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

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

[HarleyD]

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erasmus On the Freedom of the Will

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luther's Arguments Against Erasmus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Battle of the Biblical Texts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Main Issues and Implications of Each View

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Importance of This Controversy Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

[annalex]

great commentaries of the Orthodox Church--if I could find them.

Look for those onion-shaped golden domes and inquire inside.

[jo kus]

Jesus was God's full revelation to man

OK, we have some common ground...

but like what happened to Israel, the simple revelation of salvation in Jesus was so obscured by man's institutional interpolations and accretions over the centuries that when the veil was once again removed and the simple message of "the just shall live by faith" was again seen and heard

Frankly, the comparison is night and day... Can you explain to me WHO EXACTLY understood the Suffering Servant prophesies as being applied to the Christ BEFORE the Resurrection??? Can the Apostles be blamed for not understanding Jesus' teachings that "I must first suffer before I am glorified"? You make it sound like the Jews should have KNOWN better that the Christ would suffer and die! It is an obscure link that is solidified only AFTER the Resurrection event.

Secondly, can you find me ANY warrant in Scripture that gives part of the faith community to break off and form their own, separate community with different beliefs? Paul said we are ONE FAITH, not many different opinions. WE eat the same loaf - not many Christs. From Moses' time all the way to Paul and John, there have been disillusioned and proud men who thought they could "know" God's Word better than the community. This idea is thoroughly refuted by Scriptures. In 1 Corinthians 3, Paul even says that God will destroy those who destroy the Temple of God - through their continued destruction of unity of the community. Sorry, there is NO Scriptural warrant or precedent for the actions of the men of the Reformation. What is worse - those who started this heinous act, or those who continue in it, knowing full well they are separated from the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church?

the wild fire of the Holy Spirit freed man from the shackles of second hand ignorance and opened the scriptures to the most humble cobbler to read and understand by the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

In most cases, this is a self-induced fantasy. Men, again, have a tendency to think quite highly of their opinions. It should be quite obvious that the Spirit does not define doctrine to individuals, but to the community as a whole. Otherwise, those many men who claim to be "led by the Spirit" are full of it, since the Spirit of Truth does not lead men in different directions on different doctrinal issues. The very essence of Protestantism is its diffuse number of beliefs based on the opinions of the individual who "think" they are independently being "led" by something.

Regards

[Kolokotronis]

"No, I think the "new thing" was more like what happened with Galileo."

LOL!

[jo kus]

Augustine states very clearly that: "...God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills whithersoever He wills..."

Well, "incline" does NOT mean "force" or "make necessary"! I think we agree that man's free will remains intact - even WITH this "inclination" upon man.

What is "born again" is our spirit-our will so to speak. It's DEAD. It must be reborn.

We are not "born again". We are "born from above". We are given something we never had - God's Spirit "inclining" us to do His will. Thus, I disagree with "reborn". But we are not by necessity forced to do anything.

Augustine stated: "...because God foreknew by predestination those things which He was about to do, whence it was said, "He made those things that shall be." [Isa. 46.11.] I agree with this. Do you?

I believe in predestination of the elect, as does the Catholic Church. HOW EXACTLY God does it, my opinion is my guide, as the Church has not ruled definitively on this issue. I would say, strictly speaking, that God does not foreknow what HE does, since He does not exist in time. All is one eternal now. Thus, there is no past or future, only a present. God foreknows what happens in time and how He effects it. I, as St. Augustine, do not believe that foreknowledge = ordaining or necessitating anything on God's part. If so, you take away GOD'S FREEDOM! Think about it! If God foresees something, does this necessitate that HE act in a certain way? Does God lose His freedom, too? Is God subject to some sort of higher power, some "foreknowledge" that we might call "fate"?

No one is saying that. We are saying that you MUST have God's help. God gives us our faith. This is what grace is about. The problem everyone seems to have is that God doesn't give His grace to everyone. This seems totally unfair in our PC world yet that is the way it is. That is what God's grace is about. We should all be cast into the fire.

No one is saying that man is totally corrupt? According to the quotes, it seems that man cannot do any morally good deed without God's grace. Apparently, these men haven't read the Gospel accounts and looked at the Pharisees... These faithless men were certainly able to "obey" the Commandments and do other morally good deeds. Where your Reformed quotes go wrong is assuming that ALL deeds done by an unregenerated man are sinful. This is hyperbole and ridiculous. An atheist who helps a motorist by the side of the road is NOT sinning! But please don't think I am saying that such actions will get said atheist into heaven! Paul is VERY clear that works do not save. It is faith in Christ, proper faith - as defined by John's Gospel - that saves men. Clearly, in any given moral situation, man is free to even choose the good option. But our propensity to sin will far outweigh any good actions we might have done. Thus, we will remain unsaved - in God's eyes. It is only faith working in love that will save us, not faithless works (or faith without love)

I agree that we utterly rely on God's HELP. God gives us faith. I disagree with St. Augustine's attempt to do away with God's universal salvific will. There are a large number of Fathers who hold to God's will that all be saved. I am not saying that God gives all men EQUAL grace! But there are enough Church Fathers and Church writings to show that the Spirit has guided the Church to declare that ALL men are given SUFFICIENT grace to be saved. Whether this become efficacious or not, and how it become efficacious, is again, undetermined definitively. Is it God? Is it man? Perhaps a combination? We just don't know - I am sorry if you dislike that answer in this day and age of the placing on a pedestal man's reason and rational thought.

We're all wicked and headed for hell.

Not at all. Those predestined as the elect were NEVER "headed" to hell! Have you so soon forgotten all you have defended above?

You just find it offensive that God doesn't rescue everyone.

Not at all! Man has free will. God is righteous when He judges man for perdition, despite the gifts of grace He gave that man throughout his life. St. Augustine, again, tells us that God's creation is more perfect with graduated creatures that exist. Perhaps a bit neo-Platonic, but it makes sense that some will choose God and some will not.

If He wanted to save everyone, He would save everyone.

That logic is like saying "God gave the commandments to man so that all men would obey them. It is God's will that all men would obey them. If all men don't obey them, then God is not all powerful." It should be apparent that God has two opposing desires that cannot both be fulfilled completely. This doesn't mean God is any less powerful. It means that the argument is not logically possible. Can God make a rock that He can't pick up?

If Adam's sin effected ALL men, then the Second Adam's redemption effects ALL men. God gives EVERYONE the opportunity to be saved, as His will states in Scriptures. That God has created a greater thing with a free will necessitates that some will choose to not abide in God's will. It is ALSO God's will that man have free will - just as the angels did at one timel. God allows His Will to be subverted by individuals for a greater good - to maintain His perfectly graduated and beautiful creation while maintaining the dignity of His beloved creation.

regards

[jo kus]

The Pharisees used the exact same reasoning with Christ.

When did Christ advocate a separate church outside of the Jewish faith? The Gospels appear clear that Jesus came to reform and provide corrective to Judaism, not to overthrow it. He came to FULFILL Judaism. By pointing to the Old Testament prophesies and His own miracles, many people came to understand Him and have faith that He was God's messenger and knew God in a special way, unique from anything else.

Does any reformer claim this pedigree? Where does the reformer point to, perhaps in the New Testament, that says something to the effect that the Church would be in need of disdaining and moving on to another one? What does Paul say about dissension? John? Jesus Himself in Revelation? Perhaps if Luther or Calvin could have given proof of divine intervention to back up their teachings, there might be something worthwhile to look at. But the fact of the matter is that they are ordinary men who read the Scriptures to their own destruction - as Peter prophesized. The reformers are the exact people Paul warned us about who preach a different gospel. The Church even used the same word - anathema - to refer to those men, just as Paul did to those men who allowed false teachings to tickle their ears in his day.

It is ludicrous to compare Luther and Calvin to Jesus Christ. They are much closer in kin to Mohemmed, those who claim to know God's Word, but can't back it up and refer to political power to spread their religion.

