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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of your quotes from the earliest Christians were extra-biblical, so I'm not sure why they should be accorded authority. For some reason, none of these words or teachings appear to have made it into the Bible. All of these writers also appear to have a self interest in their views: "Do what I say because God gave me (not you) the authority". It is not surprising that men in authority held theological positions that kept them in authority. If God's intent really was to give only a very select few the power to interpret scripture (across all time) to the exclusion of the rest of us, why was this idea not unambiguously included in the Bible the Catholics put together?

Good questions. First, I included those quotes from the earliest Christians not as an argument from authority (which they are, but not as Scripture is), but for historical purposes. When Christians speak this way in a unanimous fashion, historically speaking, we should recognize that this WAS the legitimate beliefs of those people. We believe that these writings are in perfect continuity with the writings of the Scriptures (and it was these same men who called those writings "Scriptures" and nothing more, nothing less. Let's not forget that).

So though a Church Father is not authoritative as Scriptures by themselves, they DO give us a sense of Christian belief in the time following the writing of Scriptures. One must come to one of two conclusions: Either this is legitimate continuity, or the ENTIRE Church of the Scriptures was lost to the world - all at one time. Each and every community founded by Paul and the rest of the Apostles. With nary a murmur of dissent. Considering that Christians willingly went to their death for refusing to worship the Caesar, a trifle of a thing to the Romans, I find it interesting that NO ONE even makes one protest against the scenario that Protestants propose: that the entire Church changed throughout the empire in one generation without a dissenting voice.

As to the Scriptures and their continuity with the Church Fathers...First, Christ sent out His own Apostles to preach and teach the Word of God, the Gospel, to the world:

"Then said Jesus to them again, Peace [be] unto you: as [my] Father hath sent me, even so send I you" john 20:21

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. " Mat 28:19-20

Note, in Matthew's Gospel, Jesus says He will be with the Church for ALL time until the end of the world. Thus, He is providing for a CONTINUOUS succession of Apostles. Certainly, Christ's mandate would not end with the death of these particular men! The Kingdom of God must go out to the entire world and for all time!

And that is exactly what we see the Apostles doing as they are approaching the end of their earthly lives:

"To Titus, [mine] own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee" Titus 1:4-5

"And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." 2 Tim 2:2

"I charge [thee] before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure." 1 Tim 5:21-22

"Confirming the souls of the disciples, [and] exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed." Acts 14:22-23

1 Tim also includes qualifications for bishops and deacons, offices of leadership within the Church. When Christ had not returned, it seemed to the first Apostles that it was time to pass on the role of leadership to other men. The Church was to exist for all time, said Christ. And so within the Scriptures, we begin to see that a new generation of men, such as Timothy and Titus, were being ordained, given the Traditions (teachings) of the Church to pass down and protect. This is in perfect harmony with the writings of the Church Fathers that I gave you, is it not?

Honestly, one of the things that has always troubled me most about Catholicism is the belief that priests have the actual, literal power to forgive sin, and that this is necessary for the lay Catholic to achieve final salvation.

Again, another good question. Christ had shown through His ministry that man COULD have the power to forgive sins. Christ was God, but we must never forget that He also was man. Thus, what He did, we ALSO can do (with God's grace). AFTER His resurrection (and many people don't realize the significance of that), Jesus gave power to His Apostles to forgive sins in John 20:23. Earlier, He gave the Apostles the power to bind and loosen - which was the power to make binding decisions on the community (they were replacing the "chair of Moses" of Mt 23:3). The laying of hands has always been seen (in Scripture) as a passing of authority and power to another person. We see this in the OT and NT (Acts, especially, but also the Pastorals). The power of the Spirit is given THROUGH this visible "laying of hands". Again, this is right in line with what the later Church Fathers write. The continuity is quite amazing.

