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.

Elaine Pagels is only one among many scholars and authors who have both the knowledge and a (sometimes not so) veiled agenda. But the same can be said of those presenting "traditionalist" views.

If Pagels were to write an evangelistic work for Gnosticism, I wouldn't care. But her "evangelism" is presented as scholarship, data, and hard facts, when they are often anything but

I agree. But, then, the entire Christian faith is a matter of, well, faith, not fact! :) Nevertheless, the same can be said of the opposing side. We accept the Scripture on faith. Jews, who disagree with us do so based on their faith.

However, if it were all a matter of faith things would be easy. Unfortunately, facts get in the way. The world is not as smooth and self-congratulatory as we would like it to be, unless we choose to hide in our own little box and pretend that no one else could possibly be right, or – God forbid – that we may be wrong.

It involved the discussion we had over circumcision not being necessary for Christians, a practice ended when Jesus instituted the new covenant, and now we have new minds and new hearts instead. Paul himself says he learned of these things by revelation, a gift of the Holy Spirit.

Galatians 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:

2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

2:5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

It is indeed strange that someone who did not know Christ in person would be elevated top be an Apostle of Christ by the Apostles -- yet the timing of him being placed in 'charge' of converting Gentiles comes at the time when Christianity as Judaism was dying rapidly.

I like you Mr 50 cent,and please don't take this the wrong way, :) but you tend to make statements and then don't really provide anything to substantiate these statements. You have done this about Jewish belief and now Paul.

What words and phrases? I should not have to do the research.

Paul says that he met Christ on the road to Damascas. He had Christian witnesses that attested to a great change that suddenly came about in him. He went from one day killing Christians, to the next being in shock and unable to speak. He stayed for about a year and a half with Christians while he recovered his speech. When he did go forth to preach, he had a power that was phenomenal in interpreting the Christian religion in light of the Hebrew religion. In fact, being a Jewish scholar, unlike say Peter, brought a deeper understanding of Christianity into being, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, is simply mind blowing in its theological implications. The times of the Gentiles must come in, and how would that happen without Paul? The Christian religion was meant to spread through the Greeks, not the Jews.

The Jews were preached to first, they had their chances, then it was preached to the Greeks, second..(Romans 1:16)

Paul learned of this plan to spread the Gospel from Christ directly and says so in regards to the mystery that was revealed to him.

Romans11:25

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

There is a difference. There are very few scholars holding views that support traditionalist views of any kind who do not readily acknowledge that they are part of a community of faith, and that their job is, at root, a service to that community of faith. So one cannot say that there is an equivalence.

The fact that they acknowledge their faith and their service to the Church, does not mean that they believe that their views are entirely blind-faith, contrary to reason, or indefensible from a scholarly point of view. Quite the contrary. Knowing that they are swimming against the tide of post-Enlightenment thought, most academics with traditional beliefs are scrupulous in their treatment of the evidence at hand, knowing that any mis-step will be pounced on.

On the other hand, most anti-Christian scholars teach at a seminary, which means that they are intellectually dishonest and morally fraudulent: they are on the payroll of an institution that they don't believe in and that are intent on destroying. The rest are in secular institutions where they assume the guise of completely objective, "scientific" investigation.

In either case, dishonesty is involved, and in either case the superficial presumption by an outside observer is that it must be the anti-Christian scholars who are right: the former because "it must take a lot of courage for him to question his own faith," and the latter because "what those traditionalists say is just faith, but what those people at Princeton and Harvard say is *science* and *hard facts*."

Ann Rice gives testimony to theh prevalence of this superficial impression. She *knew* that Pagels and the like were the real scholars, and that Christianity was helpless in the face of the skeptical critiques. What she learned is what anyone who honestly digs deeper can learn for themselves.

No one defending the Church's positions has ever thought that the world was a smooth and self-congratulatory place. No-one who participates in FR could think so. I doubt SS. Paul, Irenaeus, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory Palamas, etc... thought it was.

They prayerfully used their considerable intellects and extensive educations to discern the mind of the Church and to defend the traditional faith of the Church from attack using every scholarly and literary tool at their disposal. And they weren't intellectually dishonest in the process -- they made no secret of their faith in and union with God.

"No, rather it's because scripture is the INSPIRED word of God. What Paul wrote came from God. How can that be Gnosticism? This seems to me to be a big DUH!!!"

Whether approach you take toward the canon of Scripture, all of these letters were indeed both determined to be inspired Scripture *and* to be the letters of St. Paul.

The Fathers and Councils who came up with the various lists of canonical NT books, and which coalesced into uniform agreement on a canon all specifically attribute all of these epistles (including Hebrews) to St. Paul.

I'm not sure that there were any canonical lists that did not include every single Epistle of St. Paul, and attribute their authorship to him. The epistles that were missing from this or that list were some of the general epistles. If any Pauline epistles were missing (or considered to be less important) from someone's list, they would have been the later epistles: precisely the ones that Pagels claims are post-Pauline anti-Gnostic forgeries. One would expect the opposite if Pagels claims were true

But HD and 1000S, Kosta is not going to accept any of those arguments, because they are self-referential arguments from the Church's tradition. If you want to discuss this, you will have to go over the details. Kosta will need to tell you the parts he thinks are Gnostic in the epistles of St. Paul, and you will need specifically to show why they are not.

I'm going to do other things, though. Have fun! :-)

Thanks for the ping. It gave me the opportunity to spell out the pre-fab Orthodox position, and that's about all I have the energy for today (I need to spend time with Mrs. Agrarian on Mothers' Day.) :-)

A driver's license is a conditional privilege, subject to being lost if the conditions are not met. If you think this is the same as eternal life, then you should not call it "eternal life".

Then I shouldn't call a driver's licence a "driver's license". To the possesor of the license (or Christ's abiding presence), it grants that person particular abilities as duly noted. As I have noted from Scripture quotes, "eternal life", in John's writings, normally refers to Christ's abiding presence - which is subject to leaving when we sin. This much is clear in many Scripture verses, such as :

"Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, [then] we have confidence in God; and whatsoever we ask, we receive of him because we keep his commandments and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he has commanded us. And he that keeps his commandments dwells in him, and he in him. And in this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us." 1 John 3:21-24

Once we have achieved heaven, this abiding presence is no longer subject to being lost - and thus, it does become our permanent status. This understanding is much more in line with Scriptures then "well, for the last 20 years, you never had it to begin with..." What a crock. Either you do or you do NOT have abiding presence. It is silly to claim "well, you fell away, so you never had eternal life to begin with".

God is commanding/encouraging us to not choose to sin, which we can always do.

You are missing the point! First, you deny that man can do ANYTHING - then you expect man to choose NOT to sin??? How is this possible? Either God graces man, leading man to be able to choose God - and thus making sense of perseverence, OR God demands that man do something that man cannot do - and injustly condemns said man for not being able to fulfill something he could NEVER do unaided! You can't have it both ways - God does everything/man is responsible!!!

This is directly related to our discussion on what "eternal" means. To me, once a ticket is punched, that's it, the ticket has a hole in it, and it is a permanent hole.

A fine analogy, IF ANYONE ACTUALLY RECEIVED A TICKET! No one does. That's the problem with this analogy. We can NEVER know we will persevere, from our point of view. Thus, there IS NO visible means for man to know we will die in grace.

God doesn't promise that we will never get sick again, He promises that those who believe will go to heaven.

Those WHO PERSEVERE in this belief will go to heaven. God expects man's response to continue throughout his life. If you REALLY believe in something, you make it part of your life, not "Lord, Lord" - and "I never knew you"... Those going to heaven are the ones who believe and put their belief into action. Not the ones who merely talk, talk, talk...

"My little children, let us not love in word neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth." 1 John 3:18

I know you've never said the elect can be lost, but I thought that we disagreed on who the sheep were

Another misinterpretation. The "sheep" are God's COMMUNITY, not individuals. When Christ is talking about His sheep, His flock, He is speaking about His Church, the community of faith. Christ doesn't speak about salvation coming to those who sit down and read the Bible for themselves. God doesn't promise individuals salvation outside of this flock.

OK, when I said "God promises to fix US", I should have said "God promises to fix His elect". Is that better? :) God promises to fix ANYONE who turns to Him. In the end, those who DID turn to God and died in such a state of grace were on God's elect list the whole time. There is no point in trying to put yourself on this list - we just will never know and is presumption. One of the worse sins is religious pride. I see this sin quite clearly in the attitude that "God has saved me and I am going to heaven". The Scriptures are full of verses that talk about God desiring that men turn to Him and He would forgive them of sin. From man's point of view, salvation is available to ALL men.

Regards

So Mary is the singular wife of God?

Who ever said that?

It seems to me that Joseph was being more than a good sport about all this. :) I don't understand why he is denied.

MAYBE they didn't have Viagra back then... Sex isn't one of those "things to do" when you are 70 years old, especially if the GIRL took a vow of virginity.

Well, so could the Temple if that's where she came from! Why couldn't Jesus have grown up in the Temple, just like His mother did?

You are trying to rationalize the faith, again. Why did Christ become a man? Why did Christ die on a cross? Why is there air??? Who knows the mind of God. One can ascertain many reasons for Jesus growing up in the situation that He did, rather than being raised within the Temple.

My problem is that it does not appear to match scripture.

Does the Bible say that Joseph and Mary had sex? Don't you find Mary's reply to the angel strange? Why wouldn't it be like Hannah, if Mary was just an ordinary, betrothed woman about to enter into a sexual relationship?

Regards

You are right that this is a puzzlement.

Rahlf's text of the LXX says the same as the Hebrew, and a quick glance through the apparatus doesn't reveal any alternative LXX readings that bear on this.

Bottom line is that the Scripture does portray this as a conversation between the dead Samuel and Saul.

As I said before, from an Orthodox spiritual tradition perspective, if someone goes to a psychic and asks to talk to, oh, let's say Samuel, and Samuel appears -- we would say that by definition that it was a demon, and not Samuel.

Yet, after some pretty extensive looking, I have not found any place in which any of the fathers refer to or comment on this story, so until and unless I encounter patristic commentary that explains things to the contrary, I will have to say that at the very least, this is an open question, with the nod having to go to it being a genuine (and most difficult to accept) appearance of Samuel.

Sola Scriptura does not say to throw out anything not written. It says that God's written word is the only authority. Extra-scriptural things can be fine if they do not "offend" scripture.

I fail to see your distinction between "throwing out unwritten material" and "God's written word is the only authority". And obviously, WHO is to judge whether Scripture has been "offended"? YOU? Clearly, we both have different ideas of whether this has happened. Your view appears to be VERY literal and strict, complying with you preconceived views of man and his relationship (or more accurately, his lack of relationship, with God), while the Church's and St. Paul appears to be more open and more willing to encompass things that were said AND written.

I believe that the opening to Luke is in support of this by taking the step of showing that something must be written in order to be sure.

The reason why Luke writes is not because "people cannot know things that are orally given" but for the sake of organization and more clear reference. I don't find Luke at any time mentioning that oral traditions are to be abrogated. IF this was in his mind, he certainly would have wrote down something to the effect of "ignore any other rumours or teachings not given in written form from now on. They are utterly unreliable and could "offend" the Scriptures that I now write." Nowhere do we get the sense that Luke is writing an account because some people are baptizing babies when they shouldn't be...

As I have already acknowledged, I do not claim that the Luke passage is THE slam dunk for Sola Scriptura, but is useful in general support of it. We have also seen other scripture.

I don't see it supporting SOLA Scripture at all. I see it supporting the utility of written material - but NEVER denying that oral material had its utility AND AUTHORITY as well. It is the APOSTLES who were given the power to bind and loosen, NOT the Bible!

Because you can see out of one eye, should you then get rid of the other? Hardly. The Scriptures AND Apostolic Tradition were given to the Church as a deposit of faith, the Word of God for the Church. By ridding Christianity of part of this sense of God's Word, revelation is no longer clear. This much should be obvious to any person who considers the numerous denominations of Protestantism, even during the time of Luther.

Other Scripture verses have been refuted. It is just not there. Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men. The "Sola" part was never meant as the way that Christians would come to know God. Are you forgeting that people hardly even read the Bible until the 1500's, and these people were quite knowledgeable of the faith as a result of the teachers and practice of the faith.

And you are right that Sola Scriptura does place God's written word as the source and arbitrator of all other information. Therefore, everything else must be interpreted through the Bible, rather than the Bible being interpreted through everything else.

Fantasy that is not done in practice. The very fact that we disagree on Scriptures should point out that Scriptures do not interpret themselves!

Regards

How can Catholicism get one to 99%, but not 100%? It seems to me that with my understanding of your view of free will, that it would be impossible to get even near to 99%.

Not sure what you mean. A person who BELIEVES Christ abides in them as a result of their subsequent obedience to the Commandments. THIS is the visible sign of His presence. If Christ abides in us, then we possess eternal life. But cannot we fool ourselves into thinking we are abiding in Christ? Or perhaps wishful thinking? Paul tells us to "beware lest you fall". We always realize that God's view of us may differ from our IDEA of who God views us.

This is a perfect example of my last sentence. I thought your view was that God's plan was for everyone to be saved, and that free will is the only thing that stops that. Since you know that the rate of salvation is no where near 99%, how can you have that assurance?

I am speaking of a person who abides in Christ, not the general public.

I thought your view was that God cannot send us to hell, only we can send ourselves to hell.

I didn't say that God CANNOT send us to hell! I said that God desires men to be saved and WE are the catalyst for our refusal and rejection of God. As a result of man's response, God DOES condemn people to hell. If you want to look at it from our point of view, we condemn ourselves by our actions.

If everyone is born with enough grace to be saved, and everyone has free will, and everyone has an open shot at accepting and persevering, then really, salvation is ours to lose.

That's what we believe. God allows us to chose Him or reject Him. But how does God's timeless foreknowledge play into this? We frankly can only speculate. We must hold to teachings as equally true: God desires all men to be saved AND men has free will to chose or reject God. Scriptures give us these as fact. Rejecting one teaching "offends" the Scriptures!

Regards

The second part of your statement though gives me pause. There is no SCRIPTURAL basis for your assertion that the men who followed the Apostles were granted any supernatural powers. For example after Mathias was appointed to replace Judas we never heard from him again.

First, you seem to believe that the Bible completely records EVERYTHING that was done by the early Church! The Bible is a compiliation of SOME of the Apostles' letters to individual churches that asked for THEIR help and guidance on particular issues. It is not a systematic theology book or a catechism. Thus, we shouldn't expect the Bible to discuss EVERY Apostle's work. At any rate, we can find more information outside of the Inspired Holy Writ that is ALSO reliable.

And even within Scriptures, in particular, the Pastorals and the Acts of the Apostles, we see the conferment of power being given by the "Church elders" to others, such as Timothy and Titus. This "laying of hands" was understood as the giving of the Spirit in a special way, a vocation and a sending - thus, in a sense, making these second generation Christians "apostles" in that they were sent to continue spreading the Word of God. Do you think that Mat 28:20 was meant only for THAT generation of men and women? God's Word transcends time and place.

Regards

But HD and 1000S, Kosta is not going to accept any of those arguments, because they are self-referential arguments from the Church's tradition.

Tut, tut. You can't make the claim that Orthodox/RCCers accept the traditions handed down by the fathers and then say, "It's OK to ignore those traditions." especially when in comes to the Bible. If the Church settled on these books as inspired, then what happen to the insolubility of the Church and the traditions of the church fathers?

Truth is traditions are picked and chosen by various groups within the Church. This is one example. At least Protestants tend to be a little more focus and accept the word of God as standard.

Kosta will need to tell you the parts he thinks are Gnostic in the epistles of St. Paul, and you will need specifically to show why they are not.

Please do. And while you're at it please provide for me the references from early church fathers who, after the scriptures were put together in a book, still believed Paul's writings were Gnostic. We'll base it on Church tradition. How's that for being fair?

And while you're at it please provide for me the references from early church fathers who, after the scriptures were put together in a book, still believed Paul's writings were Gnostic. We'll base it on Church tradition. How's that for being fair?

That would be way too easy! First, this is not a simple matter. It's as if someone said "Tell me everything about yourself in 30 seconds." Second, this is not about spoon feeding. What you know, from what I can tell, is what you worked on. No one poured the knowledge onto the silver plate for you to use.

HD, 1000 silverlings, what good was telling people that the earth was not flat if they refused to consider the evidence? How can you tell is someone is a doctor unless you know what being a doctor is? And it isn't something you can just list in a half a dozen bullets. You will just have to find out yourself, the way you found out everything else.

Now, it is your choice to say "Bah, I give no authority to these lies" and dismiss a number of academics with very impressive backgrounds as charlatans, but then the Reformation did that with the 1,500 year-old-Church. It's an option, just as it's an option to state that if God wanted man to fly He would have given him wings!

Agrarian, your charge that the academics are dead set to destroy the religion would have to be substantiated. Bishop Eusebius, the first Church historian (4th c.), specifically said that the Church will use only that information which is profitable for the Church and ignore the rest. We must assume that each side seeks to defend its beleifs, and not prejudge their motives.

You can't make the claim that Orthodox/RCCers accept the traditions handed down by the fathers and then say, "It's OK to ignore those traditions."

You are absolutely right! And, contrary to what you think, I don't! I have said it before and I will say it again: I believe Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity, as my tagline says. I believe in everything the Church teaches, even if I don't understand it.

That does not, and should not, preclude me or anyone else from seeking and engaging information that seems to contradict, alter, supplement, widen, etc. the faith and/or ecclesiastical praxis, and put them to a test, especially if it is not some old heresy that has been rehashed and rejected, but something new and previously unknown.

I will drop yet another bomb: to me it is inconceivable that anyone would feel perfectly at peace, perfectly content with their faith, as if they have reach perfect sainthood, live a sinless life, and believe in perfect knowledge, and have no need or desire to be purified as long as they live, but instead believe they have learned everything there is to learn, to know everything there is to know, believe and live their faith perfectly.

Apparently, many seem to believe themselves that good, having nothing more to learn, but only to preach and teach us less perfect beings something about perfect faith and perfect knowledge.

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.