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

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

[HarleyD]

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erasmus On the Freedom of the Will

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luther's Arguments Against Erasmus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Battle of the Biblical Texts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Main Issues and Implications of Each View

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Importance of This Controversy Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Agrarian]

It is really hard for me, with my busy schedule to try to keep up with this thread that never dies. When I don't respond to each point, it is hardly out of lack of interest, though.

As I said, the first part of that link is a very quick read, and does a very good job of describing (or at least beginning to describe) the Orthodox Church's view of Holy Tradition. It is rather subtle at points, but once one lets go of the idea that Tradition is something separate from Scripture, then it all becomes much easier to understand.

When I say that there is a hierarchy in Scripture for the Orthodox, I want to make sure that it is clear that I do not mean that we consider one part to be Scriptural and another not. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" as St. Paul writes.

The hierarchy is in many ways a practical hierarchy based on what we need in order to grow closer to God. St. Ignaty (Brianchaninov) stresses even that within the Gospels, the most important for us to read and know are the Gospels of Sts. Matthew and Luke.

Fr. John Romanides points out that this is a common theme amongst the Fathers, and the reason for the importance of these two Gospels is that they were from the earliest times used as catechetical works. They were perhaps written (and inspired by God to be written) specifically with that intention in mind. They have a parallel approach that continually contrasts, side by side, the works of Satan with the works of God, so that we can learn to discern the difference.

Part of why you are perhaps running into some problems in understanding Tradition is that the word "authority" has difference connotations and meaning to us Orthodox than it does to Catholics.

Catholicism has a tendency to dogmatize things and say that this or that must be believed if one is to be a Christian. The Orthodox Church rarely takes that approach. What one encounters in Orthodoxy is more of an attitude of "the Church has consistently passed (insert tradition) down through the centuries, and it is found in many Fathers, liturgical texts, etc... --- so why would we be inclined to disbelieve it?"

[Agrarian]

The characterization of Orthodoxy as Platonic and Catholicism as Aristotelean is a fairly commonplace one, but one that I find difficulty in understanding.

The primary person who applied Platonism (in its Neoplatonic form) to Christian theology was not an Easterner, but rather a Westerner (and indeed the Reformers' favorite Church Father, if they had to pick one): St. Augustine.

As has been discussed on other threads, when Thomas Aquinas came along, his primary detractors were Augustinians -- in a sense, it was a struggle between Platonistic Catholics and Aristotelean Catholics.

Stating that Orthodox theology is Platonistic shows more than anything else an unfamiliarity with Orthodox life and theology, which is intensely practical and Biblical. The patristic mind is not a systematic or theoretical one, but rather one that is of a piece with that of the Old Testament prophets.

How on earth one gets from theories about being and non-being or matter and unity to Orthodox ascetic practices or our teachings on theosis would really have to be explained to me. Likewise your comments on loss of individuality, the intellect as a spark of divinity, or free will as an ooze of godness.

I would encourage you to look a little more closely at Orthodoxy, and I think that you would be surprised at how much of a continuity there is from Old Testament to New Testament to Patristic writings to current day Orthodox life and belief that there is.

[Agrarian]

I will mainly touch on one aspect of this post of yours.

You really didn't answer my point -- namely that if TULIP were the clear and unadulterated teaching of the Apostles, then why don't we see it and other Reformed distinctives explicitly expounded by writers of the post-Apostolