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.

The Bible is totally self-contained and all Christians going through sanctification (with access to it) will continue to appropriate more and more of its single truth teachings throughout their lives. I see this as part of God's plan

The Bible was never in God's explicit plan. Humanity was without the written word of God for most of its history and even the last 1600 years or so when the Bible was around, by far most of the people could not read, let alone understand or afford it.

Judaism was passed on as oral tradition until 500 BC. From Adam until approximately 6th century BC there was nothing in the form of inspired writing. Are you willing to believe that the Hebrew oral tradition was passed by word of mouth from one generation to another in the exact and unaltered form for centuries? If you do, historical facts do not support your belief.

Hebrew Scriptures do not agree en toto. Judaism was not monolithic. The Sadducees, the Essenes, the Pharisees, and some smaller groups deviated from each other in their beliefs and their Scriptures reflected that. Modern (rabbinical) Judaism was pretty much formed after Jamnia in 100 AD.

The Septuagint (LXX), the Qumran fragments, the Masoretic text all vary, in length, quantity and content, so it is really difficult to believe that humans could have passed on unaltered Scriptures from generation to generation by word of mouth if their written Scriptures differ.

The Bible became affordable to the majority of the people only in the latter half of the 20th century, and literacy levels still prevent at least 50% of the people to have any real comprehension and appreciation of the Bible.

Translational errors, linguistic limitations, understanding of historical context, colloquial use of terms, and original-language complexities reduce the number of people who can really appreciate the Scripture to almost a trickle.

There is absolutely no substance to support Luther's naive idea of sola scriptura as part of God's plan or as an inerrant source of faith. It's not the word of God that was revealed that is in error or contradiction, but rather it is our interpretation and understanding of it.

That is why we rely on the writings of not just the Apostles, but all those who followed in their steps, and compare their understanding and interpretation of the Scripture, starting with the people who were with the Apostles in person, who were taught by them, who knew the reality of the earliest Christian world, in context and cultural setting, and could therefore correctly interpret what was passed on.

In doing so, we are assured that our understanding is not lost or corrupted. We can never achieve that simply by reading the Bible.

I am willing to listen to St. Ignatius and take his interpretations a little more seriously than say, the private interpretations of someone completely removed in time an culture and context from original Christinaity, just as I would take more seriously any impressions and interpretations of America of those who actually knew America and not some individual half way around the world who only read about it!

St. Ignatius was ordained bishop by St. Paul, the Apostle, in person! And St. Polycarp's words carry the same weight for the same reason, having been a disciple of St. John, the Apostle. If other bishops' writings and interpretations agree with those of St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp, I would say that they have safeguarded the truths passed on by the Apostles and that what the Church believed then is what the Church believes now.

So are we made righteous during the sanctification process, finalized in Purgatory, if necessary, or do we enter heaven, not actually being righteous, but covered by Christ's own righteousness? If you choose the later, what is the role of sanctification? I guess I am still not understanding entirely your particular belief on this issue.

I believe that our "position" of righteousness in God's eyes is made secure at the single moment of salvation. Our "condition in" righteousness improves throughout our lives via sanctification. All of the elect enter heaven in a blameless state, because of what Christ did. So, when we are saved we are not perfect people. But, when we die and enter heaven we enter as "perfect" because of Jesus. Sanctification is useful to become better Christians and better witnesses. It also helps us to love God more and to understand better His love for us. Sanctification does not save, it is a pre-ordained process following a true salvation. This is the work that Christ began in us and will carry on until completion.

I see faith in different degrees. There is faith of the intellect, faith that speaks of trusting in God to fulfill His promises, and faith that obeys the Lord out of love. When the Scriptures speak of "walking in faith", I see a fully-formed faith, a faith with love added to it, as in James.

I agree, and that true faith has love.

I suppose what I am trying to understand is that you seem to believe that one must have faith and love to enter heaven, but it should be perfectly clear that some do not have both, and others who believe they do, at one point will admit that they didn't. Thus, there is a time where our love is insufficient to allow us to call our faith "saving faith". Yet, how many Protestants do you know, honestly, that think that their faith is not saving yet? See what I am trying to say? At what point do you have "saving faith", enough to die that instant and go to heaven?

