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.

First, 1 Corinthians was probably written around 57 AD. As a result, it predates almost every other book in the New Testament, and certainly all of the gospels. To take Paul's comment out of context and literally, as you do, nothing written after First Corinthians is to be trusted.

You are the only one to interpret as you accuse me. The verse says "Do not go beyond what is written.". It is a principle, and supports Sola Scriptura over oral teachings. Principles survive into the future.

So, the introduction of Luke shows us how Holy Tradition preceded the New Testament and inspired its writing, and neatly illuminates the logic behind apostolic succession.

Yes, oral teachings preceded the NT. Luke concludes that in order to be SURE of correct teaching, he is going to write this message down. This also supports Sola Scriptura. Luke does not say that he would tell them these things so they may be sure, he said he would write them down. Sure, others wrote false teachings, but God took care of that when He assembled the Bible. ... I have no idea how you connect this passage to support of Apostolic succession, especially in the important senses of passing along supernatural powers such as the ability to forgive sin, and the authority to speak infallibly on behalf of God corporately, or even individually.

Paul had to have written Second Timothy before his death in 67. This means that 2 Tim. far predates the gospels and the Book of Revelation, among other parts of the New Testament. So we know that Paul, when talking about "Scripture" being God-inspired he was not talking about the New Testament as we know it.

Let's say that I give you everything and Paul was referring to the OT. It was still scripture wasn't it? It still supports Sola Scriptura just as I said. Whether Paul knew it or not at the time, we both call what he wrote "scripture" today. Again, Paul states a principle. I do not understand how your distinction counters the evidence I am giving.

Finally, 2 Tim. 14 makes reference to what the recipients of the letter "have learned and believed," because they know from whom" they learned it. No reference to scripture here.

I have acknowledged that NT teachings were passed down orally at the beginning, due to necessity. I presume that they were handed down without error, at least until they became scripture. After that, I look with extreme skepticism on anything that did not become scripture, or does not match the scripture.

God CHOSE not to give ANY NT writings to the first Christians! This is proof positive that Scripture does NOT determine what we believe, but it comes from the Apostles themselves.

Why is that proof positive? Because it was first? I suppose you are going to tell me in the same breath that oral Tradition is not superior to scripture. You must also have a diminished view of the Ten Commandments. They waited a while before appearing on the scene. There was oral Tradition before them, too.

IF something comes from God, it holds equal weight. Who cares if it is written or not?

It only makes all the difference in the world. If something is written from God, then it is there for all to examine, and most, if not all, misapplications can and will be discovered. If there is the spoken word of God, OTOH, then it is subject to man's corruption upon the first retelling. It cannot be examined for all to see. The "source" then really becomes the teller. I cannot trust the telephone game to relay accurately the words of God if God's written word is available.

When you use yourself to interpret the Bible and the concept that any person can interpret themselves outside of the Church, then that is what you are saying, even though you don't use those words.

So when I say that I let the Bible interpret itself, then I don't really mean that. I really mean that I interpret it myself into whatever I want. Feel free to believe this if you wish, but it's wrong.

This verse [1 Cor. 4:6] doesn't say anything about "what is written" as being Scriptures! Even if Paul is referring to Scriptures, he is undoubtedly referring to the Old Testament, as the NT wasn't even written yet when the First Letter to the Corinthians was penned.

What do you THINK "what is written" means? Even if Paul was referring to the OT, they are still scriptures. That doesn't defeat the point that the verse supports Sola Scriptura. Paul was giving a principle. He was teaching them what to do in the FUTURE. Principles go beyond the first telling. Under your reasoning, all scripture could not possibly have been inspired UNLESS the last verse of Revelation said so!

I presume you mean Luke.

OOPS. Yes. :)

[Re: Luke 1:1-4] Luke doesn't say anything about "false writings". He is merely trying to consolidate everything that was already known.

I was looking at the first verse: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account ...". I think I can make a plausible argument that if Luke thought that all these people had done a great job, then he wouldn't have felt the need to write down another one himself. I infer that he felt there was plenty of error going around, so to be SURE, he was going to write this one down himself. Besides, wasn't it actually true that there was plenty of error going around at that time?