The Reformed faith isn't a different faith.

The reformed faith is most certainly a different faith than the first Christians... For example, where and when do you partake in the Body and Blood of Christ? Seems the Church has done it from the first century and continues to today in the apostolic Churches throughout the world. Where does the Early Church talk about Sola Scriptura? Or Sola Fide? Please. The reformed faith is NOT the faith of the early Church. You really think Moses would be proud of the reformers? Go read Numbers 16...

It is faith in the promises of the Father and the objective work of the Son and the internal work of the Holy Spirit and not the external forms of magical incantations.

I am not familiar with magical incantations. Which religion are you talking about?

Regards

[Dr. Eckleburg]

As John Calvin said, any one who claims that God creates evil is a fanatic.

Your Alexandrian roots are showing.

And your disingenuous misreading of Calvin does our discussion no favor. To understand a man or a faith it's a good idea to read more than one sentence plucked from hundreds of thousands of sentences and twist it to conform to your misconceptions.

The Reformed are in agreement that God is not the "author of sin," because God cannot sin, yet God is the First Cause of all things. As blue-duncan said earlier, he has no difficulty accepting this. That is because God gives eyes to see and ears to hear at His discretion.

Per the Westminster Confession, Chapter V (Of Providence)

I. God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.

II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

III. God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure.

IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.

V. The most wise, righteous, and gracious God does oftentimes leave, for a season, His own children to manifold temptations, and the corruption of their own hearts, to chastise them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled; and, to raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support upon Himself, and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for sundry other just and holy ends.

VI. As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as a righteous Judge, for former sins, does blind and harden, from them He not only withholds His grace whereby they might have been enlightened in their understandings, and wrought upon in their hearts; but sometimes also withdraws the gifts which they had, and exposes them to such objects as their corruption makes occasion of sin; and, withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan, whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God uses for the softening of others.

VII. As the providence of God does, in general, reach to all creatures; so, after a most special manner, it takes care of His Church, and disposes all things to the good thereof.

From the Belgic Confession -- Article 13: The Doctrine of God's Providence

We believe that this good God, after he created all things, did not abandon them to chance or fortune but leads and governs them according to his holy will, in such a way that nothing happens in this world without his orderly arrangement.

Yet God is not the author of, nor can he be charged with, the sin that occurs. For his power and goodness are so great and incomprehensible that he arranges and does his work very well and justly even when the devils and wicked men act unjustly.

We do not wish to inquire with undue curiosity into what he does that surpasses human understanding and is beyond our ability to comprehend. But in all humility and reverence we adore the just judgments of God, which are hidden from us, being content to be Christ's disciples, so as to learn only what he shows us in his Word, without going beyond those limits.

This doctrine gives us unspeakable comfort since it teaches us that nothing can happen to us by chance but only by the arrangement of our gracious heavenly Father. He watches over us with fatherly care, keeping all creatures under his control, so that not one of the hairs on our heads (for they are all numbered) nor even a little bird can fall to the ground without the will of our Father.

In this thought we rest, knowing that he holds in check the devils and all our enemies, who cannot hurt us without his permission and will.

For that reason we reject the damnable error of the Epicureans, who say that God involves himself in nothing and leaves everything to chance.

And again I'll direct you to an excellent essay by John Murray...

CALVIN ON THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

"This insistence upon the ever-present and ever-active will of God in each particular movement obviously rules out the notion of bare permission. But Calvin takes pains to reflect on this subterfuge. It is particularly in connection with the sinful acts of Satan and of wicked men that the postulate of bare permission appears to offer escape from the allegation that the presence of the will and agency of God would be inconsistent with the responsibility and guilt which devolve upon the perpetrators of iniquity. In Calvin's esteem, this resort to the idea of permission is only to evade the difficulty. For "that men can effect nothing but by the secret will of God nor can they be exercised in deliberating anything but what he has previously with himself decreed and determines by his secret direction is proved by innumerable and express testimonies." "Whatever is attempted by men, or by Satan himself, God still holds the helm in order to turn all their attempts to the execution of his judgments." So it is nugatory and insipid to substitute for the providence of God a bare permission. The very "conceptions we form in our minds are directed by the secret inspiration of God to the end which he has designed" (arcana Dei inspiratione ad suum finem dirigi).

It is obvious what questions arise in connection with this doctrine. And Calvin was well aware of the objections and faced up squarely to their apparent validity. There is, first of all, the question of authorship. Is not God, therefore, the author of the crimes which the instruments of iniquity conceive and perpetrate? At certain points Calvin does speak of God as author and cause. According to Scripture God "himself is said to give men over to a reprobate mind and cast them into vile lusts, because he is the principal author (praecipuus autor) of his own righteous vengeance, and Satan is only the minister of it." Again he says: "And I have already sufficiently shown that God is called the author (autor) of all these things which these censors wish to happen merely by his idle permission."

There are, however, certain qualifications which must be appreciated if we are to assess these statements correctly. Calvin is equally emphatic to the effect that God is not the author of sin...

I've asked you several times and I'll ask you again. Did God create everything in existence or not?

Did God create resentment, anger, avarice, pettiness, anxiety, panic, dirt, error?

Did God create Satan?

It must be a fearful life indeed to believe there is something that God did not create and over which He has no control.

"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur" -- Acts 4:27-28.

And thus, I find your arguments to be "nugatory."

[blue-duncan]

"yet God is the First Cause of all things"

This includes the "laws of effects/consequences". When a person exercizes her (I use "her" since we are talking about original sin) free will according to her inclinations the consequences occur according to the laws formed by God. That's why all men sin and come short of the glory of God. They are acting according to their natural inclinations and the consequences are sin and death.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Sin is not a disease to be healed, except by analogy, it is a spiritual condition that breaks fellowship with the Author of life, subjects the unbeliever to the wrath of the Holy God and only the sacrifice of His sinless Son expiates that wrath and covers the believing penitent with the righteousness of the Son.

Amen. Without that understanding, the entire point of Christ's atonement is obscured.

"Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." -- 1 John 4:10

[kosta50]

As far as Job's perfection in Job 1:1 is concerned Job was perfect, complete, in the sense that he had trusted God for his salvation and for the salvation of his family

Perfect or blameless is what it means -- there is no "but" in them, lest perfect is not perfect. Rationalization is devising self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for anything, and that is what your sentence above is. You are making it up. You are "interpreting" the Scripture, with guidance, for sure. You are making up excuses for an apparent inconsistency; you are devising "explanations" for something that is self-evident: that perfection is just that, nothing less and nothing more.

As for your interpretation that we are already "dead" in sin perhaps you wish to ponder what dying in sin means. Certainly, we cannot die in sin if we are already dead in sin! The Scripture is clear that we must die into our own sinfulness in order to be saved. That is a very different concept than just being dead.

[HarleyD]

We are not "born again". We are "born from above".

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope…” 1 Pet 1:3

“for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.” 1 Pet 1:23

HOW EXACTLY God does it, my opinion is my guide, as the Church has not ruled definitively on this issue…. If so, you take away GOD'S FREEDOM! Think about it! Does God lose His freedom, too?

I have thought about it. I don’t need to wait for a Church to rule on the matter.

BTW-Why would God lose His “freedom”? God is perfect. There is only one perfect and best outcome. God makes one decision-the perfect decision. God doesn’t sit around trying to decide whether to paint the evening sky red or blue.

”…it seems that man cannot do any morally good deed without God's grace. Apparently, these men haven't read the Gospel accounts and looked at the Pharisees…Where your Reformed quotes go wrong is assuming that ALL deeds done by an unregenerated man are sinful.”

Not all deeds are sinful. Our Lord Jesus stated ”If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children…” (Matt 7:11). Evil (unregenerate) people can, and will, do “good” things for others. It’s just that unregenerate man will NEVER please God. Hebrews states: “And without faith it is impossible to please Him …’ Heb 11:6. Unregenerate people cannot do anything pleasing to God. You can only please God through faith and God is the Giver of faith.