You raise an excellent issue. :) I do agree that some professing faith in Christ do not have both faith and love. I am one who admits that at the time of my salvation I did not know how to love God as I should. I also agree that I don't know any Protestant who doesn't believe his own faith is already sufficient, as that Protestant defines faith. IOW, no one who assumes himself saved can also believe himself wanting in faith.

So, was I still saved when I said my sinner's prayer, even though at that moment I had not done a single good work in God's eyes? YES. Here is how I look at it: you are either a member of the elect or you are not. God determines this, we have nothing to do with it. So, if I had died the day after saying the sinner's prayer, then I'm still in because there was no time to fall away and reject God.

As it turned out in my case, soon after my sinner's prayer I fell away during college. Now, what if I had died during that time? I would say that if that had happened then I wouldn't have been a member of the elect in the first place. God promises to keep His own so if I died in a permanent state of rejection, then I'm toast because God doesn't lie. Wonderfully for me that did not happen, and I have since appropriated the love for God that we are talking about. Of course, this isn't the case with everyone, I'm sure many have been saved with the whole package in tact. The whole point is that if you are on the list, then you are on the list. God uses a million different ways to bring those on the list to where they need to be. There is no set formula.

I don't see in Scriptures where our judgment upon our death will determine a good or better reward. The Scriptures point to either eternal happiness, or an everlasting grinding of teeth in hell. There doesn't seem to be any mention about our judgment being used to determine the square footage of our plot in heaven (or other such talk).

I'm gunning for cloudfront property myself. :) Here are a couple of verses:

Matt. 5:10-12 : "10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

So, for those who are persecuted like the prophets were, AND STAND UP, it appears that their reward will be greater than a "regular" reward. That makes sense to me, as the martyrs had purer faith. Many good Christians of today would cave under torture, etc.

Matt. 16:27 : "27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done."

This "clearly" indicates varying degrees of reward. Those who have done more, get more. I realize that your take on this is going to be to say that the reward spoken of is salvation itself. I found some verses that do lead in that direction. So, we'll just disagree. :)

I believe that the Church teaches that men will have different rewards in heaven, but this is more based on Tradition then Scripture (LOL - you are following Tradition!).

Yeah, yeah, yeah. :)

Well, I understand your point of view, although I still am not so absolutely confident that my name is in the Book of the Elect right now. I have a moral confidence of it, but not absolute - that would seem to take away God's Freedom, in case I decided to just start sinning whenever I felt like it - although then you'll say "I never was saved to begin with"! Which then we go in circles by me saying "then how can we know WE are saved in 5 years?"

OK, then the first question to ask is: "From God's point of view, does He constantly sit there erasing and adding new names to the Book of Life? Does God say: "Look, there's Jim Miller, I just wrote his name back in after he confessed two hours ago, but now he has sinned again. Where's that eraser?" :) I honestly don't believe it works like that. Does God work like Beethoven, whose original works were filled with cross-outs and corrections, or does He work like Mozart, whose originals did not have a single correction?

If we get passed this, then we only need to look at God's many promises on the subject. You already know all the verses I can quote that "appear" to assure salvation. If you believe that the Book of Life is not subject to reprintings, then you can know for sure.

FK: "Yes, I believe that I am of the elect and my name cannot be blotted out. I would replace "cannot fall" with "will not fall".

Scripture clearly states we CAN fall: "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." 1 Cor 10:12

YES, that is exactly why I wanted to make a change. ("Cannot fall" was your term.) We CAN fall but we (the elect) WILL NOT fall because of God's promise to us of protection.

"True faith"? I suppose that means faith with love? It appears that Protestants have an aversion to the word "love" preferring to "hide" it in the definition of "faith". Does a faith without works of love save?

We don't have any aversion to the word "love", we have an aversion to the appearance of believing in a works-based salvation. We do not "hide" anything. We just see the definition as inclusive. Works are a natural fruit of true faith, so they will happen.

So YOUR intent of sincerity determines your eternal salvation? Doesn't that sound like a "work", something you earned?

From God's point of view, my intent of sincerity is irrelevant, I am either on the list or I am not. The sincerity is what helps ME to KNOW it. When I said my sinner's prayer I know that I gave everything there was inside me to give at that time. If the TRUTH is that I was still full of baloney then I am toast, but I'm not going to live my life worrying about it. I'm going to live my life in the joy and confidence of my salvation, based on God's grace and His promises to me in scripture. This is what I think it means when we "rest" in Him.