It is unlikely that a person living in Athens would know EVERYTHING orally said about Christ, thus, a written account is better, all things equal. However, nothing here about Sola Scriptura!

Yes, this one is not a slam dunk for Sola Scriptura, but I think it is fairly in support of it. Luke favors a written account.

[From: 2 Tim. 3:16-17] "the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

That does not say that something ELSE can equip someone for every good work.

I TOTALLY agree! But, I presume you mean "can't". Really, Joe, how could you make a mistake like that? :)

[continuing] It merely says that "Scriptures" ... are USEFUL for every good work. So is prayer. So is the Church, the community of faith.

I think it says more than that. Here it is again:

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

On this point, the key words for me are "SO THAT". All scripture is God breathed SO THAT the saved man may be thoroughly equipped ... This teaches me that scripture is all that a man needs to be thoroughly equipped, etc. It definitely supports Sola Scriptura.

[On Eph 4:11-13:] This clearly tells us that apostles, prophets, evangelists and so forth are for PERFECTING THE SAINTS...UNTO THE PERFECTING OF MEN... Nothing about Scriptures, although we can ASSUME that they would use the Bible as part of their preaching and teaching.

Yes, we should assume they would use the Bible. We should also assume that they would not teach in contradiction of it. We think the same of each other's teachers, so that is an impasse. However, I don't see how this is critical of Sola Scriptura. If men teach in accordance with the Bible, then Sola Scriptura is fine. ... BTW, who are the "saints" to you in verses like this?

Clearly, the NT Bible never says anything about "itself" because it didn't exist yet! Thus, Sola Sciptura is a false teaching of men that leads people away from the Word of God as taught by the Apostles.

Again, before you would even consider the idea, you would require it to be the last verse in scripture. That is disingenuous. I believe that all scripture is true. I believe that God knew every word of the Bible from the beginning. Why, then, would it matter where that truth is placed in the Bible? Are you truly telling me that every truth in the Bible is only operative from the moment of telling BACKWARD? Please. Your view does wonders for the reputation of the Book of Revelation and prophecy in general.

But I have the teaching of 2000 years of Church teachings, backed by the promise of the Holy Spirit who CANNOT lead us into error.

Ah, but I have the teaching of 6000 years of God's teachings, backed by the promise of the Holy Spirit who CANNOT lead us into error.

For Catholics, it is a matter of proving whether it (the Catholic Church) existed first and was established by the first generations of Christians. If so, it would be hard to argue against the Spirit's guidance of it, as it still exists, as Christ promised.

Using the Catholic idea of free will, it is very easy to argue against this. Neither of us would argue about whether the Spirit guides God's Church. But, under free will, there is nothing that says than man will follow the guidance, right? Under your own theology, Christ promised guidance, but He would never promise to ensure that the Church was ever on the right path. He couldn't, because that would interfere with free will, and it would be Him forcing Himself on us. You say that can't happen. This may be a mini epiphany for me. Under Catholicism, how can anyone trust the Church to be correct if God demands that its members all have free will to disobey and propagate error?

And there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the earth is older than 6000 years, which, by the way, is a tradition of men, since the Bible doesn't mention what year the earth was formed.

How is that a tradition of men? Why couldn't someone whip out a calculator, read the Bible, and do some math? There might some room for error, but I think one could get within a reasonable ballpark by what is in there. No?

FK: "I think that your accusing me of idol worship is pretty hilarious given the circumstances. ... When God decided to use allegory in the Bible He did send me a memo. It was in the form of other scripture."

Say what?

I was first referring to the statues and icons, and to praying to entities other than God. (I do remember your answer to this.) In the second case I was referring to my belief that the Bible interprets itself.

He doesn't try to "trick" us into thinking that the earth is really old, like some "young earth" fundamentals claim. I trust that science has accurately told us that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Perhaps not 10 billion, but even one billion is a heck of a lot more than 6000 years.

I don't think that God is trying to trick us either. I just don't happen to think that the book is closed on a young earth. As I said in another post (probably to you :), I don't at all look down my nose at those who believe in an old earth. I do think there is allegory in the OT, and it can be tougher to spot than in the NT. I think there is a NT verse somewhere that says that God's "days" are not like our days, or something like that. That would seem like a decent out, but then I don't know what to do with the rest of the numbers in the OT. Did Adam really live to be 900, etc.? I really have no problem believing that is literally true.

The custom is actually alien in the west, especially modern west. Thus, to you Jesus' brothers are His "siblings" because that's the reality of your culture which forces you to interpret the Scripture in this way.

Well, I have said that the word "brother" is truly used in the Bible just as you say. I was thinking of that one particular passage, where Mary is named as His mother, and His brothers are also named, in the same sentence, along with unnamed sisters. The flow of the passage just seems wrong to me if such a jump in meaning is made. I can't imagine how that passage would have been so differently worded, if the true intent was to convey siblings.

However, in all fairness to the Protestants, the New Testament does say that +Joseph did not "know" Mary until after she gave birth to Jesus (Mat 1:24-25).

Thanks, I hadn't thought of that. Very decent of you to point out. My version says "he had no union with her until..." That seems clear to me. Does that mean that the Orthodox do not believe in Mary's perpetual virginity?

They [Mormons] say the words the Bible uses is "overshadow" speaking of the Holy Spirit. This is indeed terminology used in the Bible to denote sexual intercourse, so the LDS simply conclude that Christ was conceived as a union between God and a mortal!

Zeus would be proud! :) If you know, how do the Mormons get around the fact that there is no scriptural support whatsoever to suggest that either God the Father or the Holy Spirit have ever taken corporeal form? Plus, if God had "sex" with Mary, then He would be fully guilty of adultery, since Mary was already pledged to Joseph. My understanding is that such a relationship was as good as being married, but without the benefits. :)

We, and this includes your side of Christianity (I hope), sees Mary's conception as a supernatural event, the way we understand sacraments. And, in the same manner, we understand her Virgin Birth, having occurred without breaking her seal or being painful.

Absolutely.

But if you really want to be a stickler for straight biblical talk, then the Bible does suggest what the LDS seem to believe ...

If I want to be consistent, then I have to say that I always want to be a stickler for straight biblical talk. :) I would want to hear their answers to my questions above first. If God can't contradict Himself, then something has to give. I would have to think that the full weight of just scripture would have to crush their view. That must be why they felt a need to rewrite the Bible based on the good word of a thief from the east coast! :)

Why is that proof positive [that Scriptures do not determine what we believe]? Because it was first?

Now you are either being obtuse or you just like to argue. How could a non-existent book be the SOLE determinant, the guide that Christians would follow? Is this your idea of being funny or are you serious?

I suppose you are going to tell me in the same breath that oral Tradition is not superior to scripture

Why is this a problem? They are equally the Word of God (presuming "oral Tradition" = Apostolic Tradition, part of which got written down in the Bible, part of which got written down by the Fathers or "practiced" in the Liturgy). Because I believe in “oral” Tradition does not mean I put them above Scripture. They are equal when discovered. And actually, Scripture is more highly regarded in Catholicism. Tradition is used more in correctly interpreting Scripture, such as the utilization of Baptism or the Trinity definitions.

You must also have a diminished view of the Ten Commandments. They waited a while before appearing on the scene.

Say what? The Scriptures do not relay any such thing. Moses came down the mountain with stone tablets, not Moses "oral tradition". Unless you claim that Moses did a Mohemmed and wrote them himself.

If something is written from God, then it is there for all to examine, and most, if not all, misapplications can and will be discovered. If there is the spoken word of God, OTOH, then it is subject to man's corruption upon the first retelling

So you believe everything written? Perhaps you should subscribe to the New York Times?! Paul HIMSELF was worried about forgeries, for example:

The salutation of [me] Paul with mine own hand. 1 Cor 16:21

Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand. Gal 6:11

The salutation by the hand of me Paul. Col 4:18

The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write. 2 Thes 3:17

We take the Apostles words that their letters ARE the word of God! That is the "proof". Because they SAY so! What other evidence do we have that their writings ARE the word of God BUT their witness? Either you believe what they wrote AND said, or you don't. Once we find "oral" Apostolic Tradition, it should hold the same weight to you, since it comes from the same source.