You assume that man has a spark of “goodness” in him. Query on evil and see how many times it refers to man.

I disagree with St. Augustine's attempt to do away with God's universal salvific will.

And here is the rub in this whole mess. The only way you can disagree with Augustine’s universal salvific will is by disagreeing with God as being the instrument of moving the will. This is the heart of grace and the failing of Pelagius. Please note that Augustine is backing his claim with scripture.

Sure there were a bunch of Church fathers who took the counter view. But there were just as many who sided with Augustine. The Church maintained these dual theologies for many centuries. They canonized Augustine’s views, for the most part, in the Council of Orange. The Orthodox doesn’t have this problem simply because they don’t believe Augustine’s writings or the Council of Orange. Only at Trent was Augustine view done away with completely. The Catholic Church is schizophrenic because they say the hold to Augustine’s writings and then promptly say they disagree with it as you have done. What they really hold is the Orthodox position. They just don’t understand that.

”Those predestined as the elect were NEVER "headed" to hell!

You’re right; we were predestined before the foundation of the world for salvation by God who is rich in His mercies. The Book of Life has been written. I was thinking in the more generic sense as we who are believers were, by nature, children of wrath (Eph 2:3) but God saved us. Technically, I'm incorrect.

St. Augustine, … tells us… it makes sense that some will choose God and some will not.

And Augustine says that this is the Pelagius error to think that man chooses God and states in Grace and Free Will he wants nothing to do with it. In fact it was this very view that he recalled all of his previous works. You do Augustine a disservice to put words in his month that he clearly rejects in his teachings.

That logic is like saying "God gave the commandments to man so that all men would obey them. It is God's will that all men would obey them.

Wrong. Perfect man, Adam, was given only ONE commandment and he couldn’t even keep that. The law only serves to destroy because it shows us how we fall short of God’s glory. God wants us to recognize His grace and mercy to us because through this God is glorified. It is through faith we are saved and this faith is a gift from God. Adam had to have faith just as everyone of us. (Please see notes on faith above.)

God gives EVERYONE the opportunity to be saved

God in His scriptures plainly records that He does not give all people the opportunity to be saved. He appeared to Abraham-not his brothers. He appeared to Paul-not the soldiers who were with him. He opened up the heart of Lydia-not Myrtle sitting next to her. I would suggest you rethink your paradigm.

[gbcdoj]

Harley,

Although I've searched for this passage and can't find it.

English: NewAdvent: look right above "CHAP. II [VI.]--THAT SOME MEN ARE ELECTED IS OF GOD'S MERCY."

Latin: www.augustinus.it: "quisquis audet dicere: Habeo ex me ipso fidem, non ergo accepi, profecto contradicit huic apertissimae veritati: non quia credere vel non credere non est in arbitrio voluntatis humanae, sed in electis praeparatur voluntas a Domino."

Now, you've quoted extensively from Augustine, but I'm not sure where you find there that it's untrue that "man somehow makes a choice to choose God or reject God," the statement that you said he was against.

The Pelagian, according to the paragraph you place in red, believes that God elected by foreknowledge those "who would be holy and immaculate by the choice of free will," i.e., predestination works like this: God predestines those who would have made themselves just without his predestination. Now Augustine's whole point in the Treatise on Predestination is that this isn't how predestination works: as I quoted in #4769, he says "the ordering of His future works in His foreknowledge, which cannot be deceived and changed, is absolute, and is nothing but, predestination," and argues so about the gifts of God: "if they are both given, and He foreknew that He would give them, certainly He predestinated them." What he's saying is that God predestines by determining to give to a certain man a certain gift, for instance, faith. This infallible determination to give a gift and foreknowledge of his giving is predestination. Therefore, the Pelagians are wrong when they gloss election and predestination simply as God knowing that certain persons will merit eternal life by their own virtue, and the Semi-Pelagians are wrong when they affirm the same simply about faith and not about the other gifts of grace. Even faith itself is a gift from God, who prepares the will of the elect to accept it freely: the man who claims that his faith is solely from himself and not received from God is wrong, "not because it is not in the choice of man's will to believe or not to believe, but because in the elect the will is prepared by the Lord."

