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

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

[HarleyD]

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erasmus On the Freedom of the Will

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luther's Arguments Against Erasmus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Battle of the Biblical Texts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Main Issues and Implications of Each View

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Importance of This Controversy Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jo kus]

Sister.....

Oh, sorry, I couldn't tell from here.

Regards

[jo kus]

But the Apostles could not have taught that it was proper to baptize an adult who was a non-believer. Surely, they understood that infants were also "non-believers" just in a definitional sense. So, it doesn't seem to me that they would be just expanding a practice to include more people, they had to change the meaning of it, didn't they?

That argument makes no sense, given the background of the Apostles - THEY CIRCUMCISED INFANTS! They themselves were circumcised as infants. Christ was circumcised as an infant. And Paul clearly parallels circumcision and baptism - that circumcision was a shadow of the good things to come. They served similar purposes - to induct people into the Church, the People of God. Thus, it is a very small step to include infants as being able to be baptized. Anyway, God gives faith, correct? Are you saying that one must have "x" amount of faith (from God) to become baptized? What exactly are you saying when you claim that ONLY believers can be baptized? Does one have to earn baptism? Is it a work of man?

Now, now, you know as well as I that sin is also in thought, which none of the Apostles could have known as regards Mary. One example of Mary's sin that I have heard of was at the wedding in Cana. Frankly, I'd be willing to let that one slide. Objectively, I honestly don't see enough evidence. However, and since I'm thinking of it at this moment, :) is it a sin to disbelieve when one has no excuse? If it is, then how does Mary get out of the scene when she went to the tomb to anoint the body? She didn't bring the spices because she expected a risen Lord, EXACTLY when He said He would rise. The angel's question confirms this.

That Mary was without sin is "fitting", given the Divine Being she carried in her womb. We see Mary as the Ark of the Covenant, as she, like the original Ark, carried the Bread of Life, the High Priest, the Law. Jesus Christ went beyond the mere symbols in the original ark. And the Ark was made of pure gold, purified. We take this symbolism all the way. We also understand that Mary is the New Eve, who ALSO was born sinless. Thus, the development of Mary as being pure. The Apostles must have seen her apparent sinlessness, and Scriptures point to the "fittingness" of Mary being sinless - JUST like we presume that Jesus also didn't have a sinful thought, even though Paul or the Apostles couldn't have known either person's mind or thoughts.

I don't see any sin from Mary's actions at Cana. You need to look beyond the literal in John's Gospel, brother. It goes much deeper, pointing to the woman at the foot of the cross and the woman in the Garden of Eden.

However, and since I'm thinking of it at this moment, :) is it a sin to disbelieve when one has no excuse?

There is a difference between disbelief and doubt. One can have many doubts pass through their minds and still believe.

May I assume that you ignore this verse in defending your position that the only legitimate Sabbath is on a Saturday? (I assume that because you said that we don't pick and choose which day to worship God.) I didn't even know that Catholics don't worship on Sundays!

We worship on Sundays since the time of the Apostles to celebrate the NEW CREATION - the Resurrection.

Regards

[Agrarian]

"Well, he couldn't have been all the way over the hill, because IIRC, in the Protoevangelium it says that Joseph was accused by others of fathering the child, once Mary was discovered to have been pregnant."

Men have fathered children when they are very elderly. It just doesn't happen very often. The criticism leveled at Joseph was, as I recall, a "tut tut" for not preserving Mary's virginity as had been assumed would be the case. The idea that old men usually can do without it is still true today, as is the reality that many continue on until they are very old. There's nothing here of particular interest.