I cannot trust the telephone game to relay accurately the words of God if God's written word is available.

We take the Apostles' word that their teaching is not only from God, but GUIDED by God by the Holy Spirit. Thus, it is not the teaching of men, as Paul clearly says:

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal 1:11-12

We continue to believe that Christ is present in the Church in a special way to continue the truth of teachings given by the Apostles. Thus, there is no "telephone" game because GOD HIMSELF guides His Church. Certainly, this is a matter of faith - but no more than believing that the Bible is from God.

Your statements on Sola Scriptura are enough warrant to charge you as guilty of eigesis... Let’s be honest. The bible doesn’t say anywhere that the Bible is the SOLE rule of faith to guide Christians. Your verses so far have not made that claim! Let’s look at the evidence against Sola Scriptura: First, there was NO NT Scriptures yet. The Bible doesn’t say “wait, in 20 years, you will receive a set of writings. These oral teachings can be ignored after that”. Secondly, the Scriptures never make a claim for itself directly. Next, the Scriptures themselves give OTHER means of perfecting the Body of Christ. The Church itself. Is the Church the pillar and foundation of the truth, or the Scriptures? And finally, the Bible never tells us that oral traditions are abrogated. Clearly, they tell us to CONTINUE to FOLLOW ORAL TEACHINGS:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. 2 Thes 2:15

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. 2 Tim 2:2

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. (obviously, orally given, as Paul has not written to the Corinthians yet!) 1 Cor 15:1-2

Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you. 1 Cor 11:2

One cannot honestly say, with these above verses in mind, that you have read Scriptures ALONE to come to the conclusion that we are to follow Sola Scriptura. That is impossible. You were taught Sola Scriptura, and then someone showed you verses that twist the meanings to try to come up with your false belief. NO unbiased person would judge Sola Scriptura as true – the above verses DENY it! Thus, you are practicing eigesis, the taking of a belief, and trying to find it in Scriptures.

The Bible is NOT a systematic catechism. It is a bunch of letters (in the NT) without any real order - dogma-wise. The issue of faith and salvation has been argued from Scripture alone for centuries without any conclusive end. THAT is NOT "Scripture interprets itself", brother! Read the Church Fathers. They all agree that people can twist the Scriptures and it was only the Church that gave the correct interpretations so as to maintain the APOSTLES' intent of the writings. It was the Church that guaranteed the proper interpretation - through the guidance of the Spirit given to it for this particular reason. I suggest you read the Pastorals, and the Catholic letters of John and Jude and you'll already see this.

IF something merely needs to written, then explain the first 25 years of Christianity. Explain Acts 15 and the decision to do away with Circumcision. Where was THAT written in the OT? Explain the Church's decision to celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday. Where is that written in the OT? What about dietary laws done away with? Where is written? I find that your arguments are amazingly similar to the Judaizers. THEY ALSO argued against changing the Sabbath, doing away with the necessity of Circumcision and dietary laws, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT WRITTEN. It is ironic that you are viewing Scriptures as the Jews did during Jesus’ day.

Another point. IF something NEEDS to be written, then we have plenty of writings that talk about the infant baptism among the writings of the Church Fathers. You are pressing this "is it written" WAY TOO FAR! Do we also follow “Metamorphisis” by Ovid because it is "written"? All that talk about Roman gods???

I think I can make a plausible argument that if Luke thought that all these people had done a great job, then he wouldn't have felt the need to write down another one himself. I infer that he felt there was plenty of error going around, so to be SURE, he was going to write this one down himself. Besides, wasn't it actually true that there was plenty of error going around at that time

I am happy that Luke decided to draw up an account to consolidate what was already known widely by others and not so widely by others. Certainly, your argument has merit, (regarding the superiority of Scripture over an orally passed teaching) and I will not or have not said that Scripture is inferior to an oral tradition. HOWEVER, WHEN an "oral" tradition is FOUND to be Apostolic, verified by the community of faith - they are EQUAL! We are not talking about the rumour mills now! I don't see Luke's Gospel as meant to dispel "oral" teachings, as he never mentions that. He is only making it more clear and easier to access the Gospel.

On this point, the key words for me are "SO THAT". All scripture is God breathed SO THAT the saved man may be thoroughly equipped ...

I still don't see it. The phrase “so that” does not exclude anything else. I have teeth so that I can take in nourishment. But I can take in nourishment by other means that do not require teeth…Again, you are going beyond what is there so as to “prove” Sola Scriptura. A simple reading does not give us Bible alone. Yours is an incredible stretch, given that "alone" or ANY sort of derivative is in these verses! IF it did, it would merely support the OLD TESTAMENT - and the Septuagint at that!!! Would you now allow the Deuterocanonicals into your bible now???? No? Then you break your own rules... Again, you are guilty of eigesis.

And secondly, I have given you ANOTHER means by how a man can be "thoroughly perfected" - the teaching community. This is where Sola Scriptura fails. It says Scripture is USEFUL, not ABSOLUTELY necessary. IF it WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, then what about the first 25 years of Christianity without a written Gospel? No "red letter" bibles? Wow. You can't really believe that a person must READ to BELIEVE, do you? Paul says we must HEAR the Word, not read it!

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! Rom 10:14-15

Note, one does NOT find out about the Gospel by “reading a book”. It is PROCLAIMED by another. ONE SENT! An apostle. And Protestants have not been sent by the Apostles! They send themselves. This is at odds with the Scriptures, which say that only the Apostles’ teachings are to be followed.

This post is getting unwieldly, so I'll continue in part two.

regards

I wrote : Clearly, the NT Bible never says anything about "itself" because it didn't exist yet! Thus, Sola Sciptura is a false teaching of men that leads people away from the Word of God as taught by the Apostles.

You responded :Again, before you would even consider the idea, you would require it to be the last verse in scripture. That is disingenuous.

You are making the classic mistake of presuming that the Bible fell out of heaven already printed and bound in its current configuration as we now hold it. If that were so, if the Bible was like the Koran claims to be, I would agree with you. But it is not. The letters were written independently of each other! Keep that in mind, FK. There wasn't a "NT Scriptures" that EVERYONE agreed on until the Church officially said what was and what wasn't Scriptures some 300 years later. We can presume that many churches didn't have EVERY letter from Paul or John, or even all the Gospels. They treasured what writings AND oral teachings that they had. Thus, why would you expect the Bible to have in the "last chapter" anything? There was no "last chapter" as John was sitting down writing Revelation!

Ah, but I have the teaching of 6000 years of God's teachings, backed by the promise of the Holy Spirit who CANNOT lead us into error.

How do you know when the Spirit is leading you or you are leading yourself? When two Protestants disagree, which one is the Spirit leading, if either? This is akin to the Mormon saying that he recognizes the "Spirit" and his writings by the "burning in the bosom". What a bunch of hog-wash.

Under your own theology, Christ promised guidance, but He would never promise to ensure that the Church was ever on the right path. He couldn't, because that would interfere with free will, and it would be Him forcing Himself on us. You say that can't happen. This may be a mini epiphany for me. Under Catholicism, how can anyone trust the Church to be correct if God demands that its members all have free will to disobey and propagate error?

Christ certainly DID promise the Spirit of Truth to the Church. Have you not read John's Gospel and the Last Supper Discourse? Or what about the verse I have been repeating from the Pastorals "the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth"? Christ promised that His Church would be guided by the Spirit, as Acts 15:28 tells us. "It seemed good to us AND the SPIRIT". Thus, in Counciliar decisions, using Acts 15 as precedent, the Spirit is guiding the Church when making a definitive statement that the Church has already previously believed, though not precisely defined yet. God guides the Church to infallibly speak His Word. This does not interfere with man's free will, since a pope can still choose to sin. He is NOT free to teach falsely - and this is something totally different from the will to choose to reject God in one's life or not.