The Pelagians are wrong (Augustine is arguing) not because they affirm that belief or disbelief is a free decision within the power of the will of man, but because they deny that faith is always an unmerited gift from God that, moreover, is accepted only by the elect in whom "the will is prepared by the Lord": thus he corrects his unfinished commentary on Romans in this manner: "And what I next subjoined ... I certainly could not have said, had I already known that faith itself also is found among those gifts of God which are given by the same Spirit. Both, therefore, are ours on account of the choice of the will, and yet both are given by the spirit of faith and love ... what I said a little after, 'For it is ours to believe and to will, but it is His to give to those who believe and will, the power of doing good works through the Holy Spirit, by whom love is shed abroad in our hearts,'-- is true indeed; but by the same rule both are also God's, because God prepares the will; and both are ours too, because they are only brought about with our good wills" (On the Predestination of the Saints, I:7:III).

Glossing the Treatise on Predestination as an argument that men don't make a free choice in their conversion is to totally miss the point of the work. He's looking "to show that the faith by which we are Christians is the gift of God" and to refute the opinion "that the divine testimonies which I have adduced concerning this matter are of avail for this purpose, to assure us that we have faith itself of ourselves, but that its increase is of God; as if faith were not given to us by Him, but were only increased in us by Him, on the ground of the merit of its having begun from us" (On the Predestination of the Saints, I:3:II). Such an argument in no way affirms what Augustine denies, that "men themselves in this matter [of believing] do nothing by free will" (On Grace and Free Will 31:XV). Thus in the treatise on grace and free will the opinion he argues against is that faith belongs "tantummodo," only, simply, or solely, to free choice "nec datur a Deo," and is not given by God (29:XIV).

That is to say, Augustine nowhere denies that "man somehow makes a choice to choose God or reject God." What he's saying is that God's choice is logically prior to man's choice: we are made holy because God predestined us to be so, that is, infallibly ordered or ordained in his foreknowledge the giving of the gifts of grace to us and our free acceptance.

[jo kus]

We are not "born again". We are "born from above".

Minor quibble on my part. Does Peter mean that we had hope at one time of Christ's great mercy, lost it, then regained it? "Born again" implies that I was born once in the same manner already. I believe your Bible translates "born again" incorrectly.

Not all deeds are sinful. Our Lord Jesus stated ”If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children…” (Matt 7:11). Evil (unregenerate) people can, and will, do “good” things for others. It’s just that unregenerate man will NEVER please God.

Well, we agree. But others on this very thread have not presented that as the Reformed opinion. I apparently was misled in that Calvinists thought something else on this matter, presuming you are providing me with correct Calvinist theology...

You assume that man has a spark of “goodness” in him. Query on evil and see how many times it refers to man.

Even an evil man is "good" in the sense that he is superior to a rock or a horse. As long as man is a rational being able to make free will decisions, he fits into the graduated and perfect creation that God has made. Such a creation will always be superior, even to a good horse or any other being that is has no God-given soul. I am surprised you didn't come across this in your St. Augustine readings.

And here is the rub in this whole mess. The only way you can disagree with Augustine’s universal salvific will is by disagreeing with God as being the instrument of moving the will.

You presume that God's moving of my will is total! St. Augustine, as you noted a few posts ago, says that man's will is INCLINED. NOT COMPLETELY OVERRIDEN! Again, would St. Augustine agree that a will without choice is free?

Sure there were a bunch of Church fathers who took the counter view. But there were just as many who sided with Augustine.

Which Church Fathers said that God does not desire that all men be saved?

They canonized Augustine’s views, for the most part, in the Council of Orange

On the universal salvific will of God? I think not. Perhaps you mean they discuss Adam's sin and that man cannot come to God without God. But does Orange address this? Look again.