Regarding the Sacrament of Confession. The point of the sacrament is NOT to "earn" salvation - a hoop to jump through to obtain salvation. It is there for our spiritual good. It is there for post-Baptismal sins of serious account. We see even Paul has found that the reality of the matter is that Christians CONTINUE to sin AFTER Baptism and receiving the Spirit. He writes to SAVED Christians: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind" 1 Cor 6:9

Confession is a wonderful blessing that is similar in action to the story of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15. That is the meaning of Confession - a visible sign of forgiveness from Christ THROUGH the priest. WE cannot see or hear Christ say "I forgive you of your sins". Talk to any Catholic who practices Confession, and they will tell you it is soothing and comforting to the soul to HEAR that one has been forgiven. Through the power given by Christ to MEN, (Himself being the precedent) WE SEE and HEAR that we are forgiven. Today, psycologists say that this aids in closure and is instrumental in the healing process - to hear we are forgiven by the one we offended. Confession is a blessing to us, not a hoop or work to complete before we are saved. We are saved by the love we show others, done in faith, not by compiling a laundry list of things to do!

I don't think it is necessary to discard tradition, it just must be tested. For example, is not clerical celibacy a tradition?

You are correct in a sense. First, chronologically, Christ gave His Apostles a Body of teaching. Some they presented orally, others in letters. The letters became Scriptures. The oral teachings were ALSO written down, but are not Scriptures. It doesn't follow that the oral teachings originally given are of less value than the written epistles. They (the epistles) ARE treasured and considered inspired and inerrant. But properly understood, the OTHER teachings of the Apostles are ALSO "inspired". Thus, they BOTH have the same source. Today, we look at this body of teachings, the writings of the Fathers, the Liturgies, the Scriptures. They ALL must agree, correct? Those writings that do not agree, we cast out. The teachings must comply with each other. This means that Scripture INTERPRETATION must agree with Apostolic Tradition, and Apostolic Tradition must be at least IMPLIED or found within Scripture itself. But it is not necessary to be completely spelled out in its finished form.

An example. Intercessionary prayers to the saints in heaven. The Scripture does not EXPLICITLY mention it. But Apostolic Tradition DOES. Is it actually refuted in Scriptures? No. Is the practice implied? Yes. First, death does not separate us from Christ. Next, Paul himself asks for prayers, and he prays for other Christians. Finally, the prayers of a righteous man is effective. Certainly, those in heaven are righteous? So the concept is implied in the Scriptures, found in actual practice in early Christian history, and given a seal of approval by the leaders of the Church, who were charged to teach and protect correct doctrine (see the epistles of John and Jude for this idea of correct doctrine vs. heterodox teaching)

The idea seems to be that Catholics should approach clerics with their honest questions, and the clerics will relay Church teaching, and require the person to adopt it to remain in good standing

The priests of the OT had the exact same jobs. They, also, taught the people the "correct" way to come to God. Of course, the people must trust that God really did come to the prophets and patriarchs, just as WE must trust that God came to the Apostles! WE both do that with Scriptures! Really, don't we do that with the Bible? The Bible is NOT self-authenticating. The individual books, for the most part, don't SAY they are God's Word. WE know they are because SOMEONE TOLD US THEY ARE God's Word! Who? The Church did! If we don't believe the Church's witness, then why do we believe that the NT letters are God's Word? A final comment on this - the Jews do NOT believe the NT is the Word of God! Muslims believe on faith that the Koran was delivered by the Angel Gabriel as the literal Word of God. Thus, WE, MEN, rely on other men to tell us the Word of God. We either believe their word or not. This has been the way of things from the beginning (even the Jews had to make that choice - was Moses giving God's Commandments or his own?). So we ALL must trust God's messenger - and determine whether they really are God's messenger. We know this by their fruits and their works.

Regards

FK, are you confused yet???!!!

Kosta is correct, but I see he is emphasizing one part of our "relationship" with God - perhaps it might seem he is disregarding the other part.