"Given this premise, I'd say it sounds logical. But what gets me is: why get married? I can't believe it would send shock waves through the community if "young virgin niece" wants to go live with and take care of "doddering old uncle". That kind of thing must have happened all the time. Joseph even complained that he would be seen as a laughing stock at taking Mary as his wife. Then, the priest immediately used extortion to get Joseph to agree. I'm still chuckling about that one. :)"

First of all, do not assume that every part of the Protoevangelion is true. It is not Scripture, nor is this tradition. In the case of traditions like this, we feel very confident in the basic account, but we don't read into small details of the tradition with the confidence that we can with Scripture. I do not know a lot about Near Eastern culture. I just understand that it was expected for women to marry, and keep in mind that one could marry a distant relative, which Joseph was. To cohabit with someone you could marry probably would have been a scandal. It also would give her certain legal protections and status under Jewish law that would be absent if she were in the odd state of "never married."

"I remember the Protoevangelium noting this too. It just struck me as odd, (and I don't question the fact of the tradition), that since virginity was held up as such a prized state, that once young girls became "eligible", they were promptly kicked out of the safest place on earth to maintain that state! :) Go figure."

You don't know your Old Testament very well if you aren't familiar with the strictness with which the Jewish tradition considered "the cycle" to be a time when a woman was ritually unclean.

BTW, this is still adhered to in many parts of the Orthodox world. Women don't enter the church during that time of the month and certainly don't commune. It is partly a residual of Hebrew tradition, and partly a kindness to the women, who usually aren't feeling all that great.

[jo kus]

Alright ladies and gentlemen, or whichever you are. Let's take a look at the FACT concerning martial intercourse between Mary and Joseph.

First of all, it seems you all believe that Mary just couldn't of had sex because that would of made her somehow sinful.

Catholics don't believe that marriage or sexual intercourse within marriage is sinful. There are plenty of writings from post-Vatican 2 that express this. Pope John Paul 2 was very adamant about this. We don't see Mary as having sex with Joseph because the early Church didn't believe it. It has nothing to do with sex being "sinful"! Scripture is silent on the issue.

Again, we are not discussing anything about "knowing" someone, but the term "till". It does NOT mean anything about the future. It only discounts sexual activity up to that point. You presume that because a 20th century marriage must include sex, you think that Mary and Joseph had sex. The Scriptures do not make that claim.

Your logic is again faulty. You think that because marriage normally includes sex, and that the Bible talks about sex so much, then Mary and Joseph must have had sex. You are forgetting that with Jesus, we see a new manner of God's actions. First of all, before Christ, EVERY person was born to a man and a woman. Was this the case with Christ? Thus, you logic fails on this issue. When we are speaking about Christ and Christ's mother, we have entered a new way of God's action among men.

Especially when the tradition is at COMPLETE ODDS with God himself!

WOW! "Full Court's interpretation" = the "Word of God"! I never would have guessed it. What arrogance and pride!

Through belief and faith in Christ alone, you can be free of the bondage of a false belief, one that denies the complete power of Christ, and gives his intecessory powers to a mere human being.

Bondage? It is a GREAT comfort to know that other people are praying for me - IN HEAVEN - to include Christ's Mother, Mary. I think it is wonderful that God has allowed His Creation to partake in His Divine Nature and allows men to love other men and pray for them (or woman). We don't stand before God as a disconnected individual. We stand before God as a community of people. This is quite clear from Scriptures. Unfortunately, you are in bondage by stripping the Community from Christianity.

Ma'am, I think you need to broaden your narrow view of Christianity.

Regards

[HarleyD]

Joseph even complained that he would be seen as a laughing stock at taking Mary as his wife. Then, the priest immediately used extortion to get Joseph to agree. I'm still chuckling about that one. :)

Interesting point; the priest telling Joseph that if he doesn't take the pregant Mary as his wife, the ground will swallow him up like Koran. I've always pictured Joseph as being a "righteous man" and wanted to do what was right.

Joseph knew the law yet he was torn between doing the "right" thing in sending Mary away and doing the "lawful" thing which would be to report her which would possibly result in her stoning. It appears that Joseph didn't even contemplate doing the "best" thing in marrying her.* The scriptures state Joseph made the decision to send her away. It was only after Joseph made this decision that an angel of God interceded and told Joseph not to worry about taking Mary as his wife.