How is that a tradition of men (the age of the earth)? Why couldn't someone whip out a calculator, read the Bible, and do some math?

Because it is based on several assumptions that the Bible does not explicitly state. First, the genealogical tables are not necessarily in chronological and historical order. It was normal to list only the important people on such lists, not every single chronological person. Often times, generations were skipped. Next, we don't know HOW long Adam lived before his sin. Perhaps it was millions of years? Who can say. And finally, if you look at the two creation stories, they contradict. That should be your sign, FK, that the stories are analogies that merely relate God's truths, not science's truths. Fundamentalists have desperately, and unsuccessfully tried to FORCE Genesis 1 and 2 to fit together because they feel it HAS to be historical! The age of the earth is from some Anglican Bishop of the 1600's, I think, not from the Bible.

I don't think that God is trying to trick us either. I just don't happen to think that the book is closed on a young earth.

Is this from a scientific or theological viewpoint? Scientists have refuted young earth evidence over and over. Taking an allegorical view in such a case is more prudent. But really, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other - it is still the inerrant word of God, which cannot be mistaken. If God inspired the writer of Jonah and MEANT it to be a parable, then the Scripture is still inerrant. It is OUR interpretation that is incorrect.

Regards

You are the only one to interpret as you accuse me.

I did not accuse you of anything.

The verse says "Do not go beyond what is written.". It is a principle, and supports Sola Scriptura over oral teachings. Principles survive into the future.

Apparently you interpret Paul's statement as forseeing books that would not be written for decades.

Further, you have not addressed the probablility that "Do not go beyond what is written" is a colloquial aphorism. Here is the New International Version: "Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written."

Please note that the words "to go" are not present in the original Greek. The variety of translations of this difficult passage will make you head spin!

In addition, to interpret 1 Corinthians 4:6 as you do would contradict Paul himself! In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 he said "Stand fast and hold firm to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

Did Paul make a mistake?

If Holy Tradition had to be written down to be "valid," it is odd that John wrote in 3 John 13 "I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face."

The impossibility of reducing all of Holy Tradition to writing was also recognized by John in John 21:25: "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."

Finally, the fact that you and I disagree about the meaning of this one passage in the Bible shows that the 16th century novelty of sola scriptura provides no real guidance.

Yes, oral teachings preceded the NT. Luke concludes that in order to be SURE of correct teaching, he is going to write this message down. This also supports Sola Scriptura. Luke does not say that he would tell them these things so they may be sure, he said he would write them down. Sure, others wrote false teachings, but God took care of that when He assembled the Bible.

As stated above, it is clear from the Bible that John and Paul did not think that Holy Tradition had to be written down to be valid. Further, I think it is odd that you attribute the compilation of the Bible to God. It seems as though you are saying that the Holy Spirit was with the universal Church through the 5th Century, when it finalized the Canon, and then departed.

Did the Church fathers pick the books that went in the New Testament by luck? Or was God with them on the compilation of the Bible, but not when they made authoritative pronouncements about things like the sacrament of Confession, which was recognized hundreds of years before the canon was closed?

Whether Paul knew it or not at the time, we both call what he wrote "scripture" today. Again, Paul states a principle. I do not understand how your distinction counters the evidence I am giving.

Paul did write books which are considered to be scripture today. But your personal interpretation of 1 Corinthians 4:6 requires us to believe that Paul meant that the only aspects of Holy Tradition that were meant to be followed were those which would be written down. As shown above, this is contradicted by John and Paul himself! Further, if this point was so important to Paul, why didn't he write more? Should we only do what Paul told us to do? After all, if Paul really meant that we are only bound by what is written down, one would think that he would have written more than a few letters.

I have acknowledged that NT teachings were passed down orally at the beginning, due to necessity. I presume that they were handed down without error, at least until they became scripture. After that, I look with extreme skepticism on anything that did not become scripture, or does not match the scripture.

I think that this is an entirely reasonable point. What about written teachings that predate the closing of the canon, but are not in the New Testament? Like the writings of the ante- and post- Nicene fathers?

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.