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

I also appreciate your answers. I believe that through our conversation, sanctification is happening! It has been a wonderful and very educational experience for me. :)

Do you equate "differ" with "contradict"? If so, can you give me an example in the resurrection accounts you cite above?

The Catholic Church believes that the Scriptures are inspired and inerrant. They give us what God wants us to know - through human writers. The human writers, though, use their own conventions and theological points (guided by God) to say what God wants said. So in one Gospel, we have one angel at the tomb, another has two. Luke has two because it is a common theme of his - discipleship in pairs. Now, if God was directly dictating to men, would we have slightly different stories? Would the Words of Christ be slightly different in parallels of the Synoptics? No, they don't contradict, but they differ - for theological reasons - because we are not talking CNN here.

Much of God's literal word requires interpretation.

So if God says "Do this", you will first have to interpret "what does He really mean"? A literal meaning doesn't require spiritual thought - you follow exactly what is written.

I suppose that I will never be able to refer to God's word as a "supplement" to the words of men.

I am merely reporting the chronological history of the teaching of the Gospel. First, it came orally. Can you deny that? The Scripures recorded the oral words of the Apostles for later generations. They became revered because of their connection to these Apostles. Future generations knew the Apostles were given authority by Christ to teach - so their words were the Gospel - even if an angel should come to teach another Gospel, Paul told the Galatians, they were not to heed it. The Scriptures, though revered, are not ABSOLUTELY necessary to convey the Christian message. For example, many men of the Middle Ages knew the stories of the Bible from stain glass windows in cathedrals. The preachings of priests. The passed down traditions that reminded them of Christ. The Bible is not the only way that God speaks to men. Nor does the Bible call itself the sole source of Christian teaching. That is a man-made tradition.

To Protestants, the Bible is the primary visible authority. So, I was trying to say that comparatively, it is "more" important to us.

We see authority as a three legged chair - Bible, Tradition, and the Magesterium (the teaching Church). We believe they all come from God and are guarded as such. So I suppose that Catholics hold more in higher regard.

All of this is consistent with my position that a true faith will necessarily generate the fruit of good works. You and I might disagree on some of the nitty gritty, but do you agree with the basic analysis and that the two verses are not in conflict at all?

Sure, we agree for the most past on James and Romans - but we have discussed the issues quite extensively. We have the experience of many other people before us who have read and expounded on faith and salvation and love. But Luther and the Catholic Church had a large disagreement over these verses, so much so that Luther wanted to get rid of James from the Bible altogether. He called it an Epistle of straw. My point is that two different people can come up with two strongly-held positions that completely contradict each other. The Bible doesn't clearly interpret itself. Look at Acts 8 and the Ethiopian. "Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some one shall guide me?" (Acts 8:30-31).

I have certainly given ample evidence that two people can read different meanings from the same Bible, not, the same VERSES! We are not talking about the existence of angels, or something like that. We are talking about Salvation. The Eucharist. Baptism. The role of the Church. These are important issues that we disagree on. Ask yourself - what good is a teacher if He leaves His students confused on what He meant? Was Jesus that poor of a teacher? That no one knew if Jesus was God, or whether Jesus was really present at the Eucharist? I find this as a ridiculous assertion. Thus, it should seem quite obvious that Christ left a Body of Teaching to an inner group of men who would be able to explain it to all. Later, this group of men wrote down SOME of these teachings - but not FULLY explaining it all - they left THAT job to the men they commissioned to continue the bringing of the Kingdom of God to men.

Is that such a difficult thing to understand or believe? The evidence clearly shows that is exactly what happened. History as we know it clearly points to the forming and development of the Church.

I still think Protestants get a raw deal in being accused of being all over the place on major issues. I suppose this goes back to how one defines a Protestant. I do not stand to defend all "Protestant" doctrine

Sure, we agree on much. That is because Protestantism has not moved THAT far from its CATHOLIC roots! You probably continue to hold to the vast majority of the Nicean Creed, put together in 325 by the Catholic Church. But there really are a number of important issues where we differ. As far as I know, these are the pillars of Protestantism (most hold them): The Bible is the sole source of the faith. Man is saved by faith alone. Man is subject to his own private interpretation of Scripture as his ultimate authority.

