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.

Your perceptions regarding the cultural aspect of our veneration of icons (we have no statues in the Orthodox Church -- strictly forbidden), etc. are quite accurate.

But I would suggest that you might also hold those perceptions in place and move around to look at them from a little different angle. :-)

A way I might put it that more closely reflects what we experience is that we do not make as strict a division between the cultural/social and the religious. In other words, all of this is very much "religious," but then so is everything we do outside of church.

Most Christians would agree that Christianity needs to be a way of life, and not just a religious activity. We would certainly hold that view in spades.

An Orthodox theologian was once asked when, exactly, the Orthodox believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ during the Eucharist. He thought for a moment, and replied that it happens sometime between the start of Vespers the evening before and the end of the post-liturgy meal (we're big on breaking bread together after Liturgy -- partly to break our eucharistic fasts together, partly because it just seems wrong to break off fellowship just when things are getting going!)

He was partly joking, but his point was a serious one, both with regard to the fact that we aren't big on defining things to the nth degree, and with regard to the importance of the entire cycle of preparation and post-communion fellowship, some of which is comprised of formal church services, and much of which is time spent in personal prayer, family time, and church family time surrounding the serving of the Divine Liturgy.

The eating of a meal together as a family is just as "religious" as are the prayers before and after the meal. Our daily work is just as sacramental as are the morning and evening prayers we use to begin and end that working day.

So, there is a very real sense in which we are "socializing" with the saints who are portrayed in the "family pictures" (icons) in our church home -- and that those saints are a part of our living culture.

Perhaps the best way to see this is to see the comfort and ease with which our children enter into all of this. They are very much aware, in their child-like way, that they are at home, surrounded by family...

On this whole infant baptism issue, it's kind of funny because I think now I need to be a little more careful how I talk about it since recently finding out that my view is in the minority on my own side :) (obviously for different reasons). Apparently, the believer's baptism is much more of a Baptist thing than a Reformed view. Luther, it appears, was all in favor of infant baptism.

Here are some of my nominalist reasons for [supporting] that belief [Church's belief on infant baptism]:

(2) St. Justin Martyr, a first-century Saint, ... taught that Baptism is Christian circumcision (and Jews perform circumcision on the 8th day after birth).

Even though I think I've heard of that before, I always think that is an interesting comparison. What do you think of this passage? :

Rom. 2:25-29 : "25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26 If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker."

"28 A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God."

If the comparison that St. Justin Martyr makes is correct, then this would seem to confirm that baptism is only good until the first sin. It also seems to imply that anyone who is not baptized, but yet believes, is still fine in the eyes of God. I would agree with that. Finally, from my POV, this "could" also be seen as favoring a believer's baptism, since how could any man receive praise from God unless he is a believer?

(6) St. Augustine made it clear that the custom of baptizing infants was a "tradition of the apostles" De Genesi ad Literam X:39. He was adamant that "infants who die before baptism" cannot obtain remission of the original sin."

It's interesting because I have my own little "situation" concerning this kind of thing. I say that God picked His elect for certain from before the foundation of the world. So, I can't say that God throws out "free passes" as time goes by. This leaves open the possibility that some innocent children, or aborted babies, etc. are not on the list. Of course, they could all be on the list. There's no way for me to know. So if I understand the Reformed view on this, and if I am to be consistent, then I have to leave open the possibility.

(8) Baptism is adoption of man by Christ (St John of Damascus, Book IV, VIII:5). What he is saying basically is: there is no age limit when God may adopt us.

Yes, this ties in with above, and I agree that there is no age limit. I would say the elect are the elect whether or not they have been baptized or even said the sinner's prayer.

10) Let's not forget that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb (Luke 1:15).

That is a fair point for those who believe that the Spirit indwells at Baptism. (I just don't happen to be one of those people. :)

(12) Surely, you must agree that God is not limited by our age of reason or, as Tertullian would say, our "spiritual puberty," for us to have our sins remitted by His Grace. The Church understood that from the beginning, and still does, even I.

Yes, I agree with you in principle, that no one is barred from heaven based on age, even in the womb. -- And on this whole subject, as I have said to Joe before, and others I'm sure, infant baptism has never been a matter of serious controversy for me. Even while holding my current beliefs, I sanctioned both of my [then] infant children being baptized in other churches for family reasons. It was no problem. They have both since been baptized as believers. So, my main disagreements would be much less over the fact of infant baptism, and much more over the meaning behind it.

BTW, for anyone who doesn't already know, and would be interested in knowing where I'm coming from in a believer's baptism, here are some scriptures I would use in support:

1. Mark 16:15-16 : 15 He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

"Believe" comes first, just as in Matthew, plus notice the clear implication that not being baptized does not equal condemnation, only unbelief does, even though baptism was just mentioned in the same sentence.

2. Acts 2:41 : Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Unbelievers, such as infants, were not baptized.

3. Acts 8:12 : But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Only when they believed were they baptized.

4. Acts 18:8 : Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.

Why does it matter? Sola scriptura, friend, makes you the pope and the church all in one!

Even though I think I've heard of that before, I always think that is an interesting comparison

The only comparison between Jewish circumcision and Baptism is that both represent a covenant with God. The people were not sure if the number of days used by the Jews was significant or not. That's why they asked if it had to be on day 8 after the birth. But, as usual, Christianity is but a pale reflection of Judaism, which is evident from St. Justin Martyr's dismissal.

I say that God picked His elect for certain from before the foundation of the world

That would imply the pre-existance of souls, which is a Gnostic belief -- of which St. Paul has been suspect, at least in his earlier beliefs.

I would say the elect are the elect whether or not they have been baptized or even said the sinner's prayer

Baptism is one Sacrament that is recognized by all Christian assemblies as an absolute necessity to be Christian. Those who are not in the Church usually consider it a nominalist symbol, just like the breaking of the bread. Those who are not Christian can indeed be God's elect, but anyone, believer or not, who is not in covenant with Christ is not a Christian.

Even while holding my current beliefs, I sanctioned both of my [then] infant children being baptized in other churches for family reasons...They have both since been baptized as believers

Anabaptism (which is what you did) was considered vehement heresy by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and especially by the Reformed movements. You need to read up on Anabaptists, who were eventually destroyed -- especially by the Lutherans. It all goes back to the understanding of baptism as a Sacrament and not a mere ritual.

One thing however, that was amazing is that Anabaptists were way ahead of their times in terms in some ways. They were the founders of pacifism, believing in non-violence and opposing war. In fact, in Germany in the 16th century it was said that if a man does not drink excessively, and does not abuse his family and servants, he is probably an Anabaptist!

"Believe" comes first, just as in Matthew, plus notice the clear implication that not being baptized does not equal condemnation

Baptism is for the remission of sins. What St. Mark is saying is that whoever is baptized and believes will be saved. Therefore it is not enough to just believe (sola fide is not enough). Those who do not believe, even if they are baptized, will not be saved. So, baptism and faith go hand in hand; but those who are baptized and cannot believe (infants) are not condemned because it is not their fault.

Acts 18:8 : Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized

Entire household includes children/infants. Those who believe but are not baptized will want to be baptized. That does not mean infants cannot be baptized. Christ did not say baptize only those who believe.

I have also noticed your comments that baptism is good only until the next sin. That's why we have confession/repentance and communion -- it's a renewal of our state of being baptized because we certainly do not keep it holy and clean.

Hello IQ -

Thank you for your very kind words and for your most thorough and complete answer. :)

In fact, some might even go so far as to insinuate that these two verses [Matt. 13:55-56] single handedly discredit Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, ... In fact, I can't think of any other reason why so much time and energy would be dedicated by Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians to making the point that Mary the Mother of our Savior had an active sex life after the birth of the Christ. It is, after all, a question which has no bearing on the theology of salvation for these two movements.

Well, I would never be one to think that an honest disagreement about a couple of verses like these would mean the downfall of a faith. So I'm not in that camp. :) I don't think of this as being "core" theology on either side. But I do find it a very interesting topic, so I enjoy debating it, and learning what others think and why. I think that if there are some people out there who make a federal case out of this, that my "guess" would be that the real issue is one of "scripture versus Tradition", generally.

(When last I was on FR, someone pinged me about half a dozen times to tell me that "Jesus and Mary had sex." According to this person, she knew this because, "God said so.")

LOL! I'll call Tom Hanks and Ron Howard. This has "Da Vinci Code II" written all over it! :) Come to think about it, perhaps this person was thinking of Da Vinci Code I, and the other Mary. I hate that book. :)

[On who is "James" in Matt. 13:55-56:] So the Gospels concur that James, “the brother of our Lord” was actually not the son of Joeseph, but rather of Alphaeus.

But that's only in a two-James world! :) James was a common name, why couldn't there have been three of them (or even four)? We could have the Apostle James, the son of Zebedee, the Apostle James, the son of Alphaeus (James the Less), and the "later" Apostle James, the son of Mary and Joseph, and half-brother of Jesus.

