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.

It will take some time to respond adequately, as you can imagine. I will limit myself to a couple of points for now.

First, we Orthodox see neo-Platonism primarily in the Trinitarian theology of St. Augustine. His work "On the Trinity," which lays the groundwork for the filioque, is seen as an attempt to express the Trinity in neo-Platonic terms.

Second, you write: "That negative theology is the cornerstone of Orthodoxy would seem to be non-controversial and that it originates from Greek philosophy."

It is hardly the cornerstone of Orthodox theology. As I mention in my other post, it is a way of talking about God -- specifically the characteristics of God.

The cornerstone of Orthodox theology is our understanding of Trinitarian and Christologic theology. Most of this is made up of positive statements based on the revealed truth of Scripture and the living revelation of the existence of the God-man Jesus Christ.

If you will examine most Western systematic theology (Orthodoxy doesn't even have the concept of systematic theology, rejecting the idea that revealed truth can be systematized), the characteristics of God come right up front. For us, they are afterthoughts and implications. Greek philosophy is hardly needed to engage in such afterthoughts, nor is it the source of any way of approaching them. In fact, the point at issue in the Palamite controversies (our emphatic rejection of Renaissance thought, which was grounded in pagan philosophy) is the fact that the point of our spiritual lives is not knowing *about* God (i.e. his characteristics), but in directly knowing God and participating in his life through grace (i.e. his energies). Again, this is all personal and direct, not abstract.

What is up front in our theology is the direct revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ: "he who has seen me has seen the Father."

How is it possible to say that it is impossible to know God positively when we have seen Jesus Christ? What do you think the iconoclastic controversy was about? We are so concerned about the particularity of the revelation of the Incarnation that we believe iconoclasm to be a subtle (and sometimes overt) denial of the fact that the God-man Jesus Christ walked the earth and that he will return again to earth in that same body. We portray him not as he was, but as he *is.*

I would specifically point out that Orthodoxy completely rejects the idea of an abstract unity, whether of "the One" or of God. What do you think the filioque controversy was all about? Orthodoxy sees the unity of the Trinity as being not some "God in general" or abstract "Godhead," but we see the unity of the Trinity as being based in a *person* that we can know, worship, love, and relate to: the Father. "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty..." The Father is unbegotten and does not proceed. The Son is begotten of the Father before all ages, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father (as Christ himself said.) Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equally without beginning, and equally God. The Father is the source of unity in the Trinity, and he is a person, not an abstract essence or Godhead.

We can know God only in a personal way -- through the persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The filioque eliminated the Father as the personal focus of unity in the Holy Trinity, and created an abstract Trinitarianism and a language about God that was abstract. We see its fruits all around us today in the West.

Look at Orthodox services -- how we worship. It is all personal -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You will be hard pressed to find a "God in general" -- let alone a "One," in any form at all, in the way we worship. And we repeatedly say and believe to the core of our being that what we pray *is* what we believe.

It is absolutely a misapprehension of what Orthodox Christians believe and practice to think that some sort of process of negation or abstraction is going on. It is precisely the characteristic abstraction of Western theology that started with St. Augustine that we find incompatible with Orthodox Christianity.

What *do* they teach in the schools these days? :-)

More later.

Do you really think that God will condemn people of good will to hell who never had a chance to know God like we do? Not exactly a just idea.

I don't see how the scriptures provide for salvation through Natural Law, good will, and good deeds. I didn't realize before that you were not saying that God graces His elect to come to Him. You were saying that everyone is graced sufficiently from birth. So if we are born with everything we need, then what would we need God for during our lives in terms of salvation?

Ephesians 2 [8,9] (nor Romans 3:28) does NOT require the word "alone". Paul is merely making the statement that works of the law are not part of the salvation formula.

I don't agree, but even if I did take your interpretation, I am already on the record as saying that a true faith includes love and perseverance. I don't believe there is any such thing as a true faith (vs. a claimed or blind faith) that is loveless.

The Scripture tells us over and over again that we will be judged based on our deeds. We understand, simultaneously, that we can do NOTHING WITHOUT God. Thus, when we are judged, we will be judged based on our utilization of the gifts that God has given us.

I think we disagree on the nature of this judgment. My guess is that you think it is for salvation, and I would say that it is for rewards in Heaven. Is that right? If our deeds earn us our salvation, then that obliterates much of scripture. Of course I also see "deeds" and "works" as the same thing. I find no scripture that distinguishes that works are only works for pay. I have never heard of a belief that one doing his job for money is a way to salvation. If no one believed that, then why does the Bible specifically deny it? OTOH, it was widely believed that by doing deeds or unpaid works in the Law, that one could be saved. That would be worthy of refutation.

I meant Psalm 14/Romans 3 vs. Psalm 119.

OK, I checked and there is a clear correlation between 14 and Rom. 3: 10-12. No problem.

Plainly, the Spirit guides us in other things than full understanding of every text in Scriptures. The simple fact is that the Spirit does NOT lead us in opposite directions. With that said, how can you identify which one is correct when the "Spirit" leads us both? Thus, Christ established a visible leadership with authority.

I agree the Spirit does other things for us, such as prayer. ... On your question, and just for myself, I think it is a matter of sanctification. The closer I grow to Christ, the less I misinterpret the Spirit's teachings. I thought that from your side, all scriptural teachings from the Spirit go through the Church, and then they inform you. One problem I have with that is that fallible men, no matter how much they are blessed, still misinterpret and sin.

Moses may be a good example. He was certainly especially blessed and yet he really blew it before reaching the promised land. He had a specific instruction from God that should not have been subject to misinterpretation. Yet, he struck the rock instead of speaking to it. Why? Was it misinterpretation or willful disobedience? I honestly don't know, but regardless he blew something that should have been simple. I see the Church as being subject, if even unintentionally, to the same thing. Such is the nature of fallible men. And, I don't think that multiplying the possibility of error solves anything. I don't think that a popular idea among fallible men makes it right.

Are you questioning my integrity? Do you think I get a "cut" for bringing people into the faith? What motive do I have for talking to you? You don't think that I believe that I have been given the truth?

No, I'm not questioning your integrity or your beliefs. I am saying that no one could come to the Catholic conclusion by only reading the Bible AND WITHOUT tradition to interpret it. Without tradition, no fair reading of the Bible would yield Catholic "results" (on many important issues). With a tradition to put the scripture under a (highly corrective) lens, of course since this has been worked on for some time, a person could see a consistent theology. Many obviously do.

Who else have we received teachings from then other than the Apostles?

I would say only God, through every other scribe of the Bible. But you would have to include Church Fathers, Councils, Popes, and maybe others.

The Bible is God's Word written by human writers in human language. Each author was inspired in a different way to write what God desired to write.

If we assume that God did not desire to have error placed in the Bible, what do you say to some on this thread who argue there is error in the OT?

... Thus, Paul has his intent on correcting lapsing Christians in Corinth, while God has deeper intentions as Paul writes his reply to the Corinthians. God doesn't have Paul on a set of strings with angels commanding him what to write!

...

FK: "Besides, if you open the Bible up to man's intent then you subjugate it to error."

Why? Why is it either/or? Why can't God work through men infallibly to produce Scripture?

Man's intent is always subject to corruption because we are fallible and still retain the remnant of sin even after salvation. If God overrode that in order to work infallibly, as I believe, then how free was Paul's will? I don't see how a man can use his free will to just "decide" to be perfect. I believe that what is in the Bible is exactly what God wanted, and that He took no chances on Paul sneaking in his own intention. Even when you say that God foresaw, either He is the luckiest God of all time to have everything work out as He wanted, OR, He ordained and caused it to be so, OR, He saw what man came up with and said OK.

You were saying that everyone is graced sufficiently from birth. So if we are born with everything we need, then what would we need God for during our lives in terms of salvation?