As I have mentioned before, there is NO concept of these ideas until the Reformation. They were unheard by Christianity. And what about the sacrament? To us, they ARE God's graces coming to us through visible means. To you, they do not possess any grace. We believe that without love, we cannot be saved. We believe that men CAN fall away from the faith and NOT be saved for eternal life. We believe in Purgatory and intercessionary prayers to the saints. We believe that Mary has a special place in salvation history that exceeds her earthly position as the recepticle for the Word of God. We believe that man does have free will and can reject God's Graces. We FULLY believe in the Incarnation of Christ and all of its implications for US - we participate in Jesus' continuing work here on earth through this participation. We believe in the Real Presence of the Lord during the Eucharist, AND we believe that the Mass is the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Jesus at Calvary, allowing us in time to participate in receiving these graces. We believe in a ministrial priesthood in where Christ acts through these men to forgive sins or offer up His sacrifice to the Father.

Oh, there are some essentials that we disagree on, brother! And many Protestants do hold to some of the above teachings that you do not. Lutherans and Anglicans, for example.

I said good Christians can disagree, I did not say they could disagree and both be right!

In matters of a "dogmatic teaching", how would one know which of two Protestants was correct? The "holier" one? LOL! Being holy doesn't necessarily make one more correct! Only God can give us the truth WITHOUT DOUBT. He does this through the Church.

i don't mean to be nonchalant about it, I just understand it as part of the sanctification process. When I became "saved" I knew only the basics and nothing else. Since then I have learned much, and changed views on some subjects. I believe God thinks that is good and encourages me to learn even more. Why is this so terrible? :)

We are still talking past one another. There are two levels of knowledge that the Spirit imparts. I agree on the first level, that we attain to know more about Christ as we become more holy, remove attachments, and follow His Word. However, their is a second level that the Spirit does NOT speak with us in. ONLY the Apostles and their successors were given the power to bind and loosen, to give the Teachings of Christ without error. Even the holiest of saints individually CAN be wrong. ST. Augustine AND St. Thomas Aquainas, to of the greatest theologians of the Catholic Church, were wrong on at least one issue...Thus, we cannot rely on our OWN selves to determine God's Revelation to MANKIND in its entire Truth. It is impossible to determine whether the Spirit is speaking or ourselves or the devil on such matters. No, I am sorry, but I don't trust ANY individual man on his own merits, nor do I trust a man who claims the Spirit to teach ALL of the Truth, because God doesn't act that way anymore. He teaches through a Body of men, the Bishops in unity with the Pope. THEY (not individually) are protected by the Spirit, as per Scripture.

I say it's OK in the sense that we are humans and make mistakes

So you rely on an error-prone guide to tell you what God teaches mankind? This is odd. I think God did better than that with the Apostles and their successors. God desires that we come to the knowledge of the Truth. How can we do this depending on the "Spirit" alone? How do we KNOW the Holy Spirit is speaking to us? If even the greatest of saints CAN be wrong, what hope do I have that I will become more holy, and thus more "correct" in "knowing" God? Is this not a reliance on yourself? I prefer to trust in the Church, the Body of Christ, to infallibly tell me God's teachings. I don't have to rely on my own sanctification to "know" if I am right or not about the Eucharist, or about Mass, or about Confession to Priests.

God used fallible men to put pen to page to bring it to us. He used other fallible men to assemble it for all time.

Illogical. Something perfect cannot come from imperfection. This is basic logic. Either God MADE these men to understand infallibly His teachings, or we cannot trust that these men put to paper God's Word. Let's face the cold, hard facts. How do you REALLY know the Bible is the Word of God, but not the Koran? Because we trust the witness of the Apostles and their successors. If we didn't believe them - we would not be convinced that the Bible on its own merits, is God's Word. Often times, individual books do not even make that claim. Thus, we either trust the men who put it together (that God was guiding them, of course) or we don't. Does it make sense that God would write an infallible book in a language that no one could understand? Does it make sense that God would write an infallible book that no one could truly know what a given verse meant? If our American Forefathers knew enough to create a living interpreter, the Supreme Court, to interpret the Constitution, the Law of the Land, what makes you think God wasn't smart enough to duplicate that? Did God leave us orphans, not really knowing what His Book meant? Being holier doesn't mean we will know we are right on every issue.