God gives His own life and friendship to us. We call this gift grace. We do not earn or deserve God's grace. Grace allows us to become God's adopted children and respond to His abundant love. I think this explains both "parts" of the relationship - that God takes the initiative, God provides us with Grace, God provides us the impetus to respond to Him - and YET, We also are called to RESPOND. Thus, because of the existence of free will (the ability to respond to God implies the ability to reject God), we DO, in some manner, are called into a relationship. We give of ourselves, even if it is miniscule compared to God. God is not looking for quantity, but the giving of our SELF. If we are to become like God, we must "act" like Him (which we cannot do without Him - John 15). We must love others, even our enemies. We must place God in our lives first, like Christ did. We must give of ourselves totally, just as Christ did. THAT is the relationship we are in. Through the Incarnation, man CAN be enabled to partake in His most holy divine nature. I feel confident that Kosta agrees that the Incarnation allows us to partake in the divine nature, although he will probably use different words, such as theosis and divinization. But the concept is the same. We are to become like Christ ONLY because He became like us (St. Athanasius said something to that effect - God became man so that we could become "gods" [not ontologically!])

Jesus came to proclaim the Kingdom. God has always desired to share of Himself with us. To do this, Jesus came to establish the Kingdom here, even now, but not yet! Jesus told us what the Kingdom of Heaven is like. Not only is it the Church on earth, but it is our relationship with Christ Himself. Through this Church, the people whom we fellowship with, the pastors who teach the Word to us, the priests who administer God's graces to us visibly through the sacraments, the Kingdom is made present even now. And ESPECIALLY through the Mass (Divine Liturgy), the Kingdom of Heaven comes and joins in with our own participation with Christ in His eternal offering of Himself to the Father.

God has covenanted with His people. HE took the initiative and HE binds Himself to this covenant. But was it ALWAYS one-way? The Mosaic Covenant DEMANDS obedience to God. Christ did not change that. We are STILL commanded to obey the Commandments. However, Christ specifically fulfilled the Law by EXPANDING it - "you have heard it said...but I tell you - if you even look at a woman with lust in your heart, you have committed adultery", and so forth. In Matthew 5-7, Jesus tells us what our relationship must be based upon - love of God and neighbor. We are not to be like the hypocrites who follow the Law, but not in their hearts. Thus, we MUST love - and by loving our neighbor, we love God. This is the relationship we are called to partake in. It is not one-sided - although it is ultimately dependent upon God's graces. Would you agree, Kosta?

The Great Schism occurred five hundred years before Reformation. The main difference was papal authority and the issue of Filioque as it was inserted in the Nicea Creed by the Spanish clergy in the 6th century.

I think our respective communities grew apart culturally first. We hardly spoke each other's language. Politically, we were separate after the fall of Rome in the early 400's to the barbarians. Leadership-wise, we took different paths, also. Rome had no or little political pressure for many years, while Constantinople lived under the often-heretical emperor. Thus, East and West took different paths ecclesiastically and culturally many years before the Schism or even the Filioque (which was not listed among the reasons in 1054).

The Filioque was taken as a slap in the face by the Greeks because it was done without a Council and because the Greeks perceived that it was heretical teaching. Simply put, it was a huge misunderstanding and a lack of tact on the part of Rome. Theologically, the formula is acceptable (though I think "through" rather than "and" would be better). The Papacy, I believe, was not a real problem for the East (although I think the Bishops in Constantinople would have desired for Rome to stop "butting in") - they appealed to him over and over again to fight heresy. I believe the split is more over lack of understanding each other culturally. Polemics naturally didn't endear us to each others positions! Theologically, there are very few issues that we disagree on. But because we have different points of view (the Trinity can be approached from more than one direction!!!), we often fail to understand that we agree, but said differently. We pray that God wills that His Church re-unite.

