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

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

[HarleyD]

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erasmus On the Freedom of the Will

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luther's Arguments Against Erasmus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Battle of the Biblical Texts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Main Issues and Implications of Each View

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Importance of This Controversy Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

[annalex]

I was specific in my 1194 regarding KJV obfuscatory language. At the same time, I agree that KJV on occasions provides beautiful English language, and is light years better than modern translations.

[jo kus]

First of all, thank you for your reply. It is obvious you put a lot of time into it. I appreciate your correspondence.

These (Mat 16:27 and Luke 6:23) both talk about rewards for the saved not being saved. Saved is saved, rewards are rewards.

I thought your point was that rewards are only given on earth, and only salvation in heaven. These two verses clearly tell us that rewards are given to those entering heaven. Salvation IS a reward! There are a lot of implications behind the word 'reward'. It certainly implies that we ARE DOING something that God desires and are subsequently given something. I don't think that the unsaved are rewarded. That is certainly not what I said.

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 don't see that connection as primary, although it is a valid interpretation. The point is about leaving ALL for Christ. HE is to be the center of our lives, if we desire to be perfect. Jesus doesn't condemn the man. He LOVES Him, as Mark states. If the man was trying to 'earn' his way to heaven, Jesus would certainly have corrected that idea, as He did with the Pharisees. The point of this story is about discipleship. It is a call to ALL of us to 'leave' everything to follow Christ. To prove this, look to what follows the story:

Peter answered and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that has forsaken houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands for my name's sake shall receive a hundredfold and shall inherit eternal life. Mat 19:27-29

Note, Jesus is talking about those who give up EVERYTHING for the Kingdom. While the rich young man was good, while he followed the law as Jesus intended us to follow, there was still something missing, something that impeded the man¡¦s search for perfection. His love of money kept God from being first as Jesus relates about the difficulty of entering heaven for the rich people. As a sidebar, note the last sentence those who follow Jesus shall inherit eternal life (faith and love). Another side bar, note that God SHARES His glory with His followers, those He loves, by allowing them to sit upon thrones to judge.

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.

Lots of quotes from Paul, but nothing from Matthew. Nowhere does Jesus speak of HIS righteousness 'covering' us. He is calling US to be righteous. Understand, He also tells us that we cannot do good alone (John 15). As I have demonstrated with the cookie story, it is perfectly normal to say 'I love you', but not exclude the Creator, the One whom enables us to love in the first place. Thus, when Jesus says we are to obey the commandments, He is not expecting us to obey them WITHOUT God's aid or help. He expects us to pray, to trust in God as little children trust their parents. God will provide. But He also expects a response from us. Thus, we are back again to our cooperation with God. And here is where Paul kicks in. Paul is adamant that WE cannot earn salvation. We cannot do ANYTHING ALONE! Thus, all of the many verses tell us that faith is a gift, faith is from God, works (our own works without God) cannot save. But Paul does not abrogate the Law of Love. He tells us that we MUST love. Our faith must be operative. 'For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything nor uncircumcision, but faith which works by charity' (Gal 5:6). Faith, which works by charity. Faith without charity is worthless (he says in 1 Cor 13:2). This is exactly what Jesus teaches. Our righteousness must EXCEED the Pharisees. But understand that this is not OUR OWN righteousness, but our righteousness while in Christ! While guided by the Spirit of God, which is the only way we can love and fulfill the new demands that Christ lays upon us - which are not burdensome!

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 .

We are IN Christ, but certainly not for the purpose of covering ourselves! We will be judged based on our response to Christ's promptings - our faith working through love. Note, when I say 'our' faith, it is understood that it is God's gift that I am using - just like the child making the cookies. Without 'Dad', I cannot do it. But since God is a sharing God, He enables me to 'do' those things that only God can do alone - LOVE.

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?

Again, I don't see where the man is claiming that he has done everything. By saying that 'Jesus loved Him', the Scriptures are saying that the man was not far from the Kingdom. He WAS obeying the Commandments in love of God and neighbor. IF the man was being self-righteous, Jesus would have reacted differently to the man. I ask you to point out ONE verse where Jesus is said to 'love' a hypocritical Pharisee, or invite such a hypocritical Pharisee to follow Him. Jesus could read the hearts of men. He KNEW that the man's heart was in the right place, but there was 'one more thing' to be done. Something that the Apostles HAD done. The man wasn't looking for self-justification!

