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.

You know, the Bible is full of examples where God allows us to run our own destinies and exercise our corrupt, but free will.

I'm not sure I can buy God letting us run our own destinies, at least in the sense that it would interfere with His plan. I would distinguish it by saying that according to my beliefs, before we are saved we can do no good in God's eyes. After we are saved, God's power causes us to do good, and we have some freedom to sin. God always has the authority to prevent us from sinning for His purposes.

Take, for instance, Genesis 6:3 [:] "And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man..."

God always allows man to sin for His purposes.

[On Gen. 6:5-7] "Doesn't sound like He was much in control there, does it? Nor does it sound like that was His plan. Obviously, there is more to this then to conclude that God was surprised, but it is clear that He had a change of heart and wanted to destroy that which He originally created."

You have said so many times that our side humanizes God and yet that is what you are doing here. How can an all knowing God change His mind? Humans who do not know what the result is going to be can change their minds. God already knows, so why would He need to change His mind? Wasn't the Bible written for us, not God? Wouldn't God's words be in terms we can at least attempt to understand? God was grieved at the sin of man, but not surprised at it. You appear to be asserting that God was admitting a MISTAKE, and I just can't accept that.

And then He made a Second Covenant, that made the first obsolete as we learn in (Heb 8:7), which quotes the Old Testament:

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." as St. Paul concludes (Heb 8:13)

"In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

So, obviously what we do on earth does affect our salvation. That certainly does not mean that we are passive riders on His conveyor belt, where he placed some on one and others on the other belt, and now some destined to salvation and other to perdition.

I don't understand your connection between doing good deeds and the new Covenant. Doesn't it seem from your verses that the first Covenant referred to was the Mosaic Law? As I learned on this thread from Jo, wasn't this the only Covenant that required action on both sides? In contrast, the new Covenant is a one-way deal. God promises, we don't. So from these verses, how do our actions affect salvation?

What happens to us in this world, in this time-space bubble outside of the eternal continuum, is our dominion and God helps and even sacrifices Himself for us when we are in dire straits, but He gave us life to live and to come to the Truth on our own with His unceasing help and blessings.

You do give God much credit, but when you speak of our "dominion" on earth (I thought satan was the prince of this world.), and of our "come[ing] to the Truth on our own" yes with help, but, it just seems to me that God isn't getting all He is due. :)

...although He [God] would prefer that all be saved, He does not force all to be saved; thus, no doubt some will end up there and some won't, and some are there already.

Wouldn't this go back to "does God get what He wants"?

FK: "If I see my son pursue a course I KNOW, because of my experience, will lead him to doom, I will stop him because I love him. You (and Tertullian) seem to be saying that God either can't or won't do that for us."

It isn't "can't", its "won't". We have free will as part of our created essencesn because God wanted it that way. ... Its up to us to accept what has been and is given to us. The parent concept works only so far and at some point anthropomorphism becomes a hinderance to a recognition of the complete ineffability and transcendence of God.

Then is "anthropomorphism " the main argument you would use to answer the question: "How could God love all and let so many slip through His fingers when He has all power and authority to prevent it"? I agree that the human parent-child relationship isn't perfect, but the Bible seems to use it in a lot of places as close enough. :)

FK: "OK, so then for the "regular" saved person theosis is achieved after physical death."

Perhaps better said it occurs after death because the soul can do nothing for itself after death.

But I thought that petitioning the departed to pray on our behalf was an accepted practice. Can they not pray for themselves as we can pray for ourselves?

FK: "I'm sorry if I am asking you to repeat yourself, but after death, what seals the deal?"

God's mercy. We are told that at the Final Judgment we are judged not by good or evil deeds but rather by how much we have become like Christ (not, I suppose, if we have reached complete theosis, at least I hope not).

OK, would it then be fair to say that your closest equivalent to what I call sanctification is what is the most important thing to you? I'm sorry because I'm sure I am confusing Catholic with Orthodox beliefs, even though they are so close. Honestly, before this thread my knowledge of Eastern Orthodox was zero, so I really appreciate the conversations with you and Kosta. Sorry if I am mixing ideas when I shouldn't. :)

So, you are implying that a loving God should make us love Him, as much as He makes others hate Him? True love is never selfish, FK. What we often call love is self-love or selfishness.