In the end, a Protestant Pastor can NEVER REALLY know he is teaching his congregation what God intended to teach when he expounds on a Scripture. This is nearly UNAMINOUS among Protestant pastors who convert! That is what they all say! That is what primarily leads them back home. Because they know they are not infallible and they realize that they will never be. Thus, they cannot know if they are even teaching the truth about key essential matters of the faith. Good feelings inside of us do not mean that the Spirit is teaching us that the Eucharist is a symbol only.

The word is without error and perfectly consistent within itself.

Many would disagree with that. Have you considered reading the Old Testament, and then the New Testament? Many Christians have thought that there were two different "Gods" found in these two sections of Scriptures, called Gnostics. What makes you think they are wrong, from Scripture ALONE?

The Bible is totally self-contained

What does that mean?

Regards

I think I now see where part of the problem is and its in how you use the word "salvation". As I understand your use of the term, salvation is the result of "regeneration" by the Holy Spirit and good works (I'll leave aside discernment for a moment) are the fruit of "salvation"? Right?

Yes, that sounds fair enough to me. I don't know the subtleties of who gets the credit for salvation. I always think that "Christ saves". So whether it is the Holy Spirit or Christ or the Father or all, I believe I know where you are coming from and agree.

I also notice that you use the words "process of sanctification" seemingly as an equivalent with "salvation".

If I have given you that impression, then I have been in error, and I apologize. I believe that the process of sanctification is very distinct from salvation. I see the truth of salvation as a single moment in time, from our point of view, with future included events (works). I believe sanctification only begins after salvation is accomplished. Sanctification, in part, teaches us how to love God, and appreciate His love for us more. Sanctification is a lifelong process (after salvation) and brings us closer to God. Salvation, according to me, is what gets us into heaven.

My curiosity forces me to ask how I suggested that salvation and sanctification are the same thing (even if I regret it)? :) I just want to know if I'm not framing my positions correctly.

[From +Symeon the New Theologian: ] When this is completed (that is, purification of heart and acquisition of grace have attained their fullness and perfection), through grace a man becomes wholly a god."

I am laughing at myself for the instinctive reaction this saying gives me. You have to know how something like this must sound to the average listener. However, since I (stroking chin) have read from you and Kosta, I know better how to interpret a statement like this. :)

[+Thalassios taught:] ..."But once the battle is over and it [the intellect] is found worthy of spiritual gifts, then it becomes wholly luminous, powerfully energized by grace and rooted in the contemplation of spiritual realities. A person in whom this happens is not attached to the things of this world but has passed from death to life."

Does this mean that spiritual gifts are not bestowed until after physical death? (Maybe I am misinterpreting "battle is over"?) Regarding the last sentence, does this mean that man is spiritually dead until theosis? If so, then most people spend their entire lives spiritually dead?

[+Gregory Palamas :] "Through this life it [the soul] makes the body conjoined to it immortal, so that in due time the body attains the promised resurrection and participates in eternal glory."

Sorry for coming up with such a weird question here, but does this mean that a soul doomed to hell will be without body? (From the context, I'm assuming that a lost soul will not make the body immortal.) In that case, how can there be "weeping and gnashing of teeth"?

The next verse, from John, is interpreted to mean that while no one can "snatch" us from the hand of God, we can "fall" out of it. As +John Chrysostomos writes in Homily VI on Phillipians:

"As long as we are in the hand of God, “no one is able to pluck us out” (John x. 28.), for that hand is strong; but when we fall away from that hand and that help, then are we lost,...

This is another good point that I haven't been able to understand. Isn't it clear in this passage that we are stronger than the hand of God? God's hand is strong, but not strong enough to overcome our desires? To me, interpreting "no one" into "no one except me" renders the whole verse useless. It completely negates the point of the verse. This is a perfect example of my "protestation". Why should I trust another fallible man to throw out what this verse is actually saying?

The final quote from Romans is repeated time and again by the Fathers for two purposes. One is to demonstrate how God's love falls on all, the good and the evil equally...

I know it sounds very harsh from me when I say that I don't think God loves us all equally. I suppose I am making a sovereignty argument along the lines of:

Is. 29:16 : "16 You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"?"