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?

Again, we covered this ground already, and I again say no. Without the Spirit, no one can love selflessly. Keeping the law in of itself is NOT sufficient - reconsider reading Mathew 5-7. The Pharisees kept the Law¡ BUT, Jesus expects OUR righteousness (moved by the Spirit) to be higher. Throughout THREE chapters of Scripture, Jesus tells us HOW we can be more righteous than Pharisees. Again, I bring to mind the cookie story and my comment about when YOU say 'I love you' to your children. Are you excluding God? We PRESUME we can BE righteous ONLY because of Christ's Spirit within us. If we are obeying the Commandments out of love, we KNOW the Spirit is within us, because we can't do it alone.

I wrote : How can a rich man rely on Christ? He relies on himself.

You responded : 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?

One who is rich has money. Why pray to God? What does a rich man need in groveling before God? They can buy whatever they desire. Thus, they rely on their own means, not praying to God. That's what I am talking about, not good works or rituals!

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?

Ugghh. I feel like I am repeating myself over and over again! I never said a man generates self love that is pleasing to God. Don't make me retype the cookie story!. Really, is it so hard to understand that we cooperate with God, but we absolutely need Him to do anything? Thus, it IS correct to say 'my' work, since I responded positively to God's enabling graces in the first place. You do realize that Scripture says we can refuse graces?

He did not even KNOW God how could he be dedicated to Him?

He didn¡¦t know God??? Than why, pray tell, did He faithfully obey the commandments - and not out of hypocrisy?

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 . When Jesus says He fulfills the Law, that doesn't mean we are not responsible to keep the Law. It means that His teachings, along with His Redemptive Work on the Cross, would fulfill Scriptures and the meaning of the Law. When God gave Moses the Decalogue, He had in mind the teachings of Christ for their proper fulfillment. You say we cannot (even in Christ) keep the teachings of the Law as expanded upon in Mat 5-7? Sure we can. Jesus specifically TELLS US:

Ye have heard that it was said to the ancients, Thou shalt not commit murder, and whosoever shall commit murder shall be guilty of the judgment; but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother out of control shall be in danger of the judgment, and whosoever shall insult his brother shall be in danger of the council, but whosoever shall say, Thou art impious, shall be in danger of hell. Matt 5:21-22

Isn't it clear that Jesus is giving a new teaching, one that goes beyond 'what you have heard from the ancients'? THIS is the fulfillment of the Law, the original intention of God. Not merely shall we not murder and kill. But we shall not even be ANGRY or INSULT our brothers. How do you twist this to say that JESUS is to fulfill these teachings? He is giving US the teachings, not showing to everyone that HE ALONE will do the teachings and so we are no longer responsible to obey them! Really, this idea TOTALLY ignores the teachings Christ gives us for the sake of an invented theology of imputed justification

Regards

[jo kus]

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".

James is referring, as Paul does in Romans and Galatians, that those who try to earn their way to heaven would HAVE to keep the ENTIRE LAW perfectly. If a person tried to obligate God, they would have to be perfect as God is perfect. Thus, we must rely on grace to fulfill the Law. Under grace, we are not under the system of the Law where perfect law-keeping is required. Under Grace, we are children who are still responsible to the Law, but we are not absolutely required to keep it perfectly. We are under a familial covenant with the Father. As long as we humbly come to the Father when we sin, asking for forgiveness, and truly trying to please God from our heart with faith working in love, God does not hold us to perfect law-keeping. A Father can forgive His children of breaking the Law, just as you do when you children disobey you. An Employer (God), though, DEMANDS perfect work (law-keeping) for perfect(heaven) wages. Thus, James and Paul say it is impossible.

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

Self-preservation is not sinful. And yes, Christ is the only One who COULD keep the Law perfectly, which is why His work was effective. But under grace, we are not demanded to keep the Law perfectly. We are children of God, not employees.

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.

We have a difference of definitions here. “Saved” is NOT only an action in our past. Paul talks about BEING saved and WILL BE saved. He speaks of it as a future act and as a present act. Thus, the NT is to people who are saved, who are being saved, and who hope to be saved in heaven.

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?

I didn’t say men are saved by their love alone. How many times must I repeat myself – IF a person loves from his heart, it is ONLY because the Spirit of God is working in that person. Your attempts to limit the work of the Spirit are duly noted. But the Spirit will not be limited by your concepts or ideas of WHOM shall be saved: “prostitutes and tax-collectors will enter the Kingdom of God before …” fill in the blank with the supposed self-proclaimed saved person.

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

Why does God allow tests? Why does God allow sufferings? Why indeed. It is for OUR good, not because God doesn’t know or for the benefit of showing another person our saving works! How else will we develop virtue if we do not face adversity? Will a spoiled rotten kid who is given everything in life have fortitude or courage? Only by facing danger and adversity do we grow in that virtue. Thus, God tests us so WE can grow and become more Christ-like.

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....

Yes, I understand that we do not know who the “saved” are because we do not see into people’s hearts as God does. Isn’t that the point of the story of the cockles and wheat? The two look identical. So we are not called to “pull” and “separate the “weeds” in our midst because we really don’t KNOW who they are. That is God’s job at judgment day to do that. The point is : WE don’t know who is in the Book of the Elect, we don’t know for sure if our neighbor is “saved” for eternal life. Even our own salvation is not guaranteed, because we, too, have a clouded intellect. Thus, the whole idea of “saving faith” is merely a means for a person to declare THEMSELVES saved for eternal life. Are you aware of ONE person who says “I don’t have enough saving faith”? LOL! Unfortunately, it is a delusion and self-denial. It gives one ease that he is saved for heaven and no longer needs to “work out their salvation in fear”.

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.

What do you mean by a doctrine of works? I have showed over and over that faith must be combined with works of love. Perhaps you should more carefully read what I write, and not what you THINK the Catholic Church teaches. I MYSELF have told you that Scripture often speaks (in the Gospels) about doing God’s will or being judged based on our works. I have said that it was UNDERSTOOD that faith was involved in those formulas, although not expressly noted. To love, one must have faith. Thus, when Christ speaks about lovingly obeying the Law, He naturally does not exclude faith! Please realize that the Scriptures point out over and over that we must have both faith and love to enter the Kingdom.

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 .

Considering all of the words we have exchanged, it saddens me that very few of mine have sunken in, because you keep making the same old tired accusations that I have NEVER made. Please point out ONE sentence where I say we are saved by works alone. Please point out one sentence where we are saved without faith in God. Please point out one sentence where I say ANYTHING of ours is self-generated.

Do you know what a straw man argument is? Rather than engaging what I write, you are falsely accusing me of things I have never said or implied. I have taken great strides to correct these incorrect presumptions. Apparently, it isn’t working if we are this late into our conversations and you still make the same mistakes. I am sorry if my posts have destroyed your man-made theology, esp. regarding Mat 5:20, but constantly accusing me of things I have never said is not in the best interests of proper discourse.

Regards

[kosta50]

The schism never happened as a one-time activity but a gradual movement away

Exactly! At first impercetipble, then gradually ever so. Just as the reunion will be, in reverse. We (Catholic and Orthodox) are in the mids of it and most of us don't even realize that we are part of it.

[kosta50]

I would think that it would be every Christian's greatest desire to emulate Christ by being totally obedient to the Father's will

Excuse me, I think you are getting more confused by the minute. You said that man, in his wickedness, obeyed God to kill Christ. To you that's emulating Christ?

How can blind obedience to God-ordained sin be man's wickedness?

Your new tag line does not exclude free will. The whole thing about Christianity is that man disobeyed God's will. Obviously you haven't realized it yet. So, YES, God's will can be disobeyed and has been and continues to be disobeyed by man, exercising his free will daily, since Adam.

Yet, our loving God did not destroy us, but is trying to heal us and save us, even though we continue to sin and even though the founder of your sect urged you to "sin boldly..."

Your problem is that you see God as the author of good and evil. Yet you consider man to be "wicked" (by God's will no doubt).

I imagine that even a confused Protestant would say that God is good. But if He is good, that goodness sis not a "characteristic" of God, but His nature. If we can for a moment assume that He is also the author of evil, then He is evil by nature as well. And if we assume that He is just, He must also be essentially unjust, and if He is merciful, He must also be cruel.

That's not what Christ taught us. You have left the planet.