The Catholic Church is schizophrenic because they say the hold to Augustine’s writings and then promptly say they disagree with it as you have done. What they really hold is the Orthodox position. They just don’t understand that.

Wonderful. I am sure our Orthodox friends will love to hear that! That's funny how you seem to know more about Catholic beliefs than Catholics. But I don't read our documents with a Reformed mindset, filtering out the vast majority of Catholic teaching that goes against some of St. Augustine's more bleak teachings on man.

You do Augustine a disservice to put words in his month that he clearly rejects in his teachings.

Does St. Augustine retract the idea that man has free will? That God judges man based on man's obedience of the Commandments? This is the problem with using Augustine against Augustine...Seems like our earlier counterparts have already done this. You would be well served to consider that some of his writings were directed at Pelagius - and as a result, may sound perfectly fine to your Reformed ears. But note this is all part of the polemics. He focuses on different things when he speaks to the Manichaeans, the opposites of the Pelagians. Perhaps we should go to "Retractions" and read more and see how much he changed his mind.

Wrong. Perfect man, Adam, was given only ONE commandment and he couldn’t even keep that.

Say what? Are you saying that God does NOT desire man to obey His commandments? You are missing the point. IF God desires His will to be obeyed, it would follow that man would obey His commands. They are not. Thus, you are again on a dilemna of God's will not being perfectly fulfilled - and asking whether God is really perfect or not. Unless, you realize that God ALSO desires that man have a free will. Thus, LOGICALLY, it is impossible for God to give man free will AND that man would ALWAYS obey EVERY commandment of God. One of God's wills will not be satisfied entirely. The same is true regarding the universal salvific will of God. The same is true regarding the question "Can God create a rock He cannot pick up"? LOGICALLY speaking, both cannot be done.

The law only serves to destroy because it shows us how we fall short of God’s glory.

That is a terrible understanding of Paul. God didn't create the Law so that man would KNOW how much he couldn't fulfill it! God doesn't place demands on His creatures that they cannot meet. With God's aid, even the OT figures could and did obey the Commandments. They were considered righteous in God's eyes.

God in His scriptures plainly records that He does not give all people the opportunity to be saved. He appeared to Abraham-not his brothers.

Scripture does not say "God did not appear to Abram's brothers". Scripture gives us salvation history. There is no point in recording things that happened outside of this history. Thus, Scripture makes no mention of them. While God appeared to Abram and Paul in a particular way, it doesn't follow that God does not appear to others in a different, more subtle way. Perhaps God appeared to all of these people AFTER they appeared to Paul/Abram. The Scripture doesn't mention this - nor does it say it didn't happen. To deny that God desires the salvation of all men is to deny that Christ died for the sin of the world or that His work did not have as far reaching of consequences as the first Adam. If Adam effected ALL men, then Christ provides the medicine for ALL men. To disagree is to say that Christ did not heal as universally as Adam damaged mankind. Scripture clearly notes that Christ redeemed the sins of the world, note just some people.

Regards

[blue-duncan]

Quick, everyone act churchy. The RM is using us as an example of posters who are acting civily to each other.

[Religion Moderator]

That's right, blue-duncan.

[blue-duncan]

Oops, you caught me. If I do an independant research project can I get out of detention?

[Religion Moderator]

LOLOL! Not necessary, you aren't in detention.

[blue-duncan]

Sure feels like it at times!

[Kolokotronis]

""Born again" implies that I was born once in the same manner already. I believe your Bible translates "born again" incorrectly."

Indeed it does. The verb is a form of beget. It's not that we are "born again" but rather that God begets us again. I don't see that as a fine distinction at all, by the way. The rest of the verse, the part the Protestants tend to leave out in their proof texting, is "...to a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead...." Thus we see another of the verses which the Fathers used to point to Christ as the Second Adam who destroyed the power of death over us.

"Sure there were a bunch of Church fathers who took the counter view. But there were just as many who sided with Augustine."

Harley, I'd like to see even one Father who agreed with your interpretation of +Augustine.

[Kolokotronis]

Harley, I meant to ping you to #4819; sorry!