I'm not sure where all these threats and everything else pops up. It says that Joseph was obedient to the angel's instructions.

*I'll footnote this since it seems to me that under Jewish law, once you were engaged you were consider married-just not consummated until the wedding night. If a person wanted to break the vowels before the consummation process, it required a certificate of divorce. Thus Joseph had to "put her away quietly". Joseph couldn't just call off the engagement. I don't have my reference books but if anyone can shed light on this I would appreciate any corrections or updates.

[jo kus]

Of course not in isolation, I believe that it was God's work that assembled the books of the Bible, such that when one scripture refers to "scripture" it includes all of the books, past, present, and future. Apparently, God hasn't seen fit to make any changes in quite some time.

Again and again, you are begging the question. You PRESUME that God put the Bible together because the Bible is from God - according to you. You have a finished product that you claim is from God. You provide no evidence to prove that - you beg the question. Considering that Esther does not tell us it is Scripture, reading it in isolation does not tell us it is Scriputre. We rely on the decisions of the Community of Faith that Esther represents the "mind" of the Church - which is guided by the Spirit. But having the book in hand does not prove a lick. What makes Esther Scripture, while the book of Wisdom is not, according to Protestants? Or the Epistle of Barnabas? And so forth. It is a circular argument to say "the Bible is the Word of God BECAUSE the Word of God is the Bible". You won't convince any thinking person using this logic.

Then God certainly owes those gentlemen a debt of gratitude, seeing as how God could not inspire a Holy work that was self evident.

LOL! The Bible's individual books are NOT "self-evident"! That is quite ridiculous in many of the OT books! Even some of the NT books do not bear the "stamp" of a divinely written book. Philemon? Jude? 3 John? YOU could pick them out from a pile of scrolls without any knowledge of them previously, and decide they were Scriptures? Please. Give me a break. Without the community led by the Spirit, you wouldn't have a clue on what was Scriptures...

God tells us that to the non-elect, the truths of scripture are nonsense. It is apparent that many of the Jews that are related in the NT during the time of Christ did not have real faith, but also that many Jews did accept Christ.

Can you point those verses out for me? Where does the Bible say the non-elect believe the Scriptures are nonsense? It is readily apparent that Jesus of Nazareth's death did not fit the "Scriptural" view held by the Jews on who the Messiah would be. The Scriptures themselves tell us that a man hung from a tree is condemned by God. It is ONLY Apostolic Tradition that explains Deuteronomy from a different perspective. From the bible alone, Jews will not come to the faith.

And I was already concerned over your apparent worship of dead men and one particular woman. :)

LOL! Asking for someone to pray for me is worship? I guess you must worship living Christians, then!

Regards

[wmfights]

"Again, you are presuming that everything "God breathed" is encapsulated within Scriptures. Sure, Scripture is God-breathed, but so are sacramental actions. So is the Liturgy. So is prayer. So are oral Apostolic Teachings. All are works begun and nutured by the Spirit, God's "Breath"."
___________________________________

The cause of most of the doctrine and practices that divide us is due to your reliance on outside sources to justify your positions and this false concept of "oral tradition" being as valuable as SCRIPTURE.

Purgatory, the Mass, transubstantiation, indulgences, the treasury of merit, penance, the rosary, prayers to Mary, holy water, the papacy, immaculate conception are all based on extra Biblical sources, or your "oral tradition". Let me throw an idea at you. If oral traditions and written words are equivalent once those oral teachings from the Apostles were written down isn't it much more reliable to stand with the written word? Also, the Apostles who were the only ones granted supernatural power are all gone so we can no longer receive these oral teachings directly from them.

Regards to you

[HarleyD]

If a person wanted to break the vowels before the consummation process

A "VOWEL"??? Where's Vanna White???

[HarleyD]

Again and again, you are begging the question. You PRESUME that God put the Bible together because the Bible is from God - according to you. You have a finished product that you claim is from God. You provide no evidence to prove that - you beg the question.

It's nonsense to say that the church fathers picked out 66 books and said, "Well, I think that's a nice round number." The fathers had strict guidelines for determining whether a document was inspired or not. It wasn't built on some whim and approved by the group as you seem to think. The Church in its early years recognized the difference from inspired and uninspired writings. Otherwise, how did the Church tell the difference?

I think FK has more support for his views and the traditions of the Church.

[Agrarian]

For obvious reasons, none of the traditions of the Church deal with the genetics or embryology of what happened at the time of the Annunciation.

The terminology of the Church has been to say that he took flesh from the Virgin. His flesh was not created "de novo" and inserted into her womb, and she wasn't just some kind of "surrogate mother." She was Christ's mother in the flesh.

As to how this exactly took place from the point of view of modern biology, it is probably best not to pry and speculate, just as we Orthodox do not speculate on what happens with the bread and wine at the Divine Liturgy. We know that it is bread and wine, and that by the time we receive it, it is *also* the Body and Blood of Christ -- how this can be is a Mystery beyond our comprehension, thus our usual terminology is to say that we "receive the Holy Mysteries" when we commune.

We do not feel the need to explain everything, nor do we think that we have permission from God to explore beyond the bounds of what he has revealed to us.

[jo kus]

The cause of most of the doctrine and practices that divide us is due to your reliance on outside sources to justify your positions and this false concept of "oral tradition" being as valuable as SCRIPTURE.

Such as Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura? We don't find those in Scripture, but they are the pillars of Protestantism. We BOTH rely on a particular concept, a paradigm, of what the Scriptures say. We admit this and call it "Apostolic Tradition". The Scriptures are read in a certain way. Coupled with the writings of the first Christians, we piece together what they believed and what they practiced, realizing that it was based on the Apostolic teachings given, both orally and written. Protestants, on the other hand, think that the Bible needs no outside authority - that the Bible can interpret itself. This is ludicrous.

Are we to believe that the US Government is wiser than God? The US Constitution is the basis of our Government, a document. This document can be widely interpreted to mean a variety of things on many issues. Thus, fortunately for the unity of our nation, the Founding Fathers came up with a Supreme Court, which would give authoritative judgments on interpretations of this Constitution. Without the Courts, people would pick and choose what the Constitution says and there would be no real unity and sense to the original meaning of the Constitution. What shape would our country be if people decided independently to judge what the Constitution says for the running of our Government or society in general? And that is exactly the mess we are in regarding Protestantism and Christianity.

Purgatory, the Mass, transubstantiation, indulgences, the treasury of merit, penance, the rosary, prayers to Mary, holy water, the papacy, immaculate conception are all based on extra Biblical sources, or your "oral tradition".

Some of these things are not dogmatic teachings. The rest are our understanding of what Scriptures and the Apostles taught. Much of this is witnessed to in the first Christians' writings. The Sacrifice of the Mass is discussed in the Didache, written about the time of John's Gospel. Christians were certainly practicing the Real Presence of Christ. These practices are found in the Bible, although not as clearly as we would like to see. But should we expect more clarity? Not necessarily, because the Bible is NOT a Catechism, but a compilation of letters put together ad hoc. The Church itself is the pillar and foundation of the truth, not the Bible. The Bible is one source that the Church uses, but certainly not the only one, in determining Christian practice. We realize that dogma develops - our understanding of the Scriptures and Apostolic teachings comes to a more clear understanding over time.

If oral traditions and written words are equivalent once those oral teachings from the Apostles were written down isn't it much more reliable to stand with the written word? Also, the Apostles who were the only ones granted supernatural power are all gone so we can no longer receive these oral teachings directly from them.