For if God is both good and evil, just and unjust, angry and happy, passionate and sad, He is not eternal and unchanging, but subject to moods and passions, to bribes and pleasures. That is a corrupt God. And if that is what Protestants other than you believe, then they also believe in a corrupt God, a Tyrant.

[kosta50]

Jo, of course I agree with you on all your excellent points; there is no difference in our understanding of the relationship and partaking in His divine nature through the Eucharist.

I was emphasizing God's overwhelming and lopsided relationship to counter the Protestant notion of some "fellowship" or "partnership," which trickles into the sola scriptura arrogance that tends to make every man his own pope and a "junior partner" in God's Firm. Christian God is humble. Protestants don't know what that means; they are directed to "sin boldly" by Luther.

Let's not fool ourselves that our response to God is of any real value to Him save for His love for us. And you point to a very important detail: that we must give ourselves totally to God and I will say that none of us does. The woman who gave her last two copper coins to God, gave little, but she gave everything to Him. That's what Christ taught us. He taught us that she loved God with all her heart, mind and soul.

Theologically, the [filioque] formula is acceptable (though I think "through" rather than "and" would be better)

Theologically, it is understandable inasmuch as it shows Latin error. +Gregory Palams describes the Holy Spirit as the eros (love) between the Father and the Son, as the Latin theologians do, but he makes sure to underscore that the Holy Spirit exists only from the Father, as does the Son. We could go on, of course, but the original Creed goes to the very eternal fountain of Divinity which is unmistakably and incorruptibly associated only with the Father, as the source of everything and all, including the Divinity.

[HarleyD]

You said that man, in his wickedness, obeyed God to kill Christ. To you that's emulating Christ?

You have your "man is neutral" hat on. To me I think the scriptures are very plain that man is inherently corrupt. He cannot emulate Christ's behavior. Those who physically killed our Lord were unable to stop themselves from killing Goodness. And less you think we're anything special it says we're all guilty of this.

So, YES, God's will can be disobeyed and has been and continues to be disobeyed by man, exercising his free will daily, since Adam.

I would suggest you read Jonah. He didn't get very far.

If we can for a moment assume that He is also the author of evil, then He is evil by nature as well.

No one suggests that God is the author of evil. He allows evil. He uses evil to His advantage. And He directs evil for accomplishing His preordained will. But He isn't the author of evil. I would suggest reading Job.

Your problem rest in that it is impossible for you to explain my tagline.

[kosta50]

Thanks, Mom, on your linguistic insights. Your learned and thorough approach to faith is always noted and admired, even if we disagree.

I had the pleasure of attending Serbian Orthodox Vespers a time ago, I found them very beautiful and the people very warm and friendly

And I had the pleasure of being introduced to Orthodox Presbyterianism through a colleague I met in Japan. Most fascinating fellow. Of course, we didn't see things the same way, but I was very moved by his spirituality and devotion to faith, as understood by your side of the house, infant baptism, highly Trinitarian theology, etc.

I am sure you found the Vespers to be highly "idolatrous." :-)

[kosta50]

Selective responses, as usual. Just the way you read the Bible.

To me I think the scriptures are very plain that man is inherently corrupt

Nonsense! The Scripture leaves no doubt that God created man in His image and likeness, i.e. good. Good try Sherlock.

The nature of ancestral sin is that we lost our likeness to God, while remaining in His image. Therefore we are not dead. We are defective and wounded, distorted and deficient. The whole concept of salvation is to conform to the likeness of Christ once again and to regain the original state. Obviously, we can't do it on our own, but need God to help us. Instead of destroying all of humanity, He is dedicated to healing it and restoring it.

God's laws are inscribed in our hearts (Heb 8), which means we do know what is good and what is evil. The problem is that we want only that which is "good" for us (self-love), and that we are unwilling to love our neighbor as ourselves, let alone God with all our heart and mind and soul.

Those who killed Christ knew He was innocent. Pontius Pilate said so. The Jews picked Barabbas over Christ. God did not lead them to it. He simply knows what corrupt human nature wills in its arrogance and pride.

I am not sure why you keep spouting Job. I am asking you to re-read Genesis. The story of Genesis tells us that MAN DSIOBEYED GOD'S WILL, which can only mean that MAN CAN DISOBEY GOD IF HE OR SHE WILLS TO DISOBEY GOD, consequences notwithstanding. Maybe Job didn't last very long, but Adam lived to be 900 years old.

I don't know how to explain this to you in more simple terms. It is obvious to all except those who are captive of their own pride, that man is free to obey or disobey God, because God gave us the mind and the free will to use it. The Scripture makes that abundantly clear. Unless of course you believe that God made Adam disobey, which brings us back to the corrupt God and some kind of Protestant Theology 101.

[Dahlseide]

The Reformation was waged on the distinct "view" in Scripture that salvation is of the Lord.

Well said; there is no other way.

[RnMomof7]

I am sure you found the Vespers to be highly "idolatrous." :-)

Not at all. I loved the singing and the incense (as prayer going up to God) The church was beautiful ( even the chosen frozen can appreciate beauty and art ; ) I was especially touched by the people that greeted me and made me feel very welcome.

I thought the tradition of kneeling in greeting each other was respectful and humble. It is a pleasant memory, even if we do not agree on doctrine :)

[RnMomof7]

Now you know we disagree :)

Hope you are well and blessed in this new year !

[HarleyD]

Nonsense! The Scripture leaves no doubt that God created man in His image and likeness, i.e. good.

My, my. You must have to cut out of your Bible just about 50% of the verses like...
Mat 5:45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

or...

Mat 12:34 "You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.

or...

Luk 11:13 "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?"

or...

Luk 18:19 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.

Well, you [MAYBE] get the idea by now. Our Lord Jesus thought that only God [ie Himself] was good. Everyone else was evil. Sorry to disappoint.

The story of Genesis tells us that MAN DSIOBEYED GOD'S WILL, which can only mean that MAN CAN DISOBEY GOD IF HE OR SHE WILLS TO DISOBEY GOD, consequences notwithstanding.

Wouldn't you say the following Proverb applies to Adam?

Pro 16:9 The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.

I don't know how to explain this to you in more simple terms. It is obvious to all except those who are captive of their own pride, that man is free to obey or disobey God

Future tagline: Pro 20:9 Who can say, "I have cleansed my heart, I am pure from my sin"?

[kosta50]

I am glad you liked it, and I am glad (but not surprized) that you were well received. I felt the same way when I was invited to a Christmas lunch to my colleague's pastor's house where I had a chance to exchange many views and ask many questions of Christians whom I have never met. They received me as one of their own and accepted my differences graciously. But the fact that we did not share the same theology did not affect us as we celebrated the Birth of our Savior.

[kosta50]

My, my. You must have to cut out of your Bible just about 50% of the verses like...

Oh, you are just being silly now. Mat 5:45 shows that God offers blessings to all.

But you are in denial that

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [Gen 1:26-27]

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. [Gen 1:31]

Sorry Harley, Scripture clearly states that man and woman were made in His image and likeness, and were given dominion over earth and everything that he created, and that God saw everything he had made, including man, and it was good.

As for ancestral (dis)obedience -- clearly Adam and Eve did that by their own decision. They decided to disobey God!

I have cleansed my heart, I am pure from my sin"?

By what command and by whose authority>

[Forest Keeper]

Thanks for your answers. I think I understand where you are coming from on this a lot better.

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.

Well, I wouldn't imagine there would have been any protest at that time. Since, at the beginning, all new Christians were starting from scratch, there was nothing to which the early Christians could compare (in terms of other Christian thought). Those who accepted, simply accepted because that's all there was.

I'm not sure I understand your reference to "one generation". Was Luther's protest based on just what the early Christians were doing, or was it based on what he perceived to be gradual changes in the Church over time until a final straw was broken?

Note, in Matthew's Gospel [28:19-20], 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!

There's the rub, what do you mean by "Church"? For you to be right, then when Jesus said "I am with you always", He would only be with Roman Catholics, not all Christians. I read it more broadly as referring to all ministers of the true gospel. If you make this distinction, then the rest of the NT really shouldn't have any meaning to a non-Catholic, because it wasn't written to them. You're saying that the Great Commission was only given to Roman Catholic hierarchy, not to the rest of us, not even to the Catholic laity. If Christ is not even with Catholic laity for the purpose of going out and teaching all nations, then why should a lay Catholic even bother to evangelize?

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.

I read the verse and it does appear to be problematic to my belief that only God can forgive sins, since the offense is against Him. I just can't square it against Mark 2:7. Yes, there the speakers were "teachers of the law" so it would be easy to say that they were simply wrong. However, Jesus speaks nothing of this error (if it is one). In fact, Jesus plays on the statement. The whole point here is to show that Jesus is revealing His identity by forgiving sins. I don't know of another example where Jesus grants the truth of a lie (that only God can forgive sin) in order to make His point. Here He was not exposing that "lie", He used it to claim openly that He was God. Just doesn't seem right.

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. ... We are saved by the love we show others, done in faith, not by compiling a laundry list of things to do!

This continues to stymie me. First, I would fully agree that confession is good and that God tells us that we should "confess our sins, one to another". I agree that the confessor is benefited by confession and it glorifies God.

But here's what stumps me. You said that confession is not done to earn salvation. You said we have free will and that we must cooperate with God in our salvation. I thought it was also true that confession, and the other sacraments are absolutely required for salvation. Every good Catholic knows that you will take the sacraments if you expect to go to heaven. So, how can these acts be done, without the expectation of earning salvation through our free will choices to cooperate with God?

I know this is where the inner disposition idea that you have talked about before comes in. I just don't see how someone could go through all the sacraments with no thought of self, when it is well known that they are the only way to get to heaven. It is natural for the touched heart to long to be saved. A heart with grace is able to see the need for God. Won't such a heart do whatever it takes (lifelong sacraments)? I know there is no money involved, only something INFINITELY more valuable! How is this not earning?

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.

In my view, yes it is refuted:

1 Tim. 2:5 "5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, ...

God bless

[Forest Keeper]

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.,/p>

Thanks very much for the whole explanation, that helps a lot!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

"...the classic work of English literature that was an accidental, yet most welcome, outcome."

Nothing accidental about it. The cadence and meter of the KJV are unparalleled. The truth is told in poetry, as God willed.

[HarleyD]

"Sorry Harley, Scripture clearly states that man and woman were made in His image and likeness, and were given dominion over earth and everything that he created, and that God saw everything he had made, including man, and it was good. "

Everything was good BEFORE the fall. After the fall man was cursed. Why do you think they call it "the fall".

You've address none of my references where our Lord Jesus stated man was "evil" and there is no one who is "good". Yet you still insist that man is good?!? Plus, although my tagline clearly states that man's steps are ordained by the Lord and I provided another reference that states that God directs our footsteps, you still insist on man's "free will"?!?

Regardless of your thoughts on man's "free will", man is unable to come to God to "cleanse" his heart. God must do it.

[kosta50]

Was Luther's protest based on just what the early Christians were doing, or was it based on what he perceived to be gradual changes in the Church over time until a final straw was broken?

Luther went on a pilgrimage to Rome and saw all sorts of things, including selling of the indulgences. But he also noticed that the official truth sometimes differed from the Scripture, as he read it.

But this happens all the time. The KVJ version of the Lord's Prayer is incorrect as compared to the original. It not only reverses some things, but contains incorrect tense in one instance and refers to "evil" in general rather than the "evil one" in particular as the original does. So, the same kind of error that bothered Luther continues now in his tradition generally known as the Protestant "church."

In addition to that, Luther and his apostates attacked the early church (and I don't mean a building in Rome), everything about the Church as it existed for 1,500 years and still does in the East and the West.

The Ever-Virgin Mary was reduced to just a "woman," and saints were "retired." Holy icons and images of saintly people were destroyed and called "idols."

Attacking the (im)morality of some Catholic clergy, Luther substituted his own "morality" by telling his followers to "sin boldly" for God will forgive them as long as they believe (but apparently his formula doesn't apply to Roman Catholics!).

He elevated man as the ultimate interpretor of the Scripture which exists only thanks to the Church which Luther called "apostate."

His man-made "church" has since splintered and continues to splinter into thousands of groups that are separate from each other, each claiming the "true" and inerrant interpretation of the faith through the Bible.

Luther proclaimed the Church to be in "error" theologically, but some half-educated backwoods self-made pastor interprets the Bible correctly through the Holy Spirit (imagine that -- Luther suggests the Holy Spirit has left the Church, but comes to every Joe who reads the Bible!)