I am saying that a loving GOD will bring His pre-selected elect home to Him, regardless of their human natures. I don't believe God makes people hate Him, instead He allows some to follow their own natures without Him interfering. I understand what you're saying about love. How can love be true if it isn't a choice, right? I believe this is a perspective argument. From our POV, we experience the free will choice of accepting God in all love, etc. However, from God's POV everything was sealed from the beginning, He ordained that a specific sum of us would be saved, and gave them the grace to come to Him. It was an offer we couldn't refuse! :)

Once your children are grown, no matter how much you love them, you must let them go -- if you love them! It doesn't mean you don't care, it only means that love is giving freedom and not keeping captive.

I agree with what you say, but I don't see how the closest comparison to our relationship with God is ours with our adult children. Are we not like sheep, among the dumbest animals? I believe the closest comparison is that of a human parent and a small child, who doesn't know what is good for him, who is completely dependent, and needs guidance every step of the way or else doom is certain. In some manner do you believe that God sees and respects us as we might our adult children?

As for Him creating us with the knowledge that we will fall, you must look at it transcendentally; otherwise you have an evil God back on stage. :-)

Transcendentally??? That sounds like code for "trust me"! :) We must have very different definitions of "evil".

FK wrote : You would also try to convince a seeker of your doctrine, just as we would, right

Not really. I would, of course, answer questions and defend the Church against calumny, like I do here, but the Church does not expect the converts to come because they made up their mind that they like the teaching; they come because it is where Christ is, like it or not.

I would agree with Annalex. In my experience, most who come to the initial classes have already decided that they want to be Catholic. They don't understand much about it, but they desire to become Catholic. Lots of reasons. Some, because the spouse. Some, because they know a Catholic who has impressed them. I would say those are the biggest reasons. Most Catholics don't know the faith very well, so I don't expect the seekers to know much. This year, we had one young lady who was there because of her Grandma, but she dropped out - I don't think she even believed in God, because of the questions.

Those who complete the class and convert can't wait to get in, they are hungry on a visceral level. The instructors tend to try and slow them down, so that they don't rush into the church headlong on sheer enthusiasm, and they try to get some doctrine into them even though they are too impatient to ask. Questions come later; the first year or two, anyway, the converts just live it.

Each RCIA is different. Each class has a "heart and soul" that differs each year. Last year, I had mostly young people. They were not quite as interested in doctrine. This year, there is no one under 35. They are much more interested in the reasons of "why do Catholics believe that"? Questions come eventually. You are right regarding the desire to "get in". Most cannot wait to receive the Eucharist, knowing the fullness of what is at stake.

Regards

"Your point seems opposite to what a Catholic would think...

And a great many Protestants these days as well.

I would think a better and scriptural illustration is Lot:

the angels urged Lot

But he hesitated. So the men seized his hand and the hand of his wife and the hands of his two daughters, for the compassion of the LORD {was} upon him; and they brought him out, and put him outside the city.

Even though Lot knew the town would be destroyed and how vile the citizens were (including his own son-in-laws) he just lingered around. He had to literally be dragged out of town by God. Those of us who do benefit from God's grace and mercy don't recognize how obstinate we are with the Lord. In your boat example if God's compassion is on that person on the roof top, God will drag him off of there just like He dragged Lot out of Sodom.

Let us examine Romans 5 now. The same prooftexting rigmarole repeats here. The topic is the connection between sin and death, on one hand and Christ and eternal life on the other. It concludes in verse 21 thus:

That as sin hath reigned to death; so also grace might reign by justice unto life everlasting, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The plain meaning here is not that all sin, but that through Christ all are free from sin. Which, of course, includes Virgin Mary, sanctified at her immaculate conception. Romans 5:12 does not contradict her sinlessness at all.

While I would agree that 5:12-21 is one argument, I don't agree that you can apply the same meaning to all verses. You interpret the last sentence and then say that wipes out all the other verses. Remember what 5:12 says:

Rom. 5:12 : "12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—"

Paul is also explaining how sin came into the world through one man, and that it will be taken out through one man. Death came to all men, all sinned. So, you are forced to say that "death came to all men" really means "death came to all men except Mary", and "all sinned" really means "all sinned except for Mary". You know there is zero Biblical support for a sinless Mary, so you have to take these verses and stretch them beyond all recognition to justify your belief. In fact, the only way to say that Mary was sinless is to equate her with God.

I thought that we could agree that Paul gives Jesus Himself a pass here, but I guess not. Paul clearly refers to Jesus being sinless in 2 Cor.:

That's "Monday morning Quarterbacking"! The Romans didn't get the fax version of the letter of Paul to the Corinthians. It probably took many years before the various communities had even most of the NT that we now possess. Thus, you can't use Paul's comments to the Corinthians to explain Paul's comments to the Romans to exclude Jesus. Naturally, Jesus is excluded. Other Christians who proceded the Letter to the Romans MUST have taught them differently - that Christ was without sin, etc. This is why I contend that Paul did not imply that ALL men are evil and cannot come to God. First, he is quoting from OT Psalms that speak of the wicked, not a universal claim for all men. Secondly, the Scriptures themselves call other people righteous - in the OT and the NT... Thus, I really don't think anyone reading Romans would think that Paul meant ALL in a universal sense! Do you think Paul thought that HE wasn't turning towards God?

He was, though, referring to all of the rest of us. Where does Paul give Mary a pass like this?

We don't know what Paul thought about Mary. However, we DO know that two generations later, men were writing about Mary as the New Eve and refering to Romans 5.

Of course in the world there are those who follow God and those who don't. How does this explain away Romans 3?

Paul, like David, is trying to teach the Jews that the People of God were not given a pass on being righteous. Read the first three chapters of Romans. NO ONE is righteous based on their heritage or upbringing. One is a Jew only SPIRITUALLY (see the end of Romans 2 - which immediately follows Romans 3 and the many quotes that Paul uses to prove his point). Thus, he is writing to Jews in Rome who thought they were righteous on account of their Jewish traditions - of the flesh...He is denying that, just as David did in the various Psalms that Paul quotes.

In saying that "All" does not mean "All", Paul's point is to say that all sinners sin? How profound! You're putting Paul into an impossible corner.

Paul is not making a point that men sin. He is saying that the wicked will not turn to God. If Paul's point in Romans 1-3 was that all men sin, it wouldn't make sense to say that some men are spiritually circumcised, or that men will can follow the Law written on their hearts. Note the end of Romans 3 - Paul again attacks the Jews by saying the works of the Law do not save. It is by faith, as Abraham DEMONSTRATED (a point that we agree on, I think, but some Protestants do not). Thus, again, the point of this portion of Romans is to show that the Jews were not "People of God" because of their circumcision and their dietary laws, or even following the Decalogue begrudgingly without love. People were "Jews" by faith - either by following the Law on their hearts, or through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (we believe that the Logos was active in people BEFORE the incarnation - within Jews or Gentiles - to whom He chose).

Regards

God obviously takes our response into some sort of consideration OR He chooses whom He will for His own reasons.

I agree with you here. :)

If God loves, He desires we willingly come to Him. Thus, He gives us the means to convert. It is also reliant on us to accept His Graces. We CAN refuse God's Graces, as the NT clearly states.

I would say that if God loves some, He brings some home. From the human perspective, the elect experience God's love and make a "free" choice. To the elect, they "choose" God. But from God's perspective it was a sealed deal from the beginning. From our perspective, God chose us first for real, then the elect "chose" Him in their experience.

Do you remember the cookie analogy I gave many posts ago? Does the mother need the two year old to help make the cookies? Why does the mother have the child participate in this, if the mother doesn't need the daughter?

Yes, I actually do remember it, and that was a long time ago! :) The mother obviously did not need the daughter but let her participate out of love. The daughter experienced that she was a help, but it wasn't real. The daughter may have smeared some dough on the sheet, but she certainly did not run the oven. All the important tasks were completed by the mother, and the mother was in 100% control at all times. The daughter had the very nice experience of appearing to help her mother, but it wasn't real. The mother gave the daughter this experience out of love, and God does the same for us.

