Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Luther and Erasmus: The Controversy Concerning the Bondage of the Will
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal ^ | April 1999 | Garrett J. Eriks

Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by 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:

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:

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:

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:

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.


TOPICS: History; Mainline Protestant
KEYWORDS: bondageofthewill; catholic; christalone; erasmus; faithalone; gracealone; luther; martinluther; protestant; reformation; savedbygracealone; scripturealone; solascriptura; thegoodnews
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,701-1,7201,721-1,7401,741-1,760 ... 12,901-12,906 next last
To: Forest Keeper; Cronos; P-Marlowe; kosta50
I haven't seen anything that I would disagree with you either FK. There is only ONE correct interpretation of scripture. To be perfectly frank the theocentric Reformed belief is that correct teaching. The rest is "free will" gibberish to varying degrees of error.

Those synergistic Christians who stay very close to the Reformed sovereign God concept will believe in man's sinfulness and fall, God's redemptive grace, His guidance in our lifes to effect change, our redemptive guarantee. Those synergists who stray further away from the Reformed sovereign God perspective become more vocal in insisting upon's man's free will, denial of original sin, salvation is unknown, etc. History (especially Roman Catholic history) has shown the farther people have moved from a sovereign God perspective the more they've lapse into greater and greater error. There is no greater evidence of this then the posts on this thread.

1,721 posted on 01/18/2006 4:48:17 AM PST by HarleyD (Joh 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1718 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
I would like a citation where Jesus ever promised grace though a sacrament.

Well, first, grace is understood as the Holy Spirit coming to us, correct? It is described in various ways in the NT. For example:

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. (John 6:56-58)

In the sacrament of the Eucharist, God comes to us in the form of bread. He promises to abide in us in a special way through a visible means.

Another example is marriage:

"So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery (sacrament = mystery): but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband." (Eph 5:28-33)

We have already discussed Baptism, and I believe I have shown that the Holy Spirit comes to a person and that sins are forgiven (remission of sins) during the ritual.

We would deny that baptism saves the infant and now that salvation is his to loose. I would say it is an outward sign of an inward change. The change preceded the symbol, just as it does in scripture... unless the infants can repent and believe BEFORE that baptism .

What is salvation? It has several definitions. To me, it means a "healing". In the spiritual realm, that means that sins have been forgiven. There has been a remission of sins. Again, I have quoted verses that show that Baptism provides a remission of sins. Merely saying "Jesus Christ is Lord" is not going to "heal" me. While the Spirit is operative within you before your water baptism, sins are not forgiven until the Baptism. It is through the visible signs that God works behind the scenes and cleanses our inner invisible self. The water ITSELF does nothing but gets us wet. However, when we SEE the water, and KNOW what the Church is doing, WE KNOW that that person is being saved.

The regenerating efficacy of baptism is conveyed in, and by, the divine word alone.

Of course. The water does nothing in of itself but SIGNIFY that a person has been cleansed internally. When the Church performs the ritual, God has promised that the Spirit would come and forgive sins. He is thus saved (healed).

Does the infant baptized speak a word of faith FIRST?

The "word" comes from the priest performing the ritual. He says "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". The "word" is the Trinity, God. Not the person's faith proclamation. You seem to be saying that Baptism is a work of the person being baptized. Does anything show that Baptism is entirely a gift from God like infant baptism does? The infant has done NOTHING to deserve salvation. By your line of thinking, it appears that we must first conjure up enough faith within yourself for our baptism to be effective - a work.

There are few Muslims that have not HEARD and refused the gospel. Their denial of Christ IS hatred of Christ. It seems you have no problem believing contrary to scripture that men can be saved without Christ, and the Holy Spirit of God will indwell one that does not know Christ.

I disagree. First, Muslims haven't heard the Good News, only a distorted version of it from the mullahs - who don't know it either. Only another Christian can preach the Good News, it is not a philosophy you get from reading a book. Thus, they are not denying Christ, only a straw man of Christ. Next, I never said that they can be saved WITHOUT Christ. Christ is operative, we KNOW, when that person performs good works, fruits of the Holy Spirit. A person doesn't need to be a Roman Catholic to produce good deeds of love, which can ONLY be performed through Jesus Christ. The Spirit blows where HE WILLS. Not where we will. We cannot limit God's Spirit to only certain groups of people. Jesus did not limit Himself to only the Jews. On occasions, He healed (saved) Gentiles. This, from the Gospels, should be proof enough that God CAN save even those who are non-Christians. They will be saved by Christ, not Hinduism or Islam. They will be saved by the Spirit of God working in them.

All your verses speak about those "of the world". But if a person LOVES, he is not of the "world", is he? Christ is operative within that person, as shown by the fruit he produces, the deeds of love for others - without ulterior motive. I agree there will not be many of these people, ratio-wise, but just the same, we don't know who the elect are. Just as 2000 years ago, He reached out to Samaritans and Gentiles, He continues to do so today.

The bible says we can have an assurance of our own salvation. I can only say I have a peace with my eternity, I know God has saved me. I did not deserve it, I did not earn it and without His ever present grace I could never persevere in it. God has replaced that deceptive heart with a new one, on which he sits on the throne.

1 John tells us that we can have an assurance that we are saved BY the fruit that we produce. In other words, IF we are obeying the commandments out of love, we KNOW that the Spirit of God is operative within us. It is not ourselves!!! It is God working WITH us. (as the cookie story tells). A key verse, for me, is the following:

He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. (1 John 5:12)

Simple and to the point. If Christ abides in you (think to John 15 and the vine), you will have life. How do we know He abides in us? Our good works. Thus, if we are sinning, Christ is NOT abiding in us. We will NOT inherit the Kingdom, as Paul says. Thus, "my" good works SHOW that Christ is abiding in me. This is why it is necessary to have faith and works. As Paul states, faith without love is worthless (1 Cor 13:2). But we cannot love without faith! We need both.

That is dying well because of that inner assurance :)

I volunteered to bring Communion to Catholics in the hospital for a few months, I understand what you are saying. But inner assurance doesn't guarantee heaven. Hitler has an inner assurance he was doing the right thing by killing millions of Jews. We can know we are saved by heaven by our faith AND works. If a person dies in that state, they are assured of heaven BECAUSE God is righteous and has promised us heaven for our obedience to His graces. (not because we felt sure of it)

I would just say the bible says if you get the praise of men there are no eternal rewards

In Matthew's Gospel, the fifth chapter (Sermon on the Mount), Jesus talks about prayer, fasting and almsgiving. In each case, he tells us to DO them, but NOT to gain human praise! Thus, again, our motives are what is important. We are to fast, pray, and give to the poor - out of love of God. Jesus condemns those who do it for selfish gain. I think if a person does something out of love without intent of getting anything in return, but is praised latter on by someone who finds out, this will not take away our reward in heaven. Doesn't the Scripture tell us that NO ONE can separate us from the love of God? If we did something out of love in the first place, no one can take away our reward.

I do not know about you, but I know that my ego is still sinful enough that I like the appreciation of men, I have to be conscious at all times that the work is Gods and the glory is Gods, i am simply a tool in the hand of the master

Excellent advice. That is what St. Francis de Sales suggests in "Introduction to the Devout Life". He says to fight fits of pride (if we are good at something), we are to constantly remind ourselves that God is the giver of the gift, and He could have NOT given it to us. I try to remind myself of that as often as possible.

Now you know that was the implication of the entire story. She said look at the cookies I MADE. Lying by omission is still lying :)

Wow, I never got that response before from that story! I think you are looking beyond what even YOU do all the time:

When you say "I love you" to your children, by your logic, you are denying that God is loving through you! You are loving carnally, and thus are sinning by making such a statement...This line of thinking is utterly ridiculous. Get rid of it. When you say "I love you", it is not necessary to say "Oops, I meant, God is allowing me to love you". It is just understood. You are not DENYING that God is operative when you say I love you. In the story, the Father KNOWS the kid didn't do it alone. The KID never makes that claim either. We UNDERSTAND that God is working through us. We don't deny it. But we don't verbally say it everytime we say "I love you", do we?

The son of God praised the work of the Father IN Him .

On numerous ocassions, He did not mention His Father when He said He preached, or teached or healed. Does this mean Jesus was denying the Father??? Come on. Let's be realistic. It is not necessary that every statement of "I" be followed by "God is the source" or "God is the power behind it" or whatever. As long as we don't take pride in our action, recognizing who IS the source, then we are on the right road.

You said you were not aware of a judgment of rewards, that is was always about salvation, I pointed you to the scripture that says the elect have rewards in heaven. Perhaps there were no scriptures that said that those that 'loved less " got less rewards because there is no such scripture.

Thus, judgment is either to heaven or hell, correct?

What you do not see is Baptism or Purgatory (regarding the good thief)

We don't know that! First, how do you know the good thief was not baptized before by Christ? How do you know He didn't follow Christ, then went away in John 6 or some other point? Even if not, it is a common belief that martyrs are considered "baptized by blood" - that the Spirit is obviously present for a man to die for Christ. And secondly, we don't know how time works in the after life. It is perfectly feasible that the thief spent "time" in Purgatory and that same "day" went to Paradise. The Church has not defined this matter of how "long" our purging is in Purgatory.

He was saved by faith alone

No he wasn't, he also opened his mouth and defended Christ. He repented for his sins. That is not faith alone. It is also repentance and love in the face of persecution

Remember when Peter recognized Jesus as Lord? What did Jesus say to him?

I agree, the action of the thief was brought on by the Spirit. But it is not the only fruit (faith) that was in action within the thief.

Did he? Or did he say that the Sheep ( the elect) preform God pleasing works, and the Goats do not? He never says that they are saved by their works, He only speaks of the works done by both groups. The goats were never sheep and the sheep were never goats.

Read the parable again. The judgment is BASED upon what they did. Whether one is a sheep or a goat is determined by what they did. No sheep was judged to be uncaring, no goat was judged to be caring. Thus, judgment depended on their actions to others.

I know a works based salvation is a very tempting thing to believe. That makes us responsible for our own salvation. Men like to be responsible for themselves. There is no scripture anywhere that says one can not be saved without works, but there are scriptures that say one can not be saved without faith.

Yes, it can be tempting. But it is not what we have been taught by the Church. There are plenty of Scriptures that say that faith without works is dead or worthless - not capable of saving.

Regards

1,722 posted on 01/18/2006 5:45:21 AM PST by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1698 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; HarleyD
You and we also agree that God KNEW about it [man's sin] and COULD have ACTED on it. Perhaps God intended it? I don't know, but I will say that He did not pre-ordain sin and pre-ordain that Satan or we would sin.

Along with Harley's good point and good verse in #1720, I would only add that you have to distinguish between your meanings of "intend" and "pre-ordain". We believe that God's plan was perfect and completely formed from the beginning. We don't believe that God makes adjustments to His plan based on "how things are going", or based on "human decisions and cooperation".

I thought we agreed that God's omniscience transcends time. If so, why would He need to change anything? God has always known about sin, and when and how it would occur throughout time. So, according to us, if God's plan was etched in stone from the beginning, then "sin" was necessarily a part of it. In fact, when you think about it, how much of God's plan is directed toward the defeat of "sin"? Tons, right? We could even go so far as to say that the existence of sin is integral to God's plan.

1,723 posted on 01/18/2006 5:57:57 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1710 | View Replies]

To: jo kus

I see--you were referring to theologians, not the magisterium, defining/refining theological understanding of the mysteries. True. But the development of Scholasticism was directly in response to the budding commercial and political changes in the West. With the growth of commerce, the growth of kingship, with the great project to recover as much of the ancient knowledge lost at the Fall as possible (that's the project of the schools and universities in the 11th-13thc--Richard Souther, Scholastic Humanism and the Unification of Europe is the best source on this now) etc. came new questions: how does mystery X apply to this new development in war, government, commerce, intellectual life.

The East did not experience that same pattern. They had always been the more developed commercially and politically but then spent the period after 900 fighting off the Turk, exactly at the time that the West was emerging from the last great obstacle to it's take-off--the Viking invasions in the north and the Saracen raids in the Western Mediterranean.

Take the doctrine of transubstantiation, for instance. Berengar mounted a frontal attack on real presence (though Henry Chadwick thinks he was not really denying it, most scholars think he was; the controversy between Ratramnus and Paschasius in the 800s did not involve from either disputant an attack on real presence). In response to Berengar's denial, theologians spent the 1100s trying to think through a credible explanation for how the mystery they already believed in could be better understood. No such attack took place in the East. The same goes for questions about marriage and divorce, crusades, just war, usury etc. John W. Baldwin's book, Masters, Princes and Merchants, Princes (Johns Hopkins, 1972?) shows how the late 1100s early scholastics were responding to these kinds of practical questions and that's what birthed scholasticism.

The East never had the Enlightenment, which challenged belief in miracles, in revelation etc. So the West's theologians refined more and more the explanations for what both East and West had always believed. Anselm's Atonement theology was a direct response to challenges by the Jewish community in France--he owed them an accounting of our faith, as St. Peter tells us always to be ready to render.

So yes, it's true that the West, both magisterially and by theologians' work in the schools, has done more defining and refining. But in both spheres, it's because more questions were raised in more fundamental ways in the West than in the East. And in large part that's because the East was largely under the domination of Islam.

There may also be cultural differences at work: the Greek love of art and philosophy, the Roman love of law and structures. But I would be very, very cautious about giving this much explanatory power. To begin with, it's mostly a caricature of the two cultures, though, like all caricatures, it has a germ of truth to it. Secondly, even to the degree that this cultural difference exists, other, much better explanations (as I tried to give above) are more credible.


1,724 posted on 01/18/2006 6:33:04 AM PST by Dionysiusdecordealcis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1719 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
most of the scriptures

Don't embarass yourself.

1,725 posted on 01/18/2006 8:15:37 AM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1717 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
BTW, I fully believe that God fixes football games...

Good one!!! After watching both AFC games, the truth bears this out!

regards

1,726 posted on 01/18/2006 8:52:29 AM PST by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1715 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
That "sin happens" is part of God's plan. Judas was part of God's plan. There must be a million examples of God using the sin of both believers and unbelievers for His own purposes. So, when I sin, it is certainly to my own complete shame and God doesn't "approve". But, God wastes nothing and my sin can be used by God to serve another purpose, or even bringing me later closer to Him.

It is a mystery to me, one that is not fully explainable by us. Even the Church doesn't make a definition on this interaction between grace and free will. Certainly, God uses our actions to build us up. Would man learn the virtue of fortitude if everything went our way without struggle? But I don't believe that God leads His elect to sin, thus, I think we should take into account our own responsibility. My point is that I DO cooperate.

I agree with you that the source of truth does not come from me, but rather from the Spirit. It seems to me that our approaches are not completely different. Without meaning offense, I see the Catholic approach to getting truth as just including a "middleman". Ours doesn't, but we do use other teachings if we find them consistent with scripture. We just aren't bound by the view of another.

To be honest, EVERYONE receives God's teachings through "middleman", if you will. Do you believe that the Christian Scriptures are similar to the Koran, where the angel Gabriel brought them to Mohemmed (which is why Islam can NEVER reform. There is no intermediary of the "word". God's "word" about having 4 wives and killing infidels, thus, can never change...) We, as Christians, understand that God's Word came to us through other men. The Gospel of Mark came to us through Mark. We have the notion that we have God's Word AND man's interpretation or theology behind it. Thus, as history shows, Christianity is much more pliable with the "Word". Slavery. Usury. Taking oaths. We hold different views today. That is because we understand that the Scriptures must be read in human terms, as well. Otherwise, we would literally take the Scriptures at face value. NO OATHS! NO LOANS FOR MONEY! Multiple wives could be argued.

In addition to that, what about Commentaries? Preachers? We also form our beliefs based on hearing and reading these sources. No one approaches the Scriptures alone independently of any other person.

You rely on God and the Church, I rely on God and the Bible.

I don't see the Church's approach as excluding the Bible. However, I see the "Bible and me" approach to be limited and not historically accurate means of Christians coming to God. First, you forget that the Church came first. The Church taught and teaches, even without the Bible. St. Ireneaus wrote in 180 AD about people who held to the faith ENTIRELY WITHOUT the Scriptures. We see this even today in the third world, where people can't read. Christian evangelists are finding that giving out Bibles is not the answer. We hear the Word through preaching. Sure, the preachers are well-versed in the Scriptures, but it is not necessary for the lay people to be. Very few Christians owned Bibles before 1500, not because of Luther, but because of lack of literacy and expense of hand-copying the book. Yet, the faith continued on through the teachings of the Church.

Not to be flippant, but one side reads the book, and the other side reads the book and adds other stuff. The difference is whether it is OK to add other stuff.

I have already addressed this partially above. It would be more accurate to say "one side teaches, using a book and using other means" and "one side teaches ONLY from a book". The Scriptures themselves never make the claim that Protestants make: The Scriptures are the sole rule of faith. The Church never makes that claim either. Rather, the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth. From the CHURCH came the writings of the Apostles. It was only later on did Christians realize these writings were inspired by God - ONLY because they were totally in-line with what they had been taught, both oral and in written form (2 Thes 2:14). The chronological and theological precedent was set by the teaching and preaching Church, not a book. Again, Christ left a body of men to continue His presence in the world and bring the Kingdom of God to others. He didn't leave a book. It would be more accurate to say that Protestants LEAVE OUT teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

The Bible gives us everything we need to know, not everything we want to know

The Bible doesn't explain its position on many issues. How about the Real Presence of the Eucharist? According to Catholics, it is crystal clear. To Protestants, it is some sort of symbol. What about infant baptism? Christians for centuries believed and practiced it - until the latter Reformers came along (not Luther). The Scriptures are not a systematic Catechism, but a compilation of letters and narratives. THEY ALONE do not give us everything we need to know. Although they describe liturgy, what EXACTLY is to take place in Christian worship of Christ? How EXACTLY are we to Baptize? There are many practical issues that the Scripture ASSUMES people already know. Remember, Christian evangelists FIRST went to communities and taught by oral word and practice. They didn't pass out tracts and leave the next day. The Scriptures note that Paul stayed at some of his communities, such as Ephesus and Corinth, for a number of months. I seriously doubt they practiced NT Bible study!

