or, this man was never saved to begin with.

I don't see that in the Scriptures. You are reading your theology into it.

But that would be inconsistent to your theology. According to you, you are already saved. So what would the Spirit need to intercede for you for? You have made it clear that YOU think you can do nothing to lose your salvation!

I said that all of the elect will ask for forgiveness via God's grace. All others who ask for forgiveness will do so without God's grace and it won't "count".

LOL!!! Read that carefully. Those who ask for forgiveness of God WITHOUT God's grace????????? Does not the Bible and our conversations make it clear that men DO NOT SEEK OUT GOD WHO ARE EVIL OR WICKED??? ANYONE who seeks out God through repentance is drawn by God!!!! Men cannot come to God and repent without God. Now, you are telling me that men can repent to God by themselves? Make up your mind... This is a ridiculous theology. Come on.

All of the elect will say some equivalent of the sinner's prayer

Yes, but it doesn't follow that all who say the sinner's prayer will be ultimately saved for heaven. So how do you make the determination that you...Oh, forget it...

No, I'm saying that God raised the dead, and the Apostles were witnesses.

Funny, Scriptures mention Peter and Paul fulfilled a special role - more than just witnesses - during those actions. Seems that God's Power worked THROUGH those Apostles. They were more than just witnesses! Other people "witnessed" the miracle as well. Scripture gives Peter and Paul more credit than you.

It is the same with priests. Yes, you claim authority for them, and I disagree. But, there is no way you can argue independent standing.

I don't make any such claims. I am merely relating what the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth says - along with the Word of God. It says that Christ has given the Apostles the power to forgive or retain sins. Pretty clear. Priests have authority to forgive sins - AND they do so not only by the power of God, but as representatives of the community - which sin is against.

Well, that's mighty sweet of you there, Joe. Thank you. {regarding you equating rape to love}

Sorry, a bit over the top. But isn't that what forcing love upon someone else is?

Regards

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