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.

[On whether God's offer of accepting Christ is a true balance-scale decision for all men, or is it a no-brainer for the elect. The original example was a free offer of one billion dollars. FK said he would accept it as a no-brainer. JK agreed that he would :)] ... But in God's offer, it is based on FAITH! When if I offered you one billion dollars conditionally? Then, you'd have to trust me. Then, the analogy becomes more like the decision we make with God. It is NOT a no-brainer, because the reward is not clearly given here.

I'll take your analogy. You're right, if I accepted this conditional offer, then I would have to trust you, since I have to perform first, and then hope you keep up your end. I have to believe both in your ability to pay and in your willingness to pay.

Transferring this over to the spiritual realm, how do the elect come to a decision about whether God is able or willing to let us into heaven? I would say that God graces His elect such that the decision becomes a no-brainer yet again. If a person does not believe that God is able or willing, then the person clearly does not know God or does not have enough information to make a judgment. The ultimate decision: believe = eternal life vs. don't believe = eternal damnation, is still a no-brainer to anyone with the facts. These facts can only come from God through grace.

In addition, if we are framing this as a conditional promise, with the human having to perform first in order to receive the reward, how is this not earning our salvation? The new element to this old argument is that people have to perform FIRST before God gives us anything, i.e., the keys to a mansion.

Saul certainly did not have to be converted from wickedness. He tells us that HE HIMSELF was "perfect in the Law".

Was Saul "perfect in the law" when he did this? :

Acts 7:59-8:3 : 59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." 60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep. [8] 1 And Saul was there, giving approval to his death. On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. 2 Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. 3 But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.

Were the Jews "perfect in the law" when they demanded the death of Christ?

[On whether satan twisted scripture or misquoted it:] Regarding Satan - he is still using the Scriptures against Jesus. One can take Scriptures and twist it, whether we twist the words or the meaning - it's the same thing...I fail to see your distinction.

To me, it is an extremely important distinction. You and I can have friendly disagreements about the interpretations of scripture, and, I would guess, maybe 90% of the time we would both agree with the text of the scripture, even if we are using different Bibles. Even if the words are arranged a little differently, we would still agree on the basic text. We would just disagree as to meaning.

However, if one of us used a "Bible" that was misquoted throughout as in the examples I gave of satan misquoting, then we would never even get to a debate, there would be no point of reference. If one of us believed in such a book, then that one could not possibly even be a Christian under any circumstances. In American law, intentional misquoting (lying, fraud) is much worse than misinterpretation (mistake, human error).

I went into detail about it in my last post because you challenged the correctness of my assertion. :) I wanted to make the point that what satan does to scripture is much much worse and much more dangerous than simply disagreeing with an interpretation. satan changes the point of reference so that no one can reach the truth. That is, without God doing something about it.

JK: "I wrote :God has a "duty" if He SAYS He desires ALL men to be saved, AND that Jesus died for the sin of ALL the world."

FK: "So finally, you do admit that you put a man-created duty on God for a non-decreed wish. This vindicates what I have been saying all along on this."

JK: "Hardly. Slow down a second. Is God righteous or not? IF He is, then HE binds Himself to promises made. IF He is righteous, He does not break promises. Thus, where is this "man-created" duty? GOD gave us His promise!"

God is righteous. God binds Himself to promises made. God does not break His promises. So far, so good. But WHAT IS THE PROMISE HERE? The man-created duty I am talking about is your invention of a promise. God never says "I promise to save all men". He makes a non-decreed wish, not a promise. You are extracting a promise from a wish. You can't do that with God, right? :) Also, think of God's foreknowledge. He already knows all will not be saved, yet He says He wishes all to be saved. Doesn't that relieve Him of the promise you have put on Him? He already knows, so why would He promise to make a vain effort?

[On FK's argument that man's justice and God's justice are completely different:] When we define God's attributes, we use words to define the meaning of "justice". There is an implied meaning to those letters put together to spell "justice"...There is a concept. And expecting someone to do something he cannot is NOT part of that concept! That is injustice in ANYONE'S definition. To you, then, God should be called "unjust", using human definition.

No, I would never apply a human standard to God's justice. His justice is perfect, man's is not. I've got witnesses. :) Consider:

Zep. 3:4-5 : 4 Her [Jerusalem] prophets are arrogant; they are treacherous men. Her priests profane the sanctuary and do violence to the law. 5 The LORD within her is righteous; he does no wrong. Morning by morning he dispenses his justice, and every new day he does not fail, yet the unrighteous know no shame.

The Lord dispenses His justice morning by morning and He never fails. The unrighteous know no shame, and so do not practice justice as God does. Now, what about the righteous? Well, they are with God, right? Therefore, they do not hold to a justice that is apart from God's, they accept God's. So, the righteous do not believe in man's sense of justice, they believe in God's. Therefore, if anything can be called "man's justice" then it is the imperfect justice of the unrighteous. The two are very different.

God does not expect anyone to do what he cannot. He does not expect that everyone will be saved, either. This is just.

When we say that "God's ways are not our ways", it doesn't mean that God defines justice differently! It means His EXTENT of justice is different. He GOES BEYOND our definition - NOT FALL SHORT! He gives mercy to those who we do not believe deserve it. You think God is LESS than humanly just? That is exactly what you are saying. God does not even live up to human justice. Wow... Where do Protestants come up with this stuff?

With all due respect, I think it sure does mean that God defines justice differently. How could He not? Think of the different vantage points of authority. How would you compare the authority God has over man to the authority a jury and judge have over a defendant? There is no comparison, right? Therefore, a different sense of justice is perfectly appropriate. One is subject to only perfection, and the other to human failings. In our sense of justice we build in all sorts of things to compensate for these failings. God doesn't need any of that. The systems are different.

I have no idea where you get that I think that God is less than humanly just. But in a sense, I have to admit that's true. God falls short of mistake, sin and corruption. Man's justice is full of those things. So, you have a point. :)

You spoke of God extending our sense of justice but not falling short of it. How is your human sense of justice satisfied with the Great Flood? Did anyone get a trial? What law was given to the people that they should not break? By man's standards, didn't God really make a "rush to judgment" here? In fact, God is really guilty of genocide by man's standards, isn't He? This isn't God extending man's justice, this is breaking it wide open. God's justice is not man's justice.

I pinged everyone mainly to see if anyone wanted in on the God's justice vs. man's justice issue, as well as the other law-related issues. These really interest me. I'll cut this here and move to the other issues in the next post.

how do the elect come to a decision about whether God is able or willing to let us into heaven? I would say that God graces His elect such that the decision becomes a no-brainer yet again.

I don't think there is such a thing as a "no-brainer" in the spiritual world. Having faith and trust in an unseen person presents a life-long battle in building a relationship. God graces us, but we must continue to persevere - this is NOT a "no-brainer".

The ultimate decision: believe = eternal life vs. don't believe = eternal damnation, is still a no-brainer to anyone with the facts. These facts can only come from God through grace.

But they do not come to us intuitively, but through our senses. This information comes through other people - we ultimately trust the message that we have received from others is truly from God. We trust that God is somehow related in our personal lives. If God came to us in the form of a personal revelation, sure, we'd have a no-brainer. But for most of us, we base our relationship on faith - on the belief that what we have been told is true.

In addition, if we are framing this as a conditional promise, with the human having to perform first in order to receive the reward, how is this not earning our salvation?

That's the way the analogy goes, but that part fails to fully sum up what happens between us and God. From our point of view, it might appear we are earning salvation - but we realize God is giving us the ability to obey Him. Thus, when we obey Him, it seems as if we are earning something or meriting something - although it is God who gives us every good gift. Also, we are speaking about God who foresees what we will do.

Was Saul "perfect in the law" when he did this? :

I am only relating what Paul says of himself, sorry if you disapprove:

"If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless." Phil 3:5-6

The OT is full of stories of men who killed in the name of God and were considered righteous.

In American law, intentional misquoting (lying, fraud) is much worse than misinterpretation (mistake, human error).

Intentionally twisiting the meaning or the words yields the same results, does it not?

The man-created duty I am talking about is your invention of a promise. God never says "I promise to save all men". He makes a non-decreed wish, not a promise. You are extracting a promise from a wish.

That is true - and something I never said! I didn't say that God promised that He will save all men! I agree that Hell exists and is currently occupied - so how could I believe that God will save all men? The Scriptures tell us that God DESIRES all men to be saved - thus, He has promised that He has made an effort to do that. But salvation is conditional. Not only is it dependent on God's graces, but it also depends on man's cooperation and response to these graces. God does His part - He DESIRES that we be saved - but He does not override our will. If we choose not to obey God, we suffer the consequences. God does not make empty efforts and desires known to us. He died for the sin of ALL men, something you CHOOSE to overlook.

Also, think of God's foreknowledge. He already knows all will not be saved, yet He says He wishes all to be saved. Doesn't that relieve Him of the promise you have put on Him? He already knows, so why would He promise to make a vain effort?

You are not familiar with the concept of love, apparently. God has gone to incredible depths to show us His love for us, even when we were in opposition to Him. God deeply desires us to turn to Him. God is just, however, and His nature demands that those who turn away from Him are punished. We don't see "God desires all men to be saved" as a phony desire of God's.

Therefore, if anything can be called "man's justice" then it is the imperfect justice of the unrighteous. The two are very different.

You are not getting my point. God's degree of justice differs, but the definition is the same. God's justice EXCEEDS our justice! When man believes that someone should be punished, God's justice differs. For example, consider the parable of the workers in the field all day. Throughout the day, the manager brought in new labourers. When it came time to pay, each received the same amount - even the ones who were there for one hour. Man's justice would say that there would be a sliding wage, or that each man should receive proportionate wages. God's justice says He will reward everyone how HE sees fit - AND IT EXCEEDS OUR IDEA OF JUSTICE! NEVER can you say that God's justice does not even meet man's justice! This is ridiculous. And that is what you are saying. Which human would call a person just for condemning someone for not being able to do something that they have NO ability to accomplish? Which person would consider another just for condemning a cripple because he couldn't run a marathon??? God does not condemn people for not being able to do good if He doensn't grace them. Thus, God gives ALL men grace to obey Him, God has died for all men, AND God is just that His justice EXCEEDS man's idea of justice.

God does not expect anyone to do what he cannot. He does not expect that everyone will be saved, either. This is just.

You give with one hand and take away with the other! Your version of Protestantism says one thing and believes the opposite. HOW can God expect a man to obey His commandments if God only gives graces to the elect??? You have a twisted idea of justice!

Think of the different vantage points of authority. How would you compare the authority God has over man to the authority a jury and judge have over a defendant? There is no comparison, right?

Why would you say that? What leads you to believe that? In both cases, the judge has authority over the judged. Of course, in God's case, He has ULTIMATE authority, but the concept is similar.

Therefore, a different sense of justice is perfectly appropriate

Why? One of the fundamental axioms of theology is that the supernatural parallels the natural. We don't expect a different "definition" of "Goodness" in the natural world than the supernatural! Good is Good! It is a manner of degrees. Thus, murder is not "good" in heaven. Sickness is not "good" in heaven. Nor is DEMANDING the impossible "just" in heaven... This discussion is taking a turn towards the ridiculous. I do not see how a Calvinist can call God "just" when this "God" refuses to give men the ability to obey His commandments, while calling Himself "just". This is, quite frankly, BS. You can't have it both ways. Either God transcends our definition of justice - which means he exceeds our degrees of justice, or God is NOT just, and we should call Him something else. Definitions spell out the attributes of God. When we call Him "just", we have an idea in mind, not its opposite! If you believe that God acts the way you describe, let's call God something else, so we can readily identify what you mean.

The Law written in their hearts - the natural law. Men KNOW what they do not want done to them. This serves as a universal law for all people. What we don't want done to us, we don't do to others. We don't know why God did what He did in all matters. But we trust that His judgment was fair. We don't believe God wiped out the world for no reason. And by the way, which one of us receives a trial from God before our death?

Regards

Or are you again going to say that God does not even live up to human standards of righteousness?

Yes, of course! :) However, I must admit that I'm not even sure what a human standard of righteousness is. With justice, it's easy to tell the difference. ... Wow, I never knew you were that close to the border. I think it's ridiculous what you have to go through today, and what I'll have to go through tomorrow. What in the universe has happened to the Republican party on this issue? It makes me want to scream! :) Tell your Senator-who-wants-to-be-President not to count on my vote. :)

FK: "In the PRACTICAL world, I experience everything just as you believe is real. Intellectually, I know what is really going on, but I don't experience it, practically."

LOL! Read that last sentence again. Are you some sort of disembodied person, separated from your body? Perhaps your paradigm is incorrect? Are you living in the Matrix? Again, do you think God is "tricking" us?