Yes, because it wasn't written yet. (Scripture) I don't think we can know (or, I don't know) whether Jesus said anything about a future scripture. But, if we believe that scripture was God-breathed, then it must have been the intent of God that it be written. And so it was.

God's intent, as you have pointed out, is what happens. Thus, no Scripture, no intent. Yes, Scripture is God-breathed. We base our belief on it and the teachings of the Church, which form ONE body of teaching. Who first taught? Apostles. Who wrote Scriptures? Apostles. Thus, the two should match and not contradict. If we believe that God is protecting His Church, as He promised, we can believe that solemn pronouncements ARE indeed protected, since Christ said He would protect His CHURCH from the Gates of Hell. If we believe in Christ and trust in Him, it is not a big step to trust that the Church is executing God's will when it defines doctrine to be believed by the faithful.

Regards

1,727 posted on 01/18/2006 9:38:28 AM PST by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1714 | View Replies]

To: Dionysiusdecordealcis
the development of Scholasticism was directly in response to the budding commercial and political changes in the West.

Probably. Perhaps, though, it is like arguing which came first, the chicken or the egg. Western Catholic culture was responsible to a large degree for the above political and commercial changes in the West, correct? I think there is a recent number of scholars who are beginning to see the connection to Catholicism and Western Europe's culture and way of life, esp. in education, law, commerce, and scientific study.

The East did not experience that same pattern. They had always been the more developed commercially and politically but then spent the period after 900 fighting off the Turk, exactly at the time that the West was emerging from the last great obstacle to it's take-off--the Viking invasions in the north and the Saracen raids in the Western Mediterranean.

Agree. Byzantium provided much of that and the fall of Rome in the 400's certainly set both cultures onto different paths of development. To a degree, I would say this had something to do with theological thought, both orthodox and heterodox. I do find that heretical thinking was quite rampant in Constantinople. I believe the bishop was removed for heresy some 18 times before the Schism. I would imagine most would attribute this to Caesaropapism in the East. I am not too familiar with Eastern development of doctrine after 1054, so I can't say if this continued. However, it seems clear that the Pope continued to fight against secular powers trying to usurp power, sometimes successfully, while the East seemed to fall in line with the secular powers of the area. Again, I think this might have more to do with development of theological thought.

The East never had the Enlightenment, which challenged belief in miracles, in revelation etc. So the West's theologians refined more and more the explanations for what both East and West had always believed. Anselm's Atonement theology was a direct response to challenges by the Jewish community in France--he owed them an accounting of our faith, as St. Peter tells us always to be ready to render.

It would be interesting to speculate why there was no Enlightenment in the East. Probably a combination of science, philosophy, and the development of religious thought that began to call into question things taken for granted in the past. Once you start questioning traditional viewpoints, it is only a matter of time before religious origins and traditions are questioned. Remember, "everyone" knew the earth was flat...

So yes, it's true that the West, both magisterially and by theologians' work in the schools, has done more defining and refining. But in both spheres, it's because more questions were raised in more fundamental ways in the West than in the East. And in large part that's because the East was largely under the domination of Islam.

I would also add that the East did not have a FORM of bringing such doctrinal disputes to rest. I believe the East has learned that the Papacy had a legitimate purpose - especially evident when one looks to the number of Ecumenical Councils held in the East...none. Without an Ecumenical Council, such matters cannot be resolved.

There may also be cultural differences at work: the Greek love of art and philosophy, the Roman love of law and structures.

It's easy to fall into such quick and easy answers to complicated historical questions. The truth is that there are many more factors involved behind the scenes. History is a complicated science of interaction.

Regards

1,728 posted on 01/18/2006 11:19:51 AM PST by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1724 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
God wanted the Pats to win, but since they didn't, then God couldn't have caused the loss?

No, I am not explaining God with Pats either by likening God to Pats or by making God a Pats' fan. I am merely making a comment about the nature of causation, and I make use of the Pats who cannot be said to cause their own defeat. Or at least properly you cannot. You can say that a particular fumble "caused" the defeat, for simplicity of language, but it was not willful causation. Beyond that, God has nothing to do with the Pats. God "causes" evil only in the sense that He allows some free agent to cause it in order to preserve that free agent's freedom. In St. Augustine's formulation, God does not will or cause evil, but it allows evil to happen so that to prevent a greater evil, which He, in His infinite wisdom, perceives.

1,729 posted on 01/18/2006 12:12:39 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1715 | View Replies]

To: jo kus
I would like a citation where Jesus ever promised grace though a sacrament.
Well, first, grace is understood as the Holy Spirit coming to us, correct? It is described in various ways in the NT. For example:
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. (John 6:56-58)

So the Holy Spirit indwells you BECAUSE of Communion? So everyone even an infidel that is not a believer "gets the holy spirit IN him and gets eternal life because he went to communion?
That is but one problem I see with that reading of John 6, when it is not taken as the metaphor it was, but literally. Then it says that EVERYONE that ever went to communion is saved for eternity. So then we come back to can the Holy Spirit indwell an unsaved man?

Please show me anywhere in scripture that Jesus promised to give grace for confession. marriage, holy orders etc.
I believe the Catholic definition of a sacrament is that it was instituted by Christ to give grace. Other than Communion, I see no evidence of the institution of a sacrament by Christ, nor that HE promised it would give grace.So I would be very interested in what kind of Biblical citations are used for the institution of a sacrament or that it gives grace.

The regenerating efficacy of baptism is conveyed in, and by, the divine word alone.
Of course. The water does nothing in of itself but SIGNIFY that a person has been cleansed internally. When the Church performs the ritual, God has promised that the Spirit would come and forgive sins. He is thus saved (healed).

I believe that the church teaches it is the "ritual words "I Baptize you ....." are what regenerates.

Seeing scripture demands that a man repent and believe, the passive child has a ritual preformed that regenerates hi m. Is there a scripture that teaches that a passive child, with no desire in their heart ( Baptism of desire) and without repenting and believing is regenerated?

BTW This is a sacrament that was not 'instituted by Christ but is one traditional to jews at that time and practiced by John, what text does the church use to prove that it was instituted by Christ to give grace?