Brother in Christ

You want to interpret "reward" as salvation, but that is no where taught in scripture. Salvation is called salvation. While Scripture often talks about rewards, it is NOT only relegated to this life!
: For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he shall reward everyone according to their works. Matt 16:27
Rejoice ye in that day and leap for joy; for, behold, your reward [is] great in heaven, for their fathers treated the prophets in the same manner. Luke 6:23

These both talk about rewards for the saved not being saved. Saved is saved, rewards are rewards

(Regarding Mat 5:20) Ahhh exactly, we can never enter heaven based on our own righteousness, (our works, law keeping, church attendance etc) we enter only covered in the righteousness of Christ.
If that is not reading your theology into Scripture, I don’t know what is. Where does Matthew 5-7 mention ANYTHING about being covered in Christ’s righteousness? That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard! The ENTIRE SECTION talks about YOU! Not about Christ covering you! He talks about reaching fulfilling the meaning of the Law BY loving others! When we pray, when we fast, when we give alms…In our relationships with others, even our enemies. Where or where does Matthew mention ANYTHING about being covered with Christ’s righteousness??!!

Jesus, knowing the sinful man’s heart, knew he violated the 1st commandment “You shall have no other gods before me,” and pointed out his god. “Sell all and follow me.” The young mans man’s unwillingness to follow shows his fallen nature as opposed to his external “religious” activities. Jesus showed that the rich young ruler had not even begun to keep the commandments. His self-righteousness was only self-deception.

I paraphrased what scripture tells us about righteousness IN Christ. This young man did not have that

Jer.23:6 This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.

Rom 8:1 [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

1Cr 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

1Cr 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:

1Cr 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption

Phl 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

Ephesians 4:22You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

When God looks at the elect He see the righteousness of His son, not the sinful men we are. Think of David having Jonathan's royal robe placed on Him. That robe offered the protection to the son of the King. People seeing it from afar knew he was the kings son.

Think of the 1st act of the father to the prodigal son, He ran and embraced Him and placed on Him a robe of honor.

Scripture tells us we have put on Christ, that we are IN Christ. We wear the righteousness of Christ as our robe from the father .

The Rich Young Man, I didn’t say the man thought Jesus was the Savior, or was God. He asked Him, as a Teacher, to tell him what was needed to be saved. Considering Jesus was God (although the man didn’t know), we must take seriously the answer He gave the young man – to obey the commandments out of love. Of course he was asking what HE needed to do! WE ALL want to know what is necessary to be saved. I don’t see your distinction. Nor do I understand your discussion on “not knowing Jesus was God”. So what…He received God’s advice, didn’t he? Unfortunately, he didn’t become “perfect”.

Can any man keep ALL THE COMMANDMENTS? if they could, would we need a savior? What did Paul say ?

Gal 3:24 — Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

The very purpose of the law is to show us we are sinners in need of a savior. No man could keep the law perfectly , Christ could and he kept it for us . That is why He could be the spotless lamb, the perfect substitute to appease the wrath of the Father.

The rich ruler wanted to know what he might need to do to be sure that he had not missed anything in his righteousness. Was there something that might prevent him from attaining everlasting life - life with God? Jesus struck a "fatal blow "to his theology and confidence. His did not understand righteousness .
Jesus did not REJECT that the commandments were necessary for salvation! In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus even says “HE LOVED HIM”. Doesn’t sound like this man was a Pharisee, a hypocrite that Jesus tells us to NOT emulate throughout the Gospels.

Of course Jesus loved him, that has nothing to do with the fact that the man believed he could be saved by his own righteousness. Did jesus run after him? Beg him to stay? Change the plan of salvation so that the young man could be admitted to His fellowship by law keeping?