We are given sufficient grace in our lives, but the majority of people will not respond positively to this without the teachings of the Gospels or continued graces given by God. We need God in our lives constantly - and this is powerfully seen in the life of a Christian who is walking in the Spirit - as compared to the typical person outside of the Church (a non-Baptized person). "No one has an excuse", Paul says. He does mention that Gentiles can be considered "spiritually circumcised". Jesus Himself also talks about the judgment of the nations (which naturally would include Gentiles) in His parable on the sheep and the goats. THEIR judgment is based on deeds of love - which is an expression of that faith within them.

I don't agree (that the word "alone" is not required in Rom 3:28)

Which rule of English language requires the word "alone" to qualify an idea when only one thing is excluded from a statement? Again, you are reading what is not there for the sake of your theology.

I think we disagree on the nature of this judgment. My guess is that you think it is for salvation, and I would say that it is for rewards in Heaven. Is that right?

We've discussed this before. EVERY parable that Jesus speaks of regarding the Kingdom of Heaven talks about rewards to heaven OR damnation to exclusion of heaven. There is no "runner's up" or "second place" in judgment. Again, does Jesus mention this in His parables of the sheep and the goats? Or any other parable? Paul doesn't either. I am not sure where you get this Scripture idea that judgment determines what seat we will get at the table. I think we should explore this more...

If our deeds earn us our salvation, then that obliterates much of scripture.

I didn't say our deeds earn us salvation! Your jumping to conclusions. Nothing we do "earns" us salvation. However, we are judged based on our response to God's gifts. God's reward of heaven is based on a gift, not on our earning anything. HE rewards us based on our actions - but all is a gift. We cannot say "God, I did such and such, you OWE me heaven." Not even the most holy man can say that.

Of course I also see "deeds" and "works" as the same thing. I find no scripture that distinguishes that works are only works for pay.

Then you haven't read Romans very carefully. Paul over and over mentions this also in Galatians. Here is one clear example:

"Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt." Romans 4:4

Is this not clear enough? He who works expects payment, wages. Thus, it is no longer gift. Works of the law and deeds of love are often times the exact same action, but internalized completely differently. Wasn't Jesus clear on this in the Gospels? Didn't He over and over attack the Pharisees' ATTITUDES? He didn't attack fasting or their practices per sec, but their idea that they were earning salvation...

I have never heard of a belief that one doing his job for money is a way to salvation.

There are Catholics who think if they attend Mass every Sunday, they have earned salvation. Often in practice, people do nice things because they expect something in return. THIS is not love. It is working for "wages". It does not earn salvation, in God's eyes. We must act for the sake of the other, not for ourselves.

it was widely believed that by doing deeds or unpaid works in the Law, that one could be saved. That would be worthy of refutation.

Brother, we are still bound by the Law as epitomized by the Decalogue. God's covenant is irrevocable. We as Christians continue to obey the Ten Commandments. Thus, this is certainly not what Paul has in mind when he says we are saved by faith apart from works of the law. Only a few verses later, he tells us what he means by "works" - Romans 4:4 above... We MUST obey the commandments - summarized in Christ's new command - to love others as He loved us. But our inner attitude must be one of love, not for earning wages. Then, it no longer is a gift - but something God owes us. Paul over and over tells us that we can do NOTHING to earn payment from God

"For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him And it shall be repaid to him?" Rom 11:35 - Paul quoting Job.

OK, I checked and there is a clear correlation between 14 and Rom. 3: 10-12. No problem

Clearly. Paul is directly quoting it. When people quote things, they are quoting within that context! Thus, when Paul is quoting OT Scripture, he is calling to mind THAT context, not inventing a new doctrine! So when Paul quotes Psalm 14, among others, he is calling to mind for these obstinate Jews that THEIR ANCESTORS - JEWS - were the ones whom the Psalmster was speaking of. Again, I ask you to consider the breadth of the OT. Over and over, it is UNFAITHFUL JEWS who are blamed for bringing God's wrath down upon the people. Paul is addressing proud Jews by attacking their heritage. It wasn't Gentiles, but rather, Jews, who had been to blame for Israel's woes over the years! Thus, these Jews cannot boast about their "works" of the law.

The closer I grow to Christ, the less I misinterpret the Spirit's teachings. I thought that from your side, all scriptural teachings from the Spirit go through the Church, and then they inform you. One problem I have with that is that fallible men, no matter how much they are blessed, still misinterpret and sin.

Sanctification allows us to grow in knowledge of Christ, but that is not intellectual knowledge. It is spiritual, experiential knowledge. By becoming more holy, we won't necessarily ascertain whether Calvinism or Catholicism's stance on free will is correct! Or the efficaciousness of Baptism! Doctrines of the faith are not taught to the individuals of the Church. I know a number of people I would consider holy, but know only some of the doctrines of faith. I know a lot about the doctrines through study, but I don't consider myself holy. Holiness doesn't necessarily follow from being book smart or knowledgeable about doctrines.

You are focused on man. God has worked through man infallibly over and over again. We see this in the formation of Scripture. Why can't God continue to work through men whom He has promised would be the pillar and foundation of the truth? Why can't the Holy Spirit allow us to KNOW the fullness of the Truth through other men whom have been verified by the community and the Scriptures?

You are confusing infalliblity with being sinless. Moses was an infallible teacher. Moses was not sinless. Did any Jew consider Moses as a fallible teacher? Check the Gospels. Sure, they knew he had sinned by striking the rock again. But they were confident that God spoke through Moses in an infallible manner. We Catholics think the same about our Bishops united in Ecumenical Council. Individually, they sin. But when they teach in union with the Pope, they teach infallibly, guarded by the Spirit. Without an infallible teacher, we humans will NEVER know the truth. Can an argument between two Protestants ever be satisfactorily resolved when both see their points of views in Scriptures? It takes the Church to determine which is correct.

No, I'm not questioning your integrity or your beliefs. I am saying that no one could come to the Catholic conclusion by only reading the Bible AND WITHOUT tradition to interpret it.

Ditto. Your own tradition has led you to believe that ONLY the Bible can be the source of faith - although that is NOT IN THE BIBLE. Thus, it comes from Protestant TRADITION. Would it be fair to say you are being hypocritical? EVERYONE approaches the Bible with something, traditions, opinions, prior teachings, etc. People use these to form their paradigm, the lense they read Scripture through. Yes, even Protestants are subject to their own tradition. The difference between Catholic and Protestant tradition is that Catholic tradition that is infallible is Apostolic, which comes from the same source as the Bible itself. It helps us to interpret Scriptures correctly - as I have previously shown by exercise through one simple sentence.

I wrote "Who else have we received teachings from then other than the Apostles?

You responded "I would say only God..."

So tell me how do you know they are from God without someone telling you that? How do you know that EVERY writing in the Bible is from God? How do you know that some didn't get left out? Only the Church can witness to the Bible's source and completeness.

If we assume that God did not desire to have error placed in the Bible, what do you say to some on this thread who argue there is error in the OT?

There are different schools of thought on this. Some believe that the Bible is inerrant in only matters pertaining to salvation. Thus, historical or scientific errors don't matter. The Catholic Church doesn't teach that. She teaches that God's revelation is inerrant. It is our understanding of it that is subject to error. For example, the creation of the world. Many take this as literal and scientific. God's revelation was not meant to tell us the science of creation, but the "why" of creation using stories (which doesn't mean it is false). Thus, the Word is inerrant in that God has presented what HE desired to say. It is people who interpret it incorrectly who are wrong.

God "foresees" everything we do. Thus, He is able to plan accordingly without destroying our free will. He has revealed to us, through human language and genre, what He desired to reveal. What He has revealed is what He wanted revealed. And all the while, Paul wrote the way he wanted to say to the Corinthians. We don't see angels moving Paul's pen (or moving his lips) to form words! But we do see God working in a special way, "inspiration". The Spirit must have been particular strong in inspiring Paul how to respond to the Corinthians.

I don't see how a man can use his free will to just "decide" to be perfect.

Me neither. But God doesn't require man to be perfect to enter the Kingdom. All those righteous people in the OT. Were ANY of them perfect or without sin??? Yet, they walked in faith, trusting in the Lord and following His will through obedience to the Law.

I believe that what is in the Bible is exactly what God wanted, and that He took no chances on Paul sneaking in his own intention.

God didn't have to "take chances", because God operates outside of time! He "foresaw" what Paul would write and provided the necessary impetus and direction for Paul, in using his own words, would say what God wanted said. This does not destroy Paul's free will - it enhances it - in that God said what He wanted to, even through the damaged vessel of Paul.

Even when you say that God foresaw, either He is the luckiest God of all time to have everything work out as He wanted, OR, He ordained and caused it to be so, OR, He saw what man came up with and said OK.

Forget about luck. But there is truth to all of the rest of what you said. God is a truly magnificent God. He brings out His will, despite our own will (which means we sometimes sin). Thus, God's will is done, and we remain free.

Regards

Ah, yes...Paul mentions something about that fleshy self in Romans 7!

LOL!!! I was going to use that but I didn't want to foster this dispensational misinterpretation of scripture.

As far as the Council of Orange...

1) Original Sin – Something the Orthodox do not agree with and the Catholics have moved away from. The Council felt original sin was a fact and not to believe it was a contradiction to the Apostle.

Council of Orange CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).

2) The Council of Orange felt that it was God’s grace that makes us pray to Him even though we do not seek him. (Remember Jonah. It was God that made him pray to Him and repent.)

Council of Orange CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

3) The Council felt God did not await our will but He prepared our will. Contrast this with what the Council of Trent stated that it is our will to decide. This is the heart of the Augustine/Pelagius(Arminian) controversy. It also reminds me of our Jonah discussions:

Council of Orange CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

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).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

Council of Trent CANON IV. If any one shall affirm, that man’s freewill, moved and excited by God, does not, by consenting, cooperate with God, the mover and exciter, so as to prepare and dispose itself for the attainment of justification; if moreover, anyone shall say, that the human will cannot refuse complying, if it pleases, but that it is inactive, and merely passive; let such an one be accursed"!

CANON V.- If anyone shall affirm, that since the fall of Adam, man’s freewill is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing titular, yea a name, without a thing, and a fiction introduced by Satan into the Church; let such an one be accursed"!

I will agree the Council of Orange was not perfect in their declarations for they never took their reasoning to it’s logical conclusion; that God ordains the lives of men-the very heart of predestination. But they were on the right tract. Augustine understood it.

Trent contradicted Orange and in some cases completely altered the believes of Orange. Today when Catholics point back they point to Trent, not Orange. And Trent is more to the liking of the Orthodox simply because it is in line with their beliefs-not Orange. That should speak volumes.

It never ceases to amaze me when contrasting these two points of views to see the Council of Orange using scripture to support their statements and the Council of Trent using none. Undoubtedly, as many other Catholics have told me, you’ll find nothing out wack here.

As far as your veiw of Maccabee, I do not consider it to be inspired and neither did a large majority of early fathers or the Jews. Protestants always feel that questionable verses need to be supported with other verses from other parts of scriptures before setting doctrine. If you could provide me with other references I would consider them. However, they don’t exist.

What I want to know is what any of this has to do with whether we should take the words of modern scholars over the words of Christ and the Apostles on whether the Patriarchs, Moses, David, and Solomon were real people who did the things the Bible says about them

Why didn't you ask if I believe Job was a real person too? It makes no difference, Agrarian. To me it makes no difference. I really don't care if the Bible has historical or geographical or astronomical, or botanical accuracy. I don't use and see the Bible as an Encyclopedia Judaica, from which I can reliably find out whence came the dinasaurs, the Triffid Nebula, or Hansen's disease [I see you didn't skip school that day :) ].

What matters to me, is whether it is spiritually infallible, and I believe it is. It is the message in each verse, in each chapter, and in each book that is important. What's the message? is what I ask myself. What's God telling me?

That's why I threw in the galaxies — God's Creation speaks for itself that everything is possible with God. That's why science cannot diminish God, or throw doubt into His word. It's not whether everyting is possible with God that is at stake, but human interpretation of what happens or how it happens.

Today we know that the earth is not flat and does not have four corners. Does that change anything as far as God's truth is concerned? Does the fact that ancient Hebrews could not distiniguish that bats are not fowl make Bible unreliable? Perhaps as a source of zoology, but that's not what the Bible is for, as I mentioned earlier.

So, what would happen if the Israeli scientists were right? If the writers of the Bible used not just metaphors but persons who did not exist in order to narrate a story that carried a spiritual message? What if Job really did not exist? Does that change what the book of Job has to say? What if Adam and Eve are only proverbial parents of ours and not real, historical ones? Does that change the message of their transgression, does it make us any less fallen? Can we not relate to everything that is in the Bible and see ourselves in it? It reaches into our very being, as we are, what we know, feel, believe, see, think, do. Is that not what really matters?

You talk about hesychastic Fathers. They don't reference the Scripture to prove historical facts, but to show spiritual truth that's in it. Faith, after all, is a personal experience — as you aptly say to qua. It is an entirely personal relaitonship with God that no one else can share, prove or disprove. It is, as +Gregory Nazianzen says, "that which completes our argument."

I certainly agree that the spiritual meaning of Scripture is the most important thing. There is no way to prove one way or another whether Job was a real person, so I see no point in believing that he was not. If you find it helpful to believe that he wasn't, I have no problem with that.

But taken to its logical conclusions, your statement has some disturbing conclusions:

"So, what would happen if the Israeli scientists were right? If the writers of the Bible used not just metaphors but persons who did not exist in order to narrate a story that carried a spiritual message?"

There is a very big problem with this idea that the entire Bible can be taken as metaphors and stories used to convey some sort of meaning.

The defenders of the Holy Icons against the iconoclasts were making one very real and important point. Jesus Christ was truly God and truly man. He was a real person who walked the earth and revealed, in his person, God to us. We could and can see God, because Jesus Christ is God. Jesus Christ is not a metaphor, so we not only can, but must have icons of him to remind us of the fact that he was seen and touched and heard.

The Gospels make it clear that Christ was descended from the Patriarchs and from David. They take care to establish that he was a real man with a real mother and a real "adoptive father" (Joseph the Betrothed, supposed by those around to be his father), who had real geneologies.

If Christ descended from metaphors, perhaps he is a metaphor, too? A spiritual truth, but not a real person? If, when he talks of all of these Old Testament fathers, they are really metaphors and made-up stories, then why are not all of the stories about Christ himself metaphors and made-up stories intended to convey some sort of spiritual truth.

And perhaps all of the injunctions of St. Paul are metaphors, and stories intended to convey meaning. Maybe he really didn't mean for only men to be priests and bishops, maybe he was talking metaphorically about women covering their heads. Maybe he was just trying to convey some general spiritual meaning in his injunctions against homosexuality and other moral perversions.

Maybe the prophesied return of Christ is metaphorical, maybe he won't return in the flesh. Maybe the resurrection from the dead was a metaphor, and our own resurrection someday won't really happen -- it's just a made up story to convey some sort of spiritual meaning.

For if there are some things that science is pretty certain about: virgins don't spontaneously give birth, corpses don't rise from the dead and pass through stone walls (for the stone was rolled away only to demonstrate that he was gone.)

No. While it is true that the Bible is by no means a scientific encyclopedia (nor do I see the Fathers using it as such), the Fathers seem nearly always to take the plain meaning of Scripture at face value.

Regarding Orange 2

Original sin. Catholics are moving away from it? Perhaps an individual might be, but the Church's teachings have not changed from Orange/Trent in this.

#402 "All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Romans 5:12,19). The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to the acquitall for all men" (Romans 5:18)

#404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man" (St. Thomas Aquinas). By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Adam's justice. Still the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin that will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature DEPRIVED of ORIGINAL holiness and justice (emphasis added). And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - it is a state and not an act.

#405 ...Original sin ...is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignornance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin...

#406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the 5th century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine...and in the 16th century in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, BY NATURAL POWER of free will AND WITHOUT THE NECESSARY HELP OF GOD'S GRACE, led a morally good life (emphasis added); Pelagius thus reduced Adam's fault to a bad example. The First Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil, which would be insurmountable.

As can be seen, the Church teaches the same thing regarding original sin at Orange, as it did at Trent, as it does today. While some private opinions of dissent or ignorance may surface, these are not the voice of the official Church stance.

Regarding Canon 3. I have never made the statement that we pray WITHOUT God's grace. WE pray - with the gifts that God has given us. Nothing is of our OWN. WE give back what God has given us. This is clear in the above #406.

Trent does not go against what was said at Orange. It argues vs. the Reformers that man DOES have free will, as the Church has ALWAYS said. Trent also says that God prepares this will.

#2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace...God brings to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it" (St. Augustine). "Indeed, we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and folluws us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God; for without him we can do nothing" (St. Augustine)

#2002 God's free initiative demands man's free response, for God has created man in His image by conferring upon him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy.

When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight (Council of Trent, DS 1525)

As can be seen, same teaching.

Council of Trent CANON IV. If any one shall affirm, that man’s freewill, moved and excited by God, does not, by consenting, cooperate with God, the mover and exciter, so as to prepare and dispose itself for the attainment of justification; if moreover, anyone shall say, that the human will cannot refuse complying, if it pleases, but that it is inactive, and merely passive; let such an one be accursed"!

This canon is against the reformers who were claiming man had NO free will. Clearly, this perversion is the opposite of what was ADDRESSED at Orange, which dealt with the opposite - ALL man's free will. Again, the heresy is the "either/or" - either God does it all or man does it all. Orange and Trent proclaim both work together, as does the Catechism. See the above quote from Trent.

Free will does not do away with God's sovereignty. That is your interpretation, which is faulty. Even St. Augustine disagrees with that concept. And most certainly, no other Church Father taught that man has no free will. This is an innovation from Protestantism.

Trent contradicted Orange and in some cases completely altered the believes of Orange.

I don't see it. You keep reading the Council of Orange as if it says "man has no free will". It doesn't say that. It says that "man's will WITHOUT God" is heresy. You interpret this by saying "man's will PERIOD" is heresy. Thus, when the Church faces the other extreme with the Reformation, she must defend that man DOES have free will without giving up the position laid out at Orange. The two positions agree as two sides of the same coin.

It never ceases to amaze me when contrasting these two points of views to see the Council of Orange using scripture to support their statements and the Council of Trent using none.

It never ceases to amaze you? It amazes me you could say that. Councils are not about proof texting, but clarifying the Catholic Tradition that has been passed down through the ages.

As far as your veiw of Maccabee, I do not consider it to be inspired and neither did a large majority of early fathers or the Jews

Majority? LOL! I did a pretty thorough study on that and you are wrong. But that is not why I mention the Maccabees. It is part of our Christian heritage - and I merely noted that Catholics regard the BOTH of the question of God and man's interaction to do a good deed. You only look at one point of view.

Protestants always feel that questionable verses need to be supported with other verses from other parts of scriptures before setting doctrine.

I am aware of this man-made tradition and still do not understand it. It wouldn't make a bit of difference if there were a dozen verses that spoke of Purgatory in the NT - as my experience with you regarding something so simple as free will has demonstrated. Thus, proof-texting is a waste of time. When one holds a particular paradigm, they will conveniently ignore certain verses that overturn their views on "man has no free will" - despite verses that claim the opposite.

Want an example? "Faith without works is dead". Protestants then turn around with and look you in the eye and say "we are saved by faith alone"!!! That's where proof texting takes you.

Only by following the Church's interpretation of Scriptures can we know what Scripture actually means in its entirety.

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.