I see your tie between identifying James in Gal. 1:18-19 as an Apostle, and then listing all the Apostles named "James" from the original 12. That makes perfect sense. But we know that the original 12 named Apostles did not constitute an exhaustive list. Not only did Paul come later, but wasn't Matthias also named as a "new" Apostle? I think some also consider Barnabas to be an Apostle. I would submit for consideration that James, the half-brother of Jesus was a "third" James and was just such a late-coming Apostle to the scene. I do think this is the same James in Gal. 1:19 (the first reference to James, half-brother of Jesus, as an Apostle), and in Acts 15 (James, son of Zebedee was already dead [chap. 12], and James the Less may not have had the stature to lead an entire council.), and the author of the Book of James. My little theory "could" be supported by the following

1 Cor. 15:5-8 : ... 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

To me, this clearly indicates a third James, since it does not say "then to the rest of the Apostles". At the time referenced in this passage, Paul, like James, brother of Jesus, was not yet an Apostle. That is why James and Paul are listed separately and apart from "all the Apostles".

If Mary, mother of James the Less, also had a son named Joses, I'm not sure that is proof of anything either way, since there could have been any number of people with that name.

Perhaps Judas is Jude, “the brother of James”? “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, To those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ:” (Jude 1:1) So here we see the author of the Epistle of Jude identifying himself as a brother to James. James who? How about James the “pillar.” James who addressed the Church at the Council of Jerusalem, James the brother of our Lord?

Yes, to everything here. If I'm right about James, then this "Jude" would also be a half-brother of Jesus.

The first question we want to ask ourselves is, why does Jude identify himself as the brother of James, and not the brother of our Lord?

One explanation would be that Jude realized the divinity of our Lord, and did not feel worthy to refer to Him as a "sibling" in the normal human sense. Instead, Jude refers to himself as "a servant of Jesus Christ", just as James does. This indicates to me that Jude did recognize the divinity of Jesus.

Now, if we believe that the Epistle of Jude is actually Apostolic, the author would be Jude Thadeus, listed as one of the twelve Apostles.

I don't think that is necessarily so in view of above. Others were considered Apostles later, although I do not know if this Jude actually was considered an Apostle. If he was a blood brother of Jesus and he "was sent", then he would appear, at least, to qualify.

But since, as we have seen that James the brother of our Lord, also listed in Matthew 13:55, 56 is in fact James the Apostle and pillar, it is a reasonable guess to say that Jude the “brother” of James is the same person as “Judas” the brother of James and Jesus.

It's pretty funny that I can truly agree with absolutely everything you are saying here, yet we are talking about two completely different things. :)

The point of the passage [Matt. 1:24-25] is to convey to the reader that Jesus was born to a virgin.

Well, I suppose so, and given the immediately preceding verses, I would take 24-25 to be sort of insurance verses against sex during pregnancy. :) The question I ask is: What is the reasonable implication from these verses?

You stated well my belief that since they were married at that time, that "until" meant until the birth, and thereafter they would have a normal marriage. The counter I have seen to this is that "until" is really like the "unto" used at the end of Matthew when Jesus says He will be with them unto the very end of the age. The argument says that since Jesus would be with them even after that, there is no future assumption or change after the timing element is met (the end of the age).

I disagree with this idea based on the relative contexts of both situations. To me, in the context of what Jesus said, it would be completely counterintuitive for anyone to think that Jesus would be with them unto the end of the age, and then abandon them. That wouldn't make sense to anyone, and I doubt that anyone hearing Jesus say that, or anyone reading about it later, would have come to that conclusion. In this case, the "normal" state simply continues.

In the case of Matt. 1, however, just the opposite is true. Joseph and Mary were man and wife. Their "normal" state would be to be living as man and wife. It makes perfect sense that scripture tells us that they abstained from sex until Jesus was born, that was reasonable and necessary for reasons also plainly given. However, once the requirements were fulfilled, it makes much more sense to me that they would have gone INTO a "normal" state of marriage. It would be counterintuitive for them NOT to have done so. I think the word "until" is the confirming signal for this. It means that the "abnormal" state turns into a "normal" state. To me, this information is useful to the reader, and worth a verse. I see this as the more reasonable implication.

The Scriptures nowhere tell us that Mary had sexual relations with a man, nor do they tell us that she had other biological children.

Well, the scriptures DO say that, but it is a matter of debate as to the interpretation. I would say that the "plain meaning" would strongly favor my side, leaving it to others to prove it wrong. The actual "words" really are there. So, if I said that Paul actually had a wife and 5 kids, and you said that it was nowhere in scripture, then it would be a slam dunk that you were right and all of the burden would be on me to deliver something.

If they did, in fact, have other children, it is hard to believe that Mary would have gone to live with the Apostle John after the death of Christ. Why not just stay with her own children?