Yes, oral teachings that are written down are more reliable. When we discuss "oral teachings", we don't mean that these teachings STILL are "oral"! For example, infant baptism is an example of an orally given Tradition of the Apostles. It is not EXPLICIT in the Bible, nor is it DENIED. Scripture is silent on the issue. However, in the writings of early Christians, we find the basis for infant baptism and the claim that it was an "ancient teaching of the Apostles". Thus, when we discover an orally given teaching of the Apostles not found explicitly in the Bible - perhaps only implicitly so - it holds the same force as the written Scriptures in that BOTH have the same source - GOD.

We don't receive teachings directly from the Apostles, but it is passed down by the men appointed to be successors BY the Apostles, men such as Timothy and Titus. We believe that the Holy Spirit will continue to guard against error, since the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. This is not meant only for 50 AD, but for all time, as God's presence will continue to guide His Body.

Regards

[jo kus]

It's nonsense to say that the church fathers picked out 66 books and said, "Well, I think that's a nice round number."

LOL! WHY would they "pick out" 66 of anything? Don't you realize the connotation of that number??? I didn't say that the Church decided to pick out only 73 books for a particular symbolic reason - although 73 would certainly make more sense, if THIS was the ONLY determinant.

The fathers had strict guidelines for determining whether a document was inspired or not.

And what guidelines were those? I'll tell you... Those books that were written by an Apostle or one close to an Apostle AND was in the mold of an ORTHODOX teaching. In other words, the Bishops ALREADY were taught orthodox teachings, had in mind what WAS orthodox, and tossed out any book that didn't fit their ideas of orthodoxy.

The Church in its early years recognized the difference from inspired and uninspired writings. Otherwise, how did the Church tell the difference?

That's exactly what I have said all along.

i think FK has more support for his views and the traditions of the Church.

I know it would be against your religion to agree with a Catholic against another Protestant! But FK's argument is a circular one - the Bible is the Word of God BECAUSE the Word of God is the Bible. It makes no logical sense, and you don't appear to be arguing for this circular arguement. I believe you and I agree, although you may not like to admit this. The Bible was put together by men who already HAD the "Word" preached to them and recognized it when they saw it in the various writings presented to them when the Canon became a necessity. Have I ever said anything different? A whim? Please.

Regards

[D-fendr]

that would definitely seem to throw new light onto the "birth-giver of God" vs. "Mother of God" debate.

Yep, I guess birth-giver is out and mother is back in. ,p.{^_^}

[Agrarian]

"Now THAT is an excellent question. The timing element does seem to be all wrong, doesn't it?"

As I have commented before, the Scriptures give evidence that God preserves people in some way for special purposes. With Elijah, the Scripture is clear that he did not die, but was taken up into heaven -- whoever said that Elijah was in Hades has to contradict Scripture. We have the same phenomenon with Enoch. Orthodox tradition is that the two witnesses at the end of time, spoken of in the Apocalypse, will be Elijah and Enoch. They *then* will die, being martyred in the streets of Jerusalem.

Moses also was special. He died, and God did not allow anyone to be with him at his death or to bury him. Scripture says that God buried him. Then, in Jude, we have the account of St. Michael and Satan disputing over the body of Moses. Why dispute over a dead body? The implication to me is that God was going to resurrect him and take him to heaven, although I'm not sure that this is spelled out in Tradition.

(An aside: There is an apocryphal work called the Assumption of Moses -- I've not read it and I'm not sure it is translated or even still extant -- that some have said Jude is referring to. As with the Protoevangelion, I would be careful about going to that work, if you can find it, and saying that this work in its entirety reflects Orthodox tradition. There is a common source in Holy Tradition, but we cannot hang on the reliability of every passage of these written accounts the way we can with Scripture. If we could, they would *be* Scripture.)

Regardless, with Moses' death, something unusual was in the offing. Another possibility is that at the Transfiguration, Christ appeared out of time, and that Moses and Elijah were seen mystically in their post-resurrectional state. Again, this is me, not anything that I have read patristically.

The bottom line is that I don't think that it is accidental that the Scriptures just happen to have accounts of unusual circumstances surrounding the end of the earthly lives of the two men who appear with Christ at the Transfiguration.

"I've got one I also can't answer. If John the Baptist was, by Christ's account, in essence, the finest human to ever live, and if JTB is actually Elijah, then what were either or both of them doing in Hades at all?"

Christ does not say that John the Baptist was literally Elijah the Tishbite returned to earth. How could that be, since John the Baptist was conceived of Elizabeth and Zacarias? That would mean that Christianity believed in reincarnation. There is something in the patristic commentaries that, as I recall, even point out some ambiguity in Christ's statements that show that he is both saying that Elijah has come, and that he will come. I'll have to look it up.

When Elijah *the Tishbite* (as the LXX specifically says in Malachi) returns literally, it will not be by being reincarnated in another body and born of a woman. He will return from heaven with Enoch. Malachi refers simultaneously to St. John the Baptist (who is, so to speak, a 2nd Elijah) and to the literal return of *the* Elijah the Tishbite at the end of time, in his prophecy.

As another aside, I do not see why we would limit God by saying that only those mentioned in Scripture might be preserved from death or resurrected "prematurely." Those are just the ones we know about. Holy Tradition tells us that the Theotokos was probably taken up into heaven bodily after her death. Why Elijah, Enoch, and probably Moses -- and not her? Christ makes the ambiguous statement about St. John reported in the Gospel, saying to the other disciples "what is it to you if he doesn't die, but remain until I return." St. John spells out that Christ didn't say that he wouldn't die. But there are interesting implications to Christ's statement. I certainly wouldn't make assumptions about what God can and can't do, and Christ himself was telling us that we shouldn't.

I'll ping the others that you pinged, to see if they have further comments.

[HarleyD]

The Church always had the scriptures and KNEW what the scriptures were. The problem was that there were Gnostic writings.

This, BTW, is what you always tell me about Catholics Councils. They only get together to CONFIRM what the Church ALREADY knows. Given your definition, when the Church meant to discuss which scriptures were inspired, then they were only CONFRIMING what was ALREADY known. That's all FK and I are saying. Would you disagree?

I would point to an excellent article by B.B. Warfield. Below is an excerpt:

The earliest name given to this new section of Scripture was framed on the model of the name by which what we know as the Old Testament was then known. Just as it was called "The Law and the Prophets and the Psalms" (or "the Hagiographa"), or more briefly "The Law and the Prophets," or even more briefly still "The Law"; so the enlarged Bible was called "The Law and the Prophets, with the Gospels and the Apostles" (so Clement of Alexandria, "Strom." vi. 11, 88; Tertullian, "De Prms. Men" 36), or most briefly "The Law and the Gospel" (so Claudius Apolinaris, Irenaeus); while the new books apart were called "The Gospel and the Apostles," or most briefly of all "The Gospel." This earliest name for the new Bible, with all that it involves as to its relation to the old and briefer Bible, is traceable as far back as Ignatius (A.D. 115), who makes use of it repeatedly (e.g., "ad Philad." 5; ("ad Smyrn." 7). In one passage he gives us a hint of the controversies which the enlarged Bible of the Christians aroused among the Judaizers (" ad Philad." 6). "When I heard some saying," he writes, "'Unless I find it in the Old [Books] I will not believe the Gospel' on my saying,' It is written.' they answered, 'That is the question.' To me, however, Jesus Christ is the Old [Books]; his cross and death and resurrection and the faith which is by him, the undefiled Old [Books] - by which I wish, by your prayers, to be justified. The priests indeed are good, but the High Priest better," etc. Here Ignatius appeals to the "Gospel" as Scripture, and the Judaizers object, receiving from him the answer in effect which Augustine afterward formulated in the well known saying that the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is first made clear in the New. What we need now to observe, however, is that to Ignatius the New Testament was not a different book from the Old Testament, but part of the one body of Scripture with it; an accretion, so to speak, which had grown upon it.

This is the testimony of all the early witnesses - even those which speak for the distinctively Jewish-Christian church. For example, that curious Jewish-Christian writing, "The Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs" (Beni. 11), tells us, under the cover of an ex post facto prophecy, that the "work and word" of Paul, i.e., confessedly the book of Acts and Paul's Epistles, "shall be written in the Holy Books," i.e., as is understood by all, made a part of the existent Bible. So even in the Talmud, in a scene intended to ridicule a "bishop" of the first century, he is represented as finding Galatians by "sinking himself deeper" into the same "Book" which contained the Law of Moses ("Babl. Shabbath," 116 a and b). The details cannot be entered into here. Let it suffice to say that, from the evidence of the fragments which alone have been preserved to us of the Christian writings of that very early time, it appears that from the beginning of the second century (and that is from the end of the apostolic age) a collection (Ignatius, II Clement) of "New Books" (Ignatius), called the "Gospel and Apostles" (Ignatius, Marcion), was already a part of the "Oracles" of God (Polycarp, Papias, II Clement), or "Scriptures" (I Tim., II Pet., Barn., Polycarp, II Clement), or the "Holy Books" or "Bible" (Testt. XII. Patt.).

...

The Canon of the New Testament was completed when the last authoritative book was given to any church by the apostles, and that was when John wrote the Apocalypse, about A.D. 98. Whether the church of Ephesus, however, had a completed Canon when it received the Apocalypse, or not, would depend on whether there was any epistle, say that of Jude, which had not yet reached it with authenticating proof of its apostolicity. There is room for historical investigation here. Certainly the whole Canon was not universally received by the churches till somewhat later. The Latin church of the second and third centuries did not quite know what to do with the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Syrian churches for some centuries may have lacked the lesser of the Catholic Epistles and Revelation. But from the time of Ireanaeus down, the church at large had the whole Canon as we now possess it. And though a section of the church may not yet have been satisfied of the apostolicity of a certain book or of certain books; and though afterwards doubts may have arisen in sections of the church as to the apostolicity of certain books (as e. g. of Revelation): yet in no case was it more than a respectable minority of the church which was slow in receiving, or which came afterward to doubt, the credentials of any of the books that then as now constituted the Canon of the New Testament accepted by the church at large. And in every case the principle on which a book was accepted, or doubts against it laid aside, was the historical tradition of apostolicity.

The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament By B.B. Warfield

[Agrarian]

The Orthodox Church titles him "Joseph the Betrothed." My understanding is that the intention was to remain in the betrothed state, which, as I understand, included "legal" co-habitation, but not licit "knowing." My understanding is that they never intended to marry, since it is not really a legal marriage unless there is "knowing."

When she became pregnant, Joseph assumed that it was by "a secret union" with another man (as our liturgical texts say). It is understandable that he would not want to marry her, since she had obviously, in his eyes, broken the vow that was the reason for the betrothal in the first place -- the preservation of her virginity.

If he loved her and wanted her as his wife in the ordinary sense that Protestants believe, his first reaction very well might have been to do the "best" thing, and take her to wife and decide to forgive and forget, covering her sin. If he had wanted her as his wife, but no longer wanted her because he was betrayed and shamed, his initial reaction might very well have been, in his anger, to do the "lawful" thing.

His actions in putting her away quietly reflect the actions of a distant relative who loves her enough not to want her to be stoned, but who no longer sees a reason to continue with the betrothal. This all fits in very well with Orthodox Tradition -- better, in my opinion, than does the Protestant explanation, although it is also a valid explanation.

He was instructed by the angel to take her to wife (i.e. "make an honest woman out of her" in the eyes of the world.) Our tradition is also that this formal taking of her to wife was to deceive Satan. In any event, they could not continue in the state of betrothal. The whole reason for Matthew 1:25 is to make clear that with the change from betrothal to formal, outward marriage, there was still no physical union -- making no mistake about her virginal conception. Consider that even though the Bible says that he took her to wife, this was only for the benefit of appearances to the world, since she obviously wasn't really his wife at that time, since they didn't consummate the marriage.