Even though you disagree with what I am saying, I still think I am making a valid point. For example, after a long walk back to my car from shopping at the grocery store, I notice that the cashier gave me a ten in change when she should have given me a five. What should I do? As I sit in my car thinking for a moment, it begins to rain. :)

PRACTICALLY, I consider whether I am in a rush, have they ripped me off before, and WWJD, etc. This is only human. If I am a good boy, then I trudge back into the store to correct the error, and that is the end of it. INTELLECTUALLY, I would realize that it was God who moved me, by Himself and without anything from me, to go do the right thing. But this would not normally occur to me at the time. It would only if I went outside of the practical into the intellectual. This is what I meant.

The Church verifies its [the Bible] source because it witnessed the Christ. Unless you think they made the whole thing up. You, on the other hand, believe the Bible is God's word because...God's word is the bible because...the Bible is God's word...and the vicious circle continues...

I don't think the Church made up the Bible, I would never give it that much credit! :) I believe the Bible is God's word because God tells us so in His word. We simply disagree on the meaning of the scriptures I use to show this. But even aside from that, just from me personally, after I read the whole thing for the first time, I really could come to no other conclusion on any level. I could not, and cannot now, fathom any man or group of men possibly fabricating anything like it. Even if a fake of one of the books was possible, there is no way in my mind that man could possibly have come up with something so perfect throughout all 66 books and covering so much time, with so many different authors.

FK: "Whoever has the strongest argument based on the most salient scripture should be correct. I don't need a man to declare that for me."

That is not the smartest thing you have written over the course of our discussions (that is the nicest way I can say it).

Thank you for the kindness.

[continuing] So I guess man determines the revelation of God, now? Is Christianity a revealed religion, or a philosophical argument? You are basically giving credence to Relativism - every good opinion is as good as another. Every nut case with a bible can decide for himself the revelation of God?

No, man does not determine the revelation of God, unless he is in the Catholic hierarchy. Then those men determine it for you. You have said so. I believe that only God determines His revelation. One of the main ways He does that is through scripture. ... Christianity is a revealed faith, through scripture. ... I am not giving credence to relativism. In fact, if you even looked at my statement before you derided it, the one thing you can say about it is that it argues against relativism. "Salient" scripture is in both strength and numbers.

I suppose it is a philosophical question of whether it is better to have only one Church, which might be corrupted utterly (in which case no one is saved), or which might be entirely correct; OR, is it better to have several independent churches, some of which are likely corrupt, but some of which are likely practicing the truth (at least some are saved).

Utterly corrupt? Please. The lengths Protestants go to villify the Church so as to assuage their guilty conscience on leaving or remaining outside the Church established by Christ.

AARRRRRGH! And the lengths I went to, to make sure you wouldn't take it this way. Que Lastima! :) If you follow our conversation, then you can see that everything before my semicolon and capitalized "OR" refers to the Catholic Church, and everything after refers to Protestants. In both cases, I give possibilities for error and correctness. You were LOOKING for the insult, but it was not there. :)

Explain the different creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2. They are not in the same order. Or did God create the universe twice in two different ways?

The second account was not simply a retelling of the first. Genesis 1 was an overview of the whole of creation, from God's perspective. Genesis 2 focused only on the creation story as it regarded Adam and Eve, a very different focus. Genesis 1 was more of an account that went by strict chronological order. Genesis 2 was more focused on how all this related to Adam and Eve. Here is a fairly short article that I mostly like that tackles this: Genesis contradictions? .

The best part of it is the conclusion:

"The final word on this matter, however, should really be given to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. In Matthew chapter 19, verses 4 and 5, the Lord is addressing the subject of marriage, and says: ‘Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?’

Notice how in the very same statement, Jesus refers to both Genesis 1 (verse 27b: ‘male and female created he them’) and Genesis 2 (verse 24: ‘Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh’). Obviously, by combining both in this way, He in no way regarded them as separate, contradictory accounts."

If Jesus is OK with it, then so am I. :)

It's the Catholics who tell me that no one knows if they will persevere until the end. Yet you turn right around and say that Mary made a vow to God and knew that she would keep it for the rest of her days. How can that be if no one knows they will persevere? (I'm pinging jokus and forest keeper to this because I believe they were involve it this discussion as well.)

First of all, we Catholics distinguish between ABSOLUTE knowledge and "MORAL" knowledge regarding our salvation. We can have a relatively strong sense of our salvation, but we are never absolutely certain - we cannot earn salvation and we are told to persevere until the end. WE! Not God! God EXPECTS US to persevere! We "know" with the graces given us, we can and will succeed. But we also know that there is the possibility of falling away. Even Paul says this of HIMSELF!

If such is the case as you suppose, and fitting in with the Catholic teaching that NO ONE knows if they will persevere, the natural question for Mary would have been, "...but I am a virgin, does this mean that I will break my vows?" Mary should have questioned her own commitment. It would have been persumptious and arrogant for her to say, "How can this be since I made a vow to God?"

We are talking about apples and oranges here. We are now speaking about keeping a vow, not about eternal salvation. But be that as it may, I think we can only speculate on such matters. I personally believe that Mary did not have a "guarantee" that she would do "x" or "y". That is not God's way. She was forced to "ponder in her heart". She had a "sword pierce her heart". She ALSO had to undergo suffering, pain, lack of knowledge and understanding of God's ways. I do not believe that Mary had supernatural knowledge of God's plan, although she certainly would know more humanly than anyone else, because she was around our Savior longer and was given the Angel's word on Whom he child was. But did she know that Jesus would be crucified? Did she "know" she would absolutely hold to her vow of virginity? I think she can be credited with persevering to the end due to her cooperation with God's gifts. I think the Orthodox will agree, as well.

To say what Mary "knew" is difficult to ascertain, so I wouldn't go very far here. From what we do know, I credit Mary as being the ultimate disciple of Christ, who pondered His Word in her heart for many years. She received the Spirit TWICE in a very special way. She was given singular graces and made pure - but whether she "KNEW" that she was Immaculately Conceived, I would not venture to guess.

Regards

Wow, I never knew you were that close to the border. I think it's ridiculous what you have to go through today, and what I'll have to go through tomorrow. What in the universe has happened to the Republican party on this issue? It makes me want to scream! :) Tell your Senator-who-wants-to-be-President not to count on my vote. :)

LOL! Last summer, we had a truck load of illegals scream down the end of our cul-de-sac and stop in our neighbor's driveway and about 20 people came milling out of this old Nissan pickup with a camper shell while we were cutting our grass. The coyotes took off, the other people, families, really had nowhere to go. Border Patrol came and got them, as my neighbor told them to sit down - they had no clue where they were and were surrounded by walls (unlike back East, every yard is surrounded by a block wall!) It really is a sad situation, and I don't know the answer to it.

I completely disagree that you have nothing to do with this decision! YOU DO have something to do - and it is upon THIS decision and many like it will we be judged, as Christ says in Matthew 25 in several parables. You intellect presents you with alternatives and your will decides based on this input. God moves our will based on the inputs we receive. Again, it is a free will choice. NO ONE makes you sit in the car and keep the money OR go back to the store. Your will has made the choice, in either direction, and is not compelled. In either case, your intellect is not some disembodied thing separate from your will. You ARE experiencing it!

I believe the Bible is God's word because God tells us so in His word.

The bible is God's Word because the Word of God is the Bible... The Word of God is the Bible because the Bible is the Word of God. Can't you see the circular argument here? You can't base a logical argument on such lack of logic.

Even if a fake of one of the books was possible, there is no way in my mind that man could possibly have come up with something so perfect throughout all 66 books and covering so much time, with so many different authors.

First of all, why COULDN'T one of the letters be fake? Paul considered the possibility in several of his letters! And the Bible is perfect? Not to the atheist or those who find contradictions in it. The beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If one is open to truth, they will see it. But God doesn't force His beauty upon anyone. By the way, you forgot 7 books!

I believe that only God determines His revelation.

Yes - but Protestants believe God gives "me" all this revelation completely and perfectly. If it disagrees with someone else, then THEY are wrong!

If you follow our conversation, then you can see that everything before my semicolon and capitalized "OR" refers to the Catholic Church, and everything after refers to Protestants. In both cases, I give possibilities for error and correctness. You were LOOKING for the insult, but it was not there. :)

Here is what you wrote:

I suppose it is a philosophical question of whether it is better to have only one Church, which might be corrupted utterly (in which case no one is saved), or which might be entirely correct

Explain exactly how the Church established by Christ, the pillar and foundation of truth, became "utterly corrupted"? That is the only excuse Protestants have for walking away from the Catholic Church - but how is it possible that God, who promised that the Gates of hell would not prevail - has fallen? The rock that Christ built His Church upon has fallen? Perhaps you should reconsider that promise that God made to you of being of the elect, if you consider God broke His promise to uphold the Church.

Genesis 2 focused only on the creation story as it regarded Adam and Eve

The order of creation is different. Read it more carefully. I realize the focus - but chronologically and scientifically, the two are faulty. It should be quite obvious that people realized this and determined that the two stories were NOT relating scientific knowledge?

If Jesus is OK with it, then so am I. :)

Jesus NEVER says anything (at least from Scriptures) about the historical creation as related in Genesis. He does not confirm or deny that EITHER story was literally correct.

Regards

I should point out Saint John's of D argument is exactly the argument John Calvin suggest, namely that the word "till" doesn't necessarily mean that Mary had relationships after the birth of Christ.

I don't see how this helps your case, but ok.

I find this a very weak argument simply because there is no reason for Matthew to have included that clause.

Duly noted. And if Matthew were a 20th Century American, I might agree with you. But he wasn't. He was a first century Jew and this kind of phrase was quite normal back then. There are other places in Scripture where this word is used in the same way and St. John gives one such example. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument. Perhaps we could return to this the next time the subject of using Scripture to interpret Scripture comes around.

Instead of:

"but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus." Matt 1:25

it should have read:

"but kept her a virgin and he called His name Jesus."

Again, if he were a 20th century American, maybe so.

This coupled with the fact that

1) our Lord Jesus' "brothers" are defined in scriptures (Matt 12:46, 13:55, Mark 3, Luk 8, John 7, etc),

...discussed and refuted ad nauseum...

2) Paul refers to our Lord Jesus' "bothers" (1 Cor 9:5),

... same as above...

3) our Lord Jesus minimizes Mary's role to the role of all believers (Matt 12), and

...right or wrong, it's irrelevant...

4) the term cousin (often used as an argue as to what is meant here) is used in Col 4:10.

Translators can be funny that way.

I think the scriptural evidence is a bit overwheming.

If by "overwhelming" you mean "frustratingly elusive", I would have to agree.

"YOU WILL CONCEIVE IN YOUR WOMB..."

And where else would a girl who was going to start living with and "knowing" Joseph expect to conceive but in her womb? This adds nothing to your argument.

Knowing the Scriptures, she knew the account in Judges, where an angel appeared to Sampson's mother and announced to her that she would conceive a child (the angel repeats this "you will conceive" several times. The LXX even says that the angel told her that she would bring this child forth from her "womb." The angel never says anything to Sampson's mother about her husband -- he never once says in this encounter that she *and her husband* would conceive a child. The angel just says she will conceive.

Why wouldn't the Theotokos have taken this example from Scripture and assumed at first that the angel was making a similar announcement to her of an "ordinary" conception?

I'm afraid that unless I'm really missing something here, there is no way to categorically insist on your interpretation unless you come to this passage in St. Luke with a pre-conceived (no pun intended) notion about Mary's intentions in life.

Regarding the patristic commentaries, last night I happened to encounter something quite interesting in St. Theophylact's commentary (which is a 12th century distillation of patristic commentaries on the NT -- heavily based on St. John Chrysostom's commentaries -- very worth reading, and as close to a "standard" commentary as we have in Orthodoxy.)

In his commentary at the end of St. Matthew's Gospel, St. Theophylact is writing about Christ's final words of that Gospel:

"...lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

He (a Greek speaker writing for others who read and wrote Greek) takes pains to explain that the word translated as "unto" -- the same one translated as "until" in 1:25 -- does not mean that Christ is only giving assurances to the disciples that he will only be with them to the end of the world. He clarifies that what happens beyond that is *not* unknown to us and that we can be assured of Christ being with us throughout eternity, even though that phrase of St. Matthew could be read precisely in a way that raises the question of the unknown.

He writes this, but does not mention the usage in 1:25. The significance of what I am pointing out is that the usage of this word in 28:20 is apparently such that he felt that it called for some clarification, *independent of its relationship to the usage in 1:25.* He was not saying this in order to prove anything about how 1:25 should be read.

Keep in mind that all of these commentaries were written prior to the Protestant Reformation -- at a time when there was no controversy within Christianity about the ever-virginity of the Theotokos.

And again, these Christian commentators spoke, wrote, thought, studied, debated, and preached in Biblical/liturgical Greek -- and they learned it from their teachers who learned it from their teachers... going back in continuity to the Biblical times in which those texts were written.

I'm reminded of the Watergate hearings, where someone testifying asked how this or that statement could be understood in such a way. The venerable Sam Ervin, with his inimicable Southern drawl replied, "because, son, I speak the English language -- it's mah Muther tongue."

Anyway, we don't need to beat this dead horse anymore, although I'm game (for awhile) to continue with the flogging. :-)

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.