I know both that God IS love and that God's ways are not our ways. With my own children, if I see that one of them is about to make a bad decision, I will sometimes allow it because I believe that experience will be beneficial. I certainly learned many things "the hard way"! :) I believe God does this with us. If, however, my child's bad decision involved any kind of physical danger, then of course I would step in. What you seem to be saying is that God will not do that for us. God loves us all equally and He will just let some of us walk right off a cliff in His plain sight, and under His power to prevent. I struggle with this nature of love.

Tell me, what do you believe happens after the death of the body? BTW, sorry for being so long winded.

I, Forest Keeper, master of brevity, King of the concise, and prince of the succinct, hereby forgive you, Kolo, for being long winded. :))

As for the body after death, I must admit I've never given it a tremendous amount of thought. I suppose I would just go with :

2 Cor. 5:6-8 " 6 Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7 We live by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord."

So, after death, (for those who are saved) the spirit immediately goes into the presence of God. Once Christ returns, they will be reunited with their new and perfect bodies to spend a time on earth under Jesus' rule, and then we will all be taken into heaven permanently.

I believe that our "position" of righteousness in God's eyes is made secure at the single moment of salvation. Our "condition in" righteousness improves throughout our lives via sanctification.

The only thing that is secure is from GOD'S point of view. We don't know God's point of view, as the Scriptures clearly point out. There are numerous verses that talk about falling away from God, of losing salvation: For if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful hope of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries (Heb 10:26-27)

Moreover, brothers, I would that ye not ignore how our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea and were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea and did all eat the same spiritual food and did all drink the same spiritual drink, for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them; and that Rock was the Christ. But with many of them God was not pleased; therefore, they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things became types of us, that we should not lust after evil things as they lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as [were] some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed and fell [dead]: in one day, twenty-three thousand. Neither let us tempt the Christ, as some of them also tempted and perished by the serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured and perished by the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them as types, and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come. Therefore let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. 1 Cor 10:1-12

No, we DO NOT know our "eternal position" with God at any point in our lives - it is only upon our death will we know ultimately our true stance with the Father in heaven. We cannot have absolute assurance. Even Paul did not have such absolute assurance, in the verses immediately following the above: I therefore so run, not as unto an uncertain thing; so I fight, not as one that beats the air; but I keep my body under, and bring [it] into subjection, lest preaching to others, I myself should become reprobate. (1 Cor 9:26-27)

IF you truly believe that the Scripture is the WORD of God, literally, how can you explain away such verses? How can they be reconcilled with OSAS? Christ carries out His work until its completion - sure. But how do you know that YOU are one of His works that He will complete? We rely on the grace of God and His mercy that we are of the sheepfold, but we NEVER presume that we are among the Elect until our judgment.

So, was I still saved when I said my sinner's prayer, even though at that moment I had not done a single good work in God's eyes? YES

I presume when you mean "saved" above, you mean initial justification, not saved for eternal life. We are healed (saved) of our sins. But we are not "saved" for eternal life until we are further sanctified. Otherwise, sanctification has no utilization, as I have made great pains to explain. If we are saved for eternal life with no possibility of losing this salvation, or can add nothing (love) to it, there is NO need for this 'being made holy', since Christ already will cover us.

Here is how I look at it: you are either a member of the elect or you are not. God determines this, we have nothing to do with it. So, if I had died the day after saying the sinner's prayer, then I'm still in because there was no time to fall away and reject God.

That's true. But you sinner's prayer does not make you of the elect, God does. Here we tread the mysterious interaction between God and man.

Now, what if I had died during that time? I would say that if that had happened then I wouldn't have been a member of the elect in the first place

That is an interesting admission. I guess my point still is quite valid: How do you know your sinner's prayer is "effective" in granting you the position of the elect? In what you have said, you really can't know - since we can't see the future (although God does). We cannot KNOW that we will continue to remain in Christ. Thus, the "sinner's prayer" is in of ITSELF not determinitive of one's status with the Lord. Only faith working through love can give us a "confirmation" of our status - presuming we don't die the evening of our "sinner's prayer"/baptism. I think your statement is evidence that one is NOT absolutely assured of salvation.

But fear not, we can have a good moral assurance of our destiny if Christ is abiding within us. He abides within us through the Eucharist, and proven through our faith working with love. We cannot obey the commandments in love unless He abides within us. Thus, we have our CURRENT evidence. Not absolute, but relatively assured. But this says NOTHING of our acts in 2007.