FK: "I would say that God gets all of the credit for the creation of my two beautiful children."

So you had nothing to do with it? Your wife did nothing? I suspect she's disagree! Saying you participate does not take anything away from God!!!

This goes right back to the cookies. I was obviously "there" and God let me have the experience of apparent helping (Thank you God! :) but it is God who gets all the credit for the creation of my children, just like the mother really gets all the credit for the making of the cookies.

If you approach the Scriptures as merely historical works FIRST, and work your way through history, you will conclude that the Scriptures ARE God's Word. But to do so, you must ALSO believe that God is protecting a PARTICULAR group of men to have written it and interpret it today.

I suppose this is our disagreement. I don't see the Bible as merely a history book. I see it as God's word revealed to His believers, past, present and future. I agree that God chose a particular group of men to write it, but I don't see how it follows that only a particular group of men can say what it means. This is especially so, since these men have apparently found it necessary to contort the interpretations of scripture into something so different from the actual words of scripture.

Given these contortions and stretches, no one could read the Bible and have any real idea what is going on. Now I don't blame the Church for discouraging its reading. The layman wouldn't have a chance. This makes God the most cryptic writer in history. The Bible is therefore not a revelation of God to man, it is a revelation of God to the Church hierarchy only, just those few men. Since the Bible doesn't say what it says, you probably wouldn't counsel a seeker to read it. He wouldn't have a chance. What a restriction on the most powerful witnessing tool.

FK: "How does a human bestow Godly powers on another?"

By laying hands on them. This is found all over Scriptures, both in the OT and NT. The Spirit found within the prophets were transferred by this laying of hands.

OK. We also having laying on of hands. One example I have witnessed is at the ceremony to ordain a new deacon. I suppose we would just define it differently. :)

Basically, God has given us a one acre yard to cut. The Catholic Church is the John Deere Lawnmower. Protestant communities are various other tools, from a weedeater to a pair of moustache trimmers...But they are only such BECAUSE they are somehow still teaching what the Church teaches. ... I don't know if this is helpful to you understanding what the Church means by "no salvation outside of the Church", but I am trying my best.

No, I think you are doing a great job of explaining, and I appreciate it. :) I suppose we would say that God clears the acre for us because we have no tools.

Free will means doing what God intended me to do, not whatever I feel like doing.

I do not understand this. Is free will not used to sin?

When I say that Eph 4 has nothing to do with the Bible, I don't mean that the teachers do not use Scripture. I am saying that the Scripture ALONE is not mentioned. It doesn't say ANYWHERE that men are to use ONLY the Scripture to teach men. The Bible is not mentioned at all - yet men are able to perfect other men to be better Christians. Thus, the premise, that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, is denied by this passage. IF another means of coming to the faith is given (Apostolic men), then the Bible CANNOT be the SOLE rule of faith!

But, you are throwing into Eph. 4 that the teachings of these men are outside of or contradict scripture. I don't see that anywhere. Extra-Biblical teachings are fine if they match what the Bible says. Teachings that take the Bible and reverse its meaning 180 degrees on some verses are not fine. I don't see how God could approve of this as an alternate way to Him.

NOWHERE does the Scripture say that IT encapsulates ALL oral tradition. NOWHERE does the Bible say "after the Scriptures are written, ignore anything else outside of it". No. It even tells us to FOLLOW oral traditions[.]

But, if the traditions are right, and sometimes contradict the Bible, then how can the Bible be the word of God? I know you'll say that tradition does not contradict the Bible and then it goes back to my argument that, therefore, God is the most cryptic author of all time. You would then have to say that the Bible really wasn't written for all men. It was only written to a selected few in the Catholic hierarchy. This I cannot accept.

IF the Bible is self-authenticating, then EACH BOOK MUST be, as well.

This logic does not follow if you believe that the Bible is God's word. Either all the books across all time are connected and inerrant or they are not. One verse authenticating scripture authenticates them all.

You don't want to admit that if it wasn't for the Church, you wouldn't even KNOW WHAT WAS the Bible...At least Luther admitted this regarding the Church and her protection of the Word of God and its transmittal to future men.

I don't know what Luther said about it, and I am not bound by him. Luther was a fallible man, just like any Pope. I do not give credit to the Church for the Bible, I give all credit to God.

For example, if I say "I did not drink alcohol till the blood test" the likely context is that my blood work should be good, not that I went to the bar right after I went to the clinic. But if I say "I did not drink alcohol till I joined a fraternity in college" then the context is, most likely, that I drank once I joined because that is what fraternities are for, are they not?

With all due respect, this is another huge stretch. If the person does not drink alcohol, then the first statement is nonsequitur. It would be the same as saying "I did not axe-murder my three next door neighbors till the blood test." There is no point in mentioning it if you don't do it. By all reasonable construction, the first sentence clearly implies that the person does drink alcohol, generally. The only point of the sentence is that he did not before the blood test. We are absolutely led to believe that he did at some point after the test.

As to the "brothers", Jesus Himself loved calling people brothers and they were not blood relatives; he in fact taught us all to do the same. In large families there is a mixture of cousins, second cousins, half brothers, milk brothers, and of course bolld brothers. It is natural to refer to all of them collectively as "brothers".

Of course with this interpretation, we are now forced to throw out other Bible verses, such as the following:

Matt. 13:54-56 : "54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked. 55 "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"

So, first Jesus is identified as the carpenter's son. Then He is identified as the son of Mary. Then, His four half-brothers are specifically named, along with the fact that He has sisters. But we can't have this can we? No, we have to make a drastic veer in mid sentence no less. Son of a carpenter, fine. Son of Mary, fine. Brother of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas, NO WAY! The Church doesn't allow this family relationship so we just interpret it out of existence. No problem. This continues to floor me. :)

"So, first Jesus is identified as the carpenter's son. Then He is identified as the son of Mary. Then, His four half-brothers are specifically named, along with the fact that He has sisters. But we can't have this can we? No, we have to make a drastic veer in mid sentence no less. Son of a carpenter, fine. Son of Mary, fine. Brother of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas, NO WAY! The Church doesn't allow this family relationship so we just interpret it out of existence. No problem. This continues to floor me. :)"

Actually, your interpretation comes from a Western European context. In the east the term brothers or sisters could as well have meant members of the extended family. There are parts of Greece where this is true to this day. There is tradition which says these people were cousins and another which holds that +Joseph was a widower with children, thus the 1/2 brother business, the people of course assuming that +Joseph was Christ's father. Again, you must remember that the men who decided what was to be in the canon of scripture believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary and saw no contradiction at all in these passages of scripture you present with that belief. That's because they lived in the cultural context the scriptures were written in.

God, of course, would know all of this so he gave us Holy Tradition and the Fathers so people 2100 centuries later in another culture entirely could understand what was written and not assume that the culture they live in and the language they speak are and were the only languages and cultures which ever existed. :)

If the person does not drink alcohol, then the first statement is nonsequitur. It would be the same as saying "I did not axe-murder my three next door neighbors till the blood test."

The statement "I did not drink alcohol till the blood test" is a necessary statement to validate the blood test. Even if I never drink alcohol, it is necessary to make if the test requires such period of abstinence. But the statement "I did not murder my neightbor till the blood test" is nonsensical because there is no relation between my blood and the murder. Perhaps my use of "I" in the examlpe is misleading because of course I know about myself both before and after the test. Remember, it is Matthew, who does not know the intimate life of Joseph and Mary speaking to us. It is exactly analogous to a nurse speaking to a doctor: "the patient did not drink till the test". The nurse knows the condition before the test because of the chemical analysis. The nurse does not know, and is not interested, in the condition after, so he is not speaking about the after. Matthew knows the condition before, because he has a statement form Joseph (for example) made at the time of Jesus's bith. He does not know and is not interested in the condition after that.

Son of a carpenter, fine. Son of Mary, fine. Brother of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas, NO WAY!

But this is consistent with the fact that a man has one father and one mother, but many relatives of the same generation. "Brother" can be used expansively; "mother" cannot. Besides, "son of carpenter" is indeed used imprecisely here, just like "brothers" is used imprecisely.

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.