Jesus got to the heart of the matter and revealed a corrupted understanding of righteousness. He categorically stated that only God is good. To think of a human in the same terms as God is a lack of understanding of the holiness of God and the sinfulness of men . His standard was inadequate. IT WAS BASED ON HUMAN RIGHTEOUSNESS RATHER THAN GOD’S.
Quite frankly, you miss the point of the story. If it was about “earning” salvation, if Jesus wanted to condemn following the Law, now was His chance…JESUS HIMSELF asked the man if he obeyed the commandments, the MAN didn’t say “see, teacher, I am doing “x”, and “y”. He asked because the man desired to know what was God’s will. As a teacher of the Law, Jesus WAS in a position to respond to this legitimate question. Again, you are reading your theology into the Scriptures. Love is the key to understand Christ’s teachings, not about God vs. man’s righteousness…

Mans love or Gods love? Can a man without the Holy Spirit love as God loves? What was Gods will in this? Was law keeping sufficient? Was temple attendance sufficient? Was the issue love or was it doing self serving works? Was it that He did not know God at all and he could not recognize Him when he stood in his presence?

Except Jesus saw something that perhaps the young man had never even considered, there is more to righteousness than keeping the law
Hardly. This is about putting Jesus first in our lives. Recall all of the verses in the Bible that talk about the rich and entering heaven? Do you know why? How can a rich man rely on Christ? He relies on himself.

You mean like doing good works? Participating in rituals in the temple? Like believing that a man can generate God pleasing love in a corrupt heart? That kind of self reliance?

He has the means to place his trust in himself. Christ wants us to die to ourselves! We MUST if we are to love. Love means dying to ourselves for the sake of the other. You must know this, being married, right? How can we die to ourselves when we see ourselves as the center of the world?

If you can show me a scripture that a man is capable of self generated love that will please God I would be interested in that. Can a man have the Love of Christ come from a corrupt heart?

Eph 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

Eph 3:16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
Eph 3:17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

Eph 3:18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what [is] the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

Eph 3:19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

Eph 3:20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,

Eph 3:21 Unto him [be] glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

Jesus told the young man he lacked something in spite of his law keeping . What he lacked was faith . If he lacked faith, he wouldn’t obey the commandments out of love!!! The wicked do not obey the Law.

No man can obey the law. Self generated love is always self serving. it seeks its own rewards. The commandments reflect the holiness of God that no man can measure up to.

Those who have no faith in God are foolish. There are too many such verses in the OT to even begin to quote them all.

The question is , is it the mans self generated faith or the faith given by the indwelling Holy Spirit ? What is foolish?

1Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Phl 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Eph 3:11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: 12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him

.Phl 1:29 For unto you] it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Act 3:14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; 15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. 16 And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.

Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

We are not looking at human hope or human faith .. but at a supernatural faith brought by God to the man . This is not faith the train will be on time or that the sun will rise in the morning ... This is a supernatural faith, to believe what others with human faith deny.

1Cr 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

What the man lacked was the attitude of dedicating himself entirely to God.

He did not even KNOW God how could he be dedicated to Him? He lived a life of self assurance, his money and his law keeping were his gods. That was what he was dedicated to

His priorities were out of balance, and it showed when asked to give them up. Money, not God, was where his heart was.

Money WAS HIS GOD .It was where he looked for assurance and safety . Hs priorities were exactly the priorities of the unsaved man .

Jesus did not come for the righteous,He came for sinners. So why would he demand law keeping here?
Christ says not ONE jot of the Law will pass away.

Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Christ did not come to destroy or to abolish the law or the Prophets. Every jot and tittle is still in effect, but Jesus makes it very clear that what He came to do, is to FULFILL them, because we never can .

The saved are no longer judged by the Law. Christ fulfilled that law for us. But that law still stands to do as it did for Paul, show him he is a sinner in need of a Savior

Romans 8:1-2 "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death"

A man that plans to be saved by keeping that law had best read your favorite scripture author :)

James 2:10 "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all".

In other words, if we plan to be saved by keeping the old testament laws, we better keep all of them, or we are lost.

No man can keep the law perfectly so men still need a Saviour. The purpose of the law was to point men to Christ.

He DEMANDS we keep the Law – the “royal” law of love (James). If He is your king, He expects obedience to His commands. Do you obey your king or not?

Do YOU ?

Matthew 22:34-40 But when the Pharisees heard that He had put the Sadducees to silence, they gathered themselves together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" And He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

Can YOU keep this law? Can YOU obey every one of them perfectly? Can you love God with ALL YOUR HEART? ALL YOUR SOUL ? ALL YOUR MIND ? 24 hours a day , 7 days a week. 365 days a year PERFECTLY? Do you ever wonder whats for dinner? Do you ever get angry with your brother? Your mind is not on God at that moment. Can YOU keep that law?

Do you really love your neighbor as much as yourself? If you love yourself at all then you can not be loving God with all your heart because some of it is filled with self love.

All of us have a powerful instinct of self-preservation and self-fulfillment. We all want to be happy. That is self love not the love of God demanded here. But I do know one that kept this law, and he took my sinful self love to the cross and paid for it

James is speaking to saved men on how the world will see them. It is about being justified in the eyes of men
The ENTIRE NT is written to “saved” people. I don’t understand the difference here in James. James is talking about adding deeds of love to our faith – since they don’t come automatically.

All the letters are to the church ( the saved.. Acts is a historical account as are the Gospels. (Many will say te gospels are actually OT as they are the account before the cross, before grace and mercy and redemption by Christ. The difference is that the letters were not written to tell the church how to be saved, they were already saved, it was doctrinal teachings and how to live the Christian life.

It allows a man to think men can be saved on the basis of that work and not need Christ as their savior( ie. Muslims)
We already covered this ground. There is a difference between an action done out of self-righteousness (for wages) and the SAME action done out of love of God and neighbor. You should be able to tell the two apart when you examine yourself.

So men are not saved by Christ or His righteousness but by " their love ", could I have some scripture that love saves and not Christ?

No where does Jesus say or imply that one is saved by works. The book of James was written to a converted church , not heathens seeking salvation . It tells them how their conversion is seen by the unsaved world . It is not about becoming saved or being saved. It is about the fruit of your salvation.
Nor did I! I have NEVER said we are saved by works ALONE! We are saved by faith AND works… Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Were they showing all those saving works to God or each other? Did God need to SEE their works to know their hearts ?

This addresses a hollow profession of faith , not a saving one . Can a hollow profession save him? NO, any more than works can save.This scripture says to the church that this faith is non existent , it is dead.
It addresses FAITH! There is no "regular" faith and "saving" faith mentioned in the Scritures...

I share with you Pinks thoughts on this

There are those who have a faith which is so like that which is saving as they themselves may take it to be the very same, and others too may deem it sufficient, yea, even others who have the spirit of discernment. Simon Magus is a case in point. Of him it is written,
"Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip" (Acts 8:13).
Such a faith had he, and so expressed it, that Philip took him to he a genuine Christian, and admitted him to those privileges which are peculiar to them. Yet, a little later, the apostle Peter said to him,
"Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God... I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity" (Acts 8:21, 23).Studies on Saving faith

You seem very intent on combining “works” and “faith” into one thing called “saving faith” so as to keep “sola fide” intact. The problem is that sola fide does not consider love as necessary for salvation. Do you? If I have not love, will I enter heaven? If you say no, then faith is not alone

Quite the contrary it counts the Love of Christ as he hung on that cross paying the debt we could not pay as primary not our own self generated self centered self serving love as saving anyone, least of all our selves.

You have a doctrine of works built on one scripture. You have chosen to ignore all the passages on faith that it should be read with. There is a day when we realize that our self generated faith can never save us, our works can never save us, our love can never save us . Then we will know for sure that Christ has, because man can never save himself. That then brings assurance that he has completed what we can not even start. He is the author and finisher of our faith . As long as our salvation rests on us and our faith and our love and our works men will never know for sure , they will die in fear ..

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.