I wrote : I don't see in Scriptures where our judgment upon our death will determine a good or better reward

Mat 5:12 - consider reading the entire context of the Beatitudes. Every single "blessed" grants the reward of eternal heaven. The reward itself is summarized in Mat 5:12 in that we will have heaven. Those who do not do what Christ lays out in the Beatitudes will NOT receive this reward. Thus, the reward is heaven, the punishment is hell. There is nothing about a person "just getting in" because they said the sinner's prayer but didn't do the Beatitudes receiving a lesser reward then those who continue and achieve the contents of the Beatitudes and receive a greater reward. Their is no such contrast betweeen greater or lesser reward, but only ONE reward - God Himself, as explained in various ways by : "theirs is the kingdom of the heavens; for they shall be comforted; for they shall inherit the earth; for they shall obtain mercy", etc... All of these are different ways of saying - "you'll enter heaven". Mat 16:27 While it is possible to interpret that verse to mean what you say, there are others who do not. According to Barnes, he writes about this verse:

"Reward. The word reward means recompense, or do justice to. He will deal with them according to their character. The righteous he will reward in heaven, with glory and happiness. The wicked he will send to hell, as a reward or recompense for their evil works"

Again, the vast majority of the time, the Scripture talks about judgment as either being eternal heaven or eteranl hell. This is clear from the many parables of Christ. Over and over, He tells about those who obey and are rewarded with the Banquet, while those who do not are NOT given lower rewards, but are expelled and "grind their teeth" in eternal darkness.

Examples? Mat 22:2-14, the Wedding Banquet; Luke 14:16-24, the Large Dinner; Mat 25:1-13, the Ten Virgins; Mat 25:14-30, the Talents, and Mat 25:31-45, the Sheep and the Goats

OK, then the first question to ask is: "From God's point of view, does He constantly sit there erasing and adding new names to the Book of Life

No. God sees all as one now. He views Creation, the Incarnation, and my life as one event in the present. Thus, He doesn't need to "erase" anything - He sees me in one view. However, the Scripture speaks as if God erases people's name from the Book of Life because it is written from the point of view of men - within time. Men operate in time. We move into and out of God's graces.

If you believe that the Book of Life is not subject to reprintings, then you can know for sure

We don't have access to reading God's Book of Life. Thus, we can only HOPE we are of the Elect. We don't know, since God's ways are not our ways. Everything about God saving His elect is true. The problem is "are you of the elect"? As our conversation above has stated, we MAY fall away. Thus, if our "sinner's prayer" might not have been effective (since you say we might not have been saved to begin with!), you can't possibly KNOW you are of the elect irrefutably and without possibility of falling.

We CAN fall but we (the elect) WILL NOT fall because of God's promise to us of protection

I hope it is becoming clear that God will protect HIS ELECT, not all who take the sinner's prayer. As you have stated, the sinner's prayer does not equate with salvation in heaven. Only God's Elect are prevented from falling into hell. But we cannot know if we are one of them elect. Even Paul, as I have quoted above, was fearful of being of the reprobate. Paul, for heaven's sake!

The sincerity is what helps ME to KNOW it

I can sincererly believe 2+2=5. That doesn't make it correct. Our sincerity doesn't save us. That puts the onus of salvation on your own good feelings and emotions...

When I said my sinner's prayer I know that I gave everything there was inside me to give at that time

Yet, you fell away (as I did after my Baptism). You yourself admit that an untimely death before your re-conversion would not have saved you. Thus, your emotions and good will of 1995 or whatever have nothing to do with your status with God in 2006 or 2010.

If the TRUTH is that I was still full of baloney then I am toast, but I'm not going to live my life worrying about it.

Work out your salvation in fear and trembling...I don't think a true Christian will ever presume that they are saved and no longer need to worry about their status in God's eyes. It is not something we are anxious about, true. We should have confidence in the Lord's promises. But I have found that as soon as one believes they are "OK" in God's eyes, that is when pride begins to seep into our actions. By maintaining a humble attitude, one where we rely totally on God's mercy and not presuming ourselves to already have run the race, I believe is closer to what God has shown us through Jesus Christ.

Regards

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.