[Agrarian]

"The Church always had the scriptures and KNEW what the scriptures were. The problem was that there were Gnostic writings.

This, BTW, is what you always tell me about Catholics Councils. They only get together to CONFIRM what the Church ALREADY knows. Given your definition, when the Church meant to discuss which scriptures were inspired, then they were only CONFRIMING what was ALREADY known. That's all FK and I are saying. Would you disagree?"

I for one would not disagree at all. As with every Council, what was being done was deliberation to come to agreement and to formally declare on what the Church already knew.

This does not, though, mean that every Christian, every local Church, etc... knew self-evidently on the exact canon, or that individual Christians or clergy weren't deceived by Gnostic writings. Those books were always the real and only Scripture, but not all in the Church discerned them as such.

It is clear that the Gnostic bit is probably overplayed, since there is no evidence from the lists that we have available to us that any Gnostic books were ever considered by anyone of importance in the "official" Church to be Scriptural. Individual Christians may have been deceived or confused, and thus formal declarations on the canon would be helpful.

I will point out that the agreement on which books were Scriptural was *not* very controversial, since no Ecumenical Council ever had to decide on it. All formal declarations came from local councils or individual Fathers. Based on that evidence, I would largely agree that for the most part, the Church was probably largely in agreement from quite early times, without the need for formal declarations, on what was Scripture and what was not.

There was also the practical issue that as liturgical life matured, it was useful for an orderly and complete liturgical reading of the Scriptures to define exactly which books should be read in public in church.

Again, had this been a major issue that was hard to figure out, it would have been addressed by an Ecumenical Council.

[annalex]

not been baptised either with water or by the HS, he had no understanding.

It is true that the Eunuch was not baptised, but Acts 8:31 nevertheless says that he needed help understanding the scripture, and verse 35 says that St. Philip preached -- that is, interpreted, since the book was on the Eunuch's lap, -- the scripture. Thus understanding comes from apostolic authority, not from just the text. And we observe thie same thing today, -- baptised and even confirmed Christians hold opposite views on the scripture, so some of them had to interpret it wrongly.

We do not believe in private interpretations of scripture

Thnak you for saying that. Who are "we"? Most Protestants on this thread would say that they feel comfortalbe interpreting the scripture for themselves. My opinion is that they are mistaken, and they take Luther's or Calvin's or Don Brown's interpretation, but pretend it is their own.

unintelligible

I gave several examples of who one needs to know Greek and the Middle-eastern culture of antiquity to understand translated scripture. The point is that although theology is culture-invariant, we don't get the theology directly from the scripture as very little of it is in the form of theological treatise. In order to get theology form the scripture, one has to first understand the scripture, like the Eunuch in Acts 8, and for that apostolic authority is necessary, or else you get da Vinci code nonsense out of your scripture-reading.

[annalex]

Luke 2:7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son

Of course, but "firstborn" is indication of status, and does not imply that there was also second-born. You are, of course, correct that if one wants to read the scripture the way Full Court does, or the way Don Brown does, one can, if he disregards the Tradition of the Church.

[annalex]

why get married?

Your first question was, what was in it for both parties, and I answered: Mary got a master of the house and Joseph got a homemaker. Your next question is, why not just cohabit, as relatives sometimes do. Well, since Joseph fathering a child with Mary was not exactly out of the realm of the possible, a sexual union between them would have been at least rumored, and therefore improper. Where did you get the idea that Mary was Joseph's niece? Surely whatever relation they had, if any, did not preclude marirage, and by the same token would have precluded cohabitation without marriage.

everything [Annalex] pointed out was found in this document

Simply because the document is rather comprehensive in presenting one version of events, that is consistent with the scripture, and specifically consistent with Luke 1:34. But is is a document of uncertain provenance, not canonical, and so is but a historical evidence dating in 2 century. The official teaching is expressed by the late Pope in the link I gave you in 6678, and he merely states that it is a mystery why Mary was betrothed while committed to celibacy.