A perfectly reasonable question. My personal opinion is, apart from any research, that there were two reasons why John got this job, and not Jesus' half-brothers, James and Jude.

One is that John was the one whom Jesus loved. He was also picked as one of the twelve, unlike either of Jesus' blood brothers. This tells me that both James and Jude did not have faith in Jesus early on. (No problem, they eventually came around.) But Jesus knew that John had been there for Him from the beginning, so it makes perfect sense to me that He would pick the best candidate, regardless of the tradition of picking a blood brother. (Jesus broke such traditions several times.)

The other reason John got the job was that He was THERE. :) As Jesus was dying on the cross, all the other Apostles had fled. Only John was there as an Apostle. That shows tremendous loyalty to me. It is also evidence that John would be the perfect choice to whom Jesus would entrust His mother.

If the men mentioned in Matthew 13:55, 56 are Christ's brothers, then James preaches that true religion before God is to care for the widow and the orphan in their affliction, but he himself did not take care of his own widowed mother.

If I'm following you, then I am assuming that you are assuming that Joseph has died by this time? If that's right, then my answer would be that James was never asked to take care of Mary, his mother. He wasn't an Apostle at that time, he wasn't there at the crucifixion, and he may not have even believed that Jesus was the Christ yet. By my reasoning, John was a far superior choice at the time.

This has been a very interesting discussion so far. Thank you again for your post. :)

Yeah, I'm not crystal clear on how this works. We know the Jews lived "under law". Yet we also know that Moses WROTE that righteousness was accorded to Abraham because of faith, not works

I said I would revisit this topic, so here I am.

The best way to understand Jewish mind is to talk to your Jewish friends and ask them. If they invite you to a Passover Seder, please go and learn. You will be astounded to hear them quote from Isaiah and other OT verses. It will bring you very close spiritually to them.

When you ask them, you will get simple, unambiguous, no-nonsesne, reverent answers. They will say things like "we make ourselves acceptable to God by doing good things." Or, "man does not need to be saved." Or "There is only one God, not three."

Basic Judaism, simple enough for a non-Jew to understand states:

merit system based on your actions

humanity is capable of being considered righteous in G-d's eyes

all ephases are mine

So, the Judaism of the Pharisees, the rabbinical Judaism of today, is essentially Pelagian: man is good enough to merit a place in the World to Come based on his own conduct, deeds and "purification" (in Shoel or Hades, which some have liked to the Purgatory).

The Sadduccees, the priestly class, did not believe in resurrection because it is not mentioned in the Torah, the Five Books of Moeses. The fact that it appears in later Tanakh, in the disputed book of Daniel, shows that the Sadduccees did not believe it to be a genuine biblical source, but the Pharisees do (although some of the chapters do not appear in their and Protestant versions).

Likewise, the idea of being "saved" is perplexing to them. They will tell you that God already saved the His people (Israel) from Egypt and put them in their promised land, and that God saves us on a daily basis.

Thus, regarding salvation, the Jews will say:

Salvation from sin is unnecessary in Judaism, because Judaism does not believe that mankind is inherently evil or sinful or in need of Divine Intervention in order to escape eternal damnation. In fact, Judaism does not even believe in eternal damnation.

Judaism recognizes that people have sinful impulses, but Judaism also recognizes that people have an inclination to do good and to be good, and that people are able to choose whether to follow the evil inclination or the good inclination.

It is within our ability to be righteous. The Torah itself says, " The word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it." (Deut. 30:14). And if we miss the mark, when we fail to fulfill the good laws that G-d has provided for us, then we can obtain forgiveness through prayer, repentance and good deeds.

So, while they use the same Book of the Old Covenant that we consider Scripture, they read it differently. They believe that God gave us the Law so that we may make ourselves righteous by obeying it by their own free will and not because God "moved" them to do so.

There are a lot of the same words being used as in Christianity, but without knowing at least the basic principles of Judaism it is easy to fall into a false belief by equating their principles of faith with ours.

Whether Judaism reflect the faith of the OT righteous or not is not ours to determine. Just by seeing how different Judaism is from Christianity, down to the core, is enough to understand that Christianity is not the faith the OT righteous would recognize as their own.

One more interesting aspect is the Jewish concept of the Nature of God. One of these is that God is neither male nor female. As one rabbi said, God has no genitalia. Yet, liturgical Judaism uses the phrase "Avinu Malkeinu," ("our Father, our King.")

Judaism uses the male gender "because it is convenient" (?), but this has probably more to do with the fact that Jewish women were social nonentities at the time Torah was being written. Jews disallow any other being or part of God to be considered as equal or co-equal. The idea of Trinity is blasphemy for the Jews.

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.