What is salvation? It has several definitions. To me, it means a "healing". In the spiritual realm, that means that sins have been forgiven.

Call it what you will

God chose Greek as the language of the New Testament because it is a precise language. The word salvation (soteria ) has a definite meaning

1) deliverance, preservation, safety, salvation
a) deliverance from the molestation of enemies
b) in an ethical sense, that which concludes to the souls safety or salvation
1) of Messianic salvation
2) salvation as the present possession of all true Christians
3) future salvation, the sum of benefits and blessings which the Christians, redeemed from all earthly ills, will enjoy after the visible return of Christ from heaven in the consummated and eternal kingdom of God.
++++ Fourfold salvation: saved from the penalty, power, presence and most importantly the pleasure of sin. A.W. Pink

That is what Salvation means and the meaning that God intended us to have

There has been a remission of sins. Again, I have quoted verses that show that Baptism provides a remission of sins.

Those verses were applied to those that have repented and believed, the repentance and belief always came first

Merely saying "Jesus Christ is Lord" is not going to "heal" me.

I agree that the practice of believing the "sinners prayer" has any power to save is in my mind equivalent to believing pouring water over some one does. There are many that believe loved family members are saved because they "said the prayer" . I will say however that an unsaved man can not say that Jesus is Lord from a regenerate heart . He could mouth the words, but Jesus is NOT his Lord or Savior

While the Spirit is operative within you before your water baptism, sins are not forgiven until the Baptism.

We disagree. I was baptized as an infant, that was my parents decision, thirty years later I fell on my face before God in repentance, and gave Christ my life. THEN I was a new creature in Christ, then I was born again. My infant baptism was a ritual, yes like circumcision .

It is through the visible signs that God works behind the scenes and cleanses our inner invisible self. The water ITSELF does nothing but gets us wet. However, when we SEE the water, and KNOW what the Church is doing, WE KNOW that that person is being saved.
We disagree :)

Does the infant baptized speak a word of faith FIRST?
The "word" comes from the priest performing the ritual. He says "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". The "word" is the Trinity, God. Not the person's faith proclamation.

Please show me that in scripture? Show me where the confession of another saved someone.

You seem to be saying that Baptism is a work of the person being baptized. Does anything show that Baptism is entirely a gift from God like infant baptism does?

Biblically baptism was preformed on professing men and women here was no power from the one performing it

The infant has done NOTHING to deserve salvation. By your line of thinking, it appears that we must first conjure up enough faith within yourself for our baptism to be effective - a work.

No GOD must give us the faith to believe.

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God!

Jhn 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Do you believe that? Did you believe that as an infant?

<There are few Muslims that have not HEARD and refused the gospel. Their denial of Christ IS hatred of Christ. It seems you have no problem believing contrary to scripture that men can be saved without Christ, and the Holy Spirit of God will indwell one that does not know Christ.

I disagree. First, Muslims haven't heard the Good News, only a distorted version of it from the mullahs - who don't know it either.

The gospel has gone out to all the world. Every Muslim American has heard of Christ and has heard the gospel on TV, Radio or on the internet. The Muslims in other parts of the world are also exposed to the gospel by Missionaries ( in Europe and Africa) and in all other nations by Radio and the internet and TV. They have heard it and reject it.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Only another Christian can preach the Good News, it is not a philosophy you get from reading a book.

Even nations like Iraq have a Christian population there is a Christian witness , God has a remnant of His people everywhere to carry out His commission.

Thus, they are not denying Christ, only a straw man of Christ. Next, I never said that they can be saved WITHOUT Christ. Christ is operative, we KNOW, when that person performs good works, fruits of the Holy Spirit. A person doesn't need to be a Roman Catholic to produce good deeds of love, which can ONLY be performed through Jesus Christ. The Spirit blows where HE WILLS. Not where we will. We cannot limit God's Spirit to only certain groups of people. Jesus did not limit Himself to only the Jews. On occasions, He healed (saved) Gentiles. This, from the Gospels, should be proof enough that God CAN save even those who are non-Christians. They will be saved by Christ, not Hinduism or Islam. They will be saved by the Spirit of God working in them.

So let me understand your position. The Holy Spirit indwells people that refuse the gospel and deny the divinity of Christ? So that one that worships a cow may be saved because Christ by the Holy Spirit indwells him?

Could I have a scriptures to confirm that ? MY bible says the work of the Holy Spirit is to convict us of sin and lead us into all truth. My Bible says the Spirit of Christ only indwells those that are Christ's . The fact they deny Christ is PROOF that they have no indwelling Holy Spirit

Jhn 14:17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Jhn 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

Their very denial of Christ testifies that they do not have the Holy Spirit in them. No man can say Jesus is Lord BUT by the Holy Spirit.

According to your theology Jesus had no need to send the apostles out into the world to give them the gospel, we have no need to send missionaries. There is not one wit of scripture to support this position of yours.

The bible says we can have an assurance of our own salvation. I can only say I have a peace with my eternity, I know God has saved me. I did not deserve it, I did not earn it and without His ever present grace I could never persevere in it. God has replaced that deceptive heart with a new one, on which he sits on the throne.
1 John tells us that we can have an assurance that we are saved BY the fruit that we produce. In other words, IF we are obeying the commandments out of love, we KNOW that the Spirit of God is operative within us. It is not ourselves!!! It is God working WITH us. (as the cookie story tells). A key verse, for me, is the following:
He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. (1 John 5:12)

And this says what about works?

Simple and to the point. If Christ abides in you (think to John 15 and the vine), you will have life. How do we know He abides in us? Our good works.

Here is what my bible tells me

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

1Jo 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

1Jo 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

Gods work in us is a mark of our faith and salvation. But even the heathen does "good works" so if one looks to his works as PROOF of his salvation he might be very surprised on judgment day when Christ says "I never knew you"

Thus, if we are sinning, Christ is NOT abiding in us. We will NOT inherit the Kingdom, as Paul says. Thus, "my" good works SHOW that Christ is abiding in me. This is why it is necessary to have faith and works. As Paul states, faith without love is worthless (1 Cor 13:2).

Does he ?

1Cr 13:2 And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

he says HE is nothing if he is not motivated by the Love . He does not say it is a test of salvation or that his Faith is useless. No one disputes the importance of love in our lives, families and ministries, but even the heathen can "love" the important difference is who generates that love and what is it source? We return to the fact that the unsaved do not have the indwelling Holy Spirit or Christ.

Do you know anyone that does not sin? Can any man keep the law perfectly? if we use that as a test, then Christ came in vain and died for nothing, I simply earn my own salvation
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;" Titus 3:5
Romans 3:28"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

Galatians 2:21 "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

But we cannot love without faith! We need both.

I agree that the love of the unsaved is carnal and self serving and of no eternal benefit. But in honesty we need to say that do love, so love is not an assurance of salvation IMHO>

That is dying well because of that inner assurance :)
I volunteered to bring Communion to Catholics in the hospital for a few months, I understand what you are saying. But inner assurance doesn't guarantee heaven.

If one doubts the Holy Spirit can give the assurance He promises in scripture I can see why you would say that

Hitler has an inner assurance he was doing the right thing by killing millions of Jews.

How do you know that ? Hitler was following his carnal nature he has no witness of the Holy Spirit. Please do not confuse human desire and assurance with the assurance that is promised to those that are his.

We can know we are saved by heaven by our faith AND works. If a person dies in that state, they are assured of heaven BECAUSE God is righteous and has promised us heaven for our obedience to His graces. (not because we felt sure of it)

Actually we do agree here that we also know because God is faithful to his promises.I do not see anywhere we are saved by works, in fact scripture says just the opposite. You substitute love for works when you look for supportive texts, but the heathens love and the heathens do "good work" . Love is a fruit of the Holy Spirit. It is a PROOF of our salvation not its roots.

You said you were not aware of a judgment of rewards, that is was always about salvation, I pointed you to the scripture that says the elect have rewards in heaven. Perhaps there were no scriptures that said that those that 'loved less " got less rewards because there is no such scripture.
Thus, judgment is either to heaven or hell, correct?

Salvation is a gift, scripture indicates there are rewards given for faithfulness in the Christian life I believe our greatest reward is Christ. But scripture indicates that there are rewards for our faithfulness and obedience

“Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” (Rev 22:12-13)

1 Cor 3:5-8 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor.

Mat 25:21 His lord said unto him, Well done, [thou] good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

These rewards are actually for His work in us and in gratitude that day we will caste them at His feet

What you do not see is Baptism or Purgatory (regarding the good thief)
We don't know that! First, how do you know the good thief was not baptized before by Christ?

If he was, and it was an essential matter of faith it would have been recorded by the Holy Spirit. We can not make up doctrine out of silence

How do you know He didn't follow Christ, then went away in John 6 or some other point?

That is doctrine built on sand :) There is no evidence that the man ever knew Christ. I believe that the recording of that account is there as a lesson to us on the nature of God's grace and mercy and the work of the Holy Spirit in men to bring them to repentance.

Even if not, it is a common belief that martyrs are considered "baptized by blood" - that the Spirit is obviously present for a man to die for Christ. And secondly, we don't know how time works in the after life. It is perfectly feasible that the thief spent "time" in Purgatory and that same "day" went to Paradise. The Church has not defined this matter of how "long" our purging is in Purgatory.

Did Christ say to Him this day , after you have paid for your sins you will be with me in paradise ? This would have been an ideal time for Christ to confirm the need for Baptism and the reality of purgatory. But instead He said THIS DAY you will be with me in Purgatory. Christ was still alive and still operating on the human clock of time.

He was saved by faith alone
No he wasn't, he also opened his mouth and defended Christ. He repented for his sins. That is not faith alone. It is also repentance and love in the face of persecution Actually he followed the protestant soterology, Repent and believe. Was that Human love or the love of the Holy Spirit in him?

Remember when Peter recognized Jesus as Lord? What did Jesus say to him?
I agree, the action of the thief was brought on by the Spirit. But it is not the only fruit (faith) that was in action within the thief

The knowledge and the recognition, of who Christ was that led to the repentance and the confession of faith, that came from the self same Holy Spirit that led Peter to say Christ was Lord , and that led me to fall on my face before a Holy God. That Holy Spirit must open our eyes and bring us to repentance and faith. not the kind of faith that says the train will be on time, but a faith to salvation .

Read the parable again. The judgment is BASED upon what they did. Whether one is a sheep or a goat is determined by what they did. No sheep was judged to be uncaring, no goat was judged to be caring. Thus, judgment depended on their actions to others

NO I think you need to read it. Before Christ ever judged them he put the sheep on one side and the goats on the other. Goats are goats and sheep are sheep, goats were never sheep and sheep were never goats. Jesus was very clear

Jhn 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Jhn 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand.

The sheep fed the hungry and clothed the naked BECAUSE they were his sheep, because they followed His voice. They were not his sheep because they did good deeds, they were his sheep because they knew his voice and followed Him .

The goats may have done "good deeds" but they were carnal and were self serving. To God their "'good works" because they were not attached to the vine they were dead works

Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.

I think this summary of that final judgment written by David Brown is meaningful ( and seeing it speaks of the Love of God and works done from that love

The whole story of this their blessedness is given by the apostle, in words which seem but an expression of these: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ; according as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love." They were chosen from everlasting to the possession and enjoyment of all spiritual blessings in Christ, and so chosen in order to be holy and blameless in love. This is the holy love whose practical manifestations the King is about to recount in detail; and thus we see that their whole life of love to Christ is the fruit of an eternal purpose of love to them in Christ."

I know a works based salvation is a very tempting thing to believe. That makes us responsible for our own salvation. Men like to be responsible for themselves. There is no scripture anywhere that says one can not be saved without works, but there are scriptures that say one can not be saved without faith.
Yes, it can be tempting. But it is not what we have been taught by the Church. There are plenty of Scriptures that say that faith without works is dead or worthless - not capable of saving.

There is ONE scripture that says faith without works is dead, and that is addressing already saved men on how to show their faith.

As a protestant I see all belief that grace comes through sacramental participation as a work. You do something and then God responds by paying you ( in a sense) . As a protestant I see that the thought that one is saved as an infant and it is now theirs to keep or loose as a works based salvation because the works are self benefiting

We have a very different soteriology .

May I ask a question of you? As a Catholic do you see your salvation comes through the church?

1,730 posted on 01/18/2006 1:17:39 PM PST by RnMomof7 ("Sola Scriptura,Sola Christus,Sola Gratia,Sola Fide,Soli Deo Gloria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1722 | View Replies]

To: jo kus
To be honest, EVERYONE receives God's teachings through "middleman", if you will. Do you believe that the Christian Scriptures are similar to the Koran, where the angel Gabriel brought them to Mohemmed ... We, as Christians, understand that God's Word came to us through other men. The Gospel of Mark came to us through Mark. We have the notion that we have God's Word AND man's interpretation or theology behind it.

Hmmm. This could be interesting. :) I suppose I see the writings in the Bible in the sense that God was the source subject and final editor. The writers were really ghost writers, not truly authors. Of course we see individual writing styles, distinct personalities, and appropriately targeted audiences in the writings. But, every jot and tittle of the finished product was produced by God.

For this reason, I see the Bible as inerrant, and not subject to the personal interpretation of any of the physical writers. In your example, do you believe that Mark's personal interpretation of God's truth is found in his book? I know that you'll agree that there was inspiration, but do you believe that the Bible is inerrant and independent of man's "translation" through the physical writing by the "authors"?

That is because we understand that the Scriptures must be read in human terms, as well. Otherwise, we would literally take the Scriptures at face value. NO OATHS! NO LOANS FOR MONEY! Multiple wives could be argued.

I would say that the scriptures themselves already provide for that. Jesus Himself taught that common sense could be used:

Matt. 12:9-12 : "9 Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" 11 He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."

So, due only to scripture, and not through man's extra-biblical interpretation, we know that, say, police and medical personnel can do "works" on the Sabbath, and not violate a Commandment.

In addition to that, what about Commentaries? Preachers? We also form our beliefs based on hearing and reading these sources. No one approaches the Scriptures alone independently of any other person.

Very true. My test is always whether the teaching holds water against the Bible. I hold my own pastor very strictly to this test. If he ever said anything I didn't think matched scripture according to my own understanding, I would ask him about it. He would either be able to back up his teaching with the Bible or I would not accept his teaching. I would even test his own interpretation against all of his other interpretations for consistency.

I don't see the Church's approach as excluding the Bible.

I really didn't mean to imply that. I know the Bible is important to you. My angle was from the point of authority. I meant to posit that if there was a point on which your "gut" and the Church teaching disagreed, that you would accept the teaching of the Church. I have interpreted that for you, Church declaration trumps what might make the most sense to you. (Maybe this has never happened?)

... I see the "Bible and me" approach to be limited and not historically accurate means of Christians coming to God. First, you forget that the Church came first. The Church taught and teaches, even without the Bible.

Well, yes, but what they were teaching is what is now in the Bible, for the most part. I have nothing against oral witnessing at all. God intended that we do it. My point is that the things in the Bible, whether read off a page today, or communicated orally back then or to the illiterate today, are the authority. Jesus showed me what He thought of scripture during the temptation in the desert. He did not utter a single original word. He only quoted scripture. I see a teaching from Jesus in that.

Christian evangelists are finding that giving out Bibles is not the answer.

??? Could you please elaborate on this? I don't know of anyone who thinks that you can just throw a Bible at someone, leave, and then expect results. That's why missionaries stay in the community for long periods of time.

Sure, the preachers are well-versed in the Scriptures, but it is not necessary for the lay people to be.

I would say that it isn't necessary for salvation, for the essence of the gospel message is understandable even to a child. But, I would say that it is absolutely necessary to everyone for the process of sanctification. To love God more is to know Him better. If no scripture is available this "can" be done through men, as long as the teachings are correct by God's standards. If scripture is available then I would commend every Christian to read them, meditate on them, and ask questions of those who know the truth. The purpose is to increase our love for God.

The Scriptures themselves never make the claim that Protestants make: The Scriptures are the sole rule of faith.

Perhaps not directly, because it did not exist until it did. None of the writers could have known which other writers and teachings would be in the finished product, the Bible. However, I think there is a case that the Bible asserts its own authority. Here is a short passage from A.A. Hodge on the authority of scripture:

"What arguments do the Scriptures themselves afford in favor of the doctrine that they are the only infallible rule of faith?

1st. The Scriptures always speak in the name of God, and command faith and obedience.

2nd. Christ and his apostles always refer to the written Scriptures, then existing, as authority, and to no other rule of faith whatsoever.--Luke 16:29; 10:26; John 5:39; Rom. 4:3;2 Tim. 3:15.

3rd. The Bereans are commended for bringing all questions, even apostolic teaching, to this test.--Acts 17:11; see also Isa. 8:16.

4th. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for adding to and perverting the Scriptures.--Matt. 15:7-9; Mark 7:5-8; see also Rev. 22:18, 19, and Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Josh. 1:7.

------------------------

Again, Christ left a body of men to continue His presence in the world and bring the Kingdom of God to others. He didn't leave a book. It would be more accurate to say that Protestants LEAVE OUT teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

What was Jesus supposed to do? Zap a book into existence, throw it into the sand and tell them "Have at it"? At the time when Jesus ascended, much of the NT had not happened yet, so how could there be a book? You might be supporting your point on the losing end of a logistics argument here.

Protestants do leave out extra-biblical teachings as AUTHORITY in and of themselves.

The Bible doesn't explain its position on many issues. How about the Real Presence of the Eucharist? According to Catholics, it is crystal clear. To Protestants, it is some sort of symbol. What about infant baptism? Christians for centuries believed and practiced it - until the latter Reformers came along (not Luther).

I agree that the Bible doesn't explain everything.

John 21:24-25 : "24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

Catholics look to Church hierarchy to fill in the holes. We look to see what is consistent with the Bible. On infant baptism, I know many Protestant churches still practice it today. As a Southern Baptist, I had no problem having both my (then) infant children baptized in other churches for family reasons. It was no big deal. I just knew that it didn't mean much because Jesus clearly laid out the order, first belief, then baptism.

Although they [scriptures] describe liturgy, what EXACTLY is to take place in Christian worship of Christ? How EXACTLY are we to Baptize?

Perhaps by not laying out specific instructions, God is telling us that the form is not so important, but rather the faith.

1,731 posted on 01/18/2006 6:19:40 PM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1727 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; jo kus
You guys need to try to keep your posts down to one or two points. I and many others don't usually read long involved posts. Keep it simple.

Just a suggestion.

Carry on.

1,732 posted on 01/18/2006 6:25:30 PM PST by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1731 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
You think Forest and myself have long posts? How about myself and Rnmon?!

I will try to limit the subject on my next posts to these people. It is taking me a long time to answer each of these two Christians!

Regards

1,733 posted on 01/18/2006 7:48:23 PM PST by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1732 | View Replies]

To: jo kus
If God died for the sake of all men, then why isn't each and every man saved - ... ?

There are numerous replies to that question on this thread alone. The short answer lies in the interpretation of all as in all men. Since Scripture is inerrant & since Scripture under illumination of the Holy Spirit is properly used to interpret Scripture it is advisable to do so. So if you will note there are many Scriptures that seem to the natural man to say the opposite.

So if you are concerned about such things you might perform a word search in a study of the various meanings of all. If you performed that word study of the underlying word which is translated all you will find that all is frequently not meant in any universal sense. That of course is also true of the plain old English use of the word in everday life.

I admit that man being involved in a separate but equal sense in his salvation gets God off the hook, but only superficially, for "how in the world did sin get into Adam & us!?"; that in spite of the three omni's of an all loving God; but God is off the hook only superficially.

If I could answer the question of sin under the light of nature or the light of grace I would be God; realizing that, I have not asked the question you have asked since January of 1970 when confronted with Romans 9. At that time I realized that my asking that question alone implied that I was making myself more righteous than God (I was helped by Job 4:17, Job 40:8, Rom 9 & ...)

Your answer is superficial in that, in view of the three omni's of an all loving God, you also have a question beyond the question. Take a guess at that question; it begins “Why would a …?”

Currently some so-called theologians are removing at least one of the three omni’s to get God off the hook for the entrance of sin; or they might simply deny God’s sovereignty over His creation. All of this is in my opinion replete with the worst kind of sophistry.

The only answer natural man has to the epoch event that ushered in sin that is consistent with the three omni's of an all loving God is universal salvation; salvation for all angels & men (all in the universal sense you posed in your opening question). That does not appear to me to be consistent with Scripture; however there are men who hold that view.

The only answer, in my opinion, for believers is to not ask the question; after all what were the answers Jesus gave to Satan & others regarding entrapment type questions. We must of course trust & rely on the Scripture that God is not the author of sin. Then for those of us who believe that that old heretic from the 1500’s had it right when he spoke in a teaching way about three lights, the lights of nature, grace, & glory, we can resort to the light of glory. As for myself I guess that none of us will either want to know and/or be told the answer

I will even go so far as to say that neither you nor I should challenge the other with the question because it will nearly always be asked in a rhetorical sense. I believe that some have honestly asked the question so I am not trying to avoid it when asked honestly outside of what is clearly a debate. However I am quite certain the answer will be the same as, or similar to, the “old heretic of the 1500’s” non-answer.

I will try to answer the other half of the first question on another post. To be continued:

1,734 posted on 01/18/2006 7:56:04 PM PST by Dahlseide (TULIP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1689 | View Replies]

To: jo kus; RnMomof7

I think RN's last post may have set a record. But I must confess, I didn't read it. I'm waiting for the Readers' Digest version. :-)


1,735 posted on 01/18/2006 7:57:08 PM PST by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1733 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Do Muslims live by faith in Christ?

No -- I was replying to your statement that It is those who live by faith who are the sons of Abraham. Note that Muslimss follow their book (the Koran) to the T, even when it says that the sun revolves around the earth (and yes the Hadiths do say that) and when it contradicts itself. That is a book with no room for mystery or understanding, it's like the US Tax code -- you get up at 5, 11, 1400, 17:00 and 19:00 and pray. You mumble these words "La illah-allah, muhammad al-rasurillah, shadwan al-rasurillah" and you die and get 72 virgins." --> it's a mockery of devotion to God. And I fear that some protestants fall under or would fall under the same falsehood.

Right now this is what the Catholics are telling me. "It doesn't matter if you believe in the Lord Jesus just so long as you have faith in something." What utter nonsense

And yes, it would be nonsense -- but Catholics aren't telling you that, you misunderstand us badly if you think that. Belief in the Lord Jesus is paramount to The Church.
1,736 posted on 01/18/2006 9:30:33 PM PST by Cronos (Never forget 9/11. Restore Hagia Sophia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1716 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; annalex; jo kus
You're Catholic and the Church will tell you what to believe.

No, and a cursory glance at this thread will bely that statement -- the Catholics are giving reasons, theological, logical, everything about why we believe in what we believe. This isn't rote learning or following some pastor or his/her interpretation of the Scriptures.
1,737 posted on 01/18/2006 9:59:44 PM PST by Cronos (Never forget 9/11. Restore Hagia Sophia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1717 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
Do you mean differences between "Baptists" and "Southern Baptists" and "Reformed Baptists", etc.?

Yes, I'm sorry if I'm wrong to put them in one common bucket because that's the way it seemed to me.
1,738 posted on 01/18/2006 10:23:07 PM PST by Cronos (Never forget 9/11. Restore Hagia Sophia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1718 | View Replies]

To: jo kus
Remember, "everyone" knew the earth was flat...

I dismiss that as a common error. Ptolemy noted the world as curved and Medieval citizens living near ports would have SEEN the curvature of the earth for themselves. Maybe a few people living on steppes or deserts could believe it.
1,739 posted on 01/18/2006 11:41:10 PM PST by Cronos (Never forget 9/11. Restore Hagia Sophia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1728 | View Replies]

To: jo kus

make that, a common modern perception.


1,740 posted on 01/18/2006 11:41:38 PM PST by Cronos (Never forget 9/11. Restore Hagia Sophia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1728 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,701-1,7201,721-1,7401,741-1,760 ... 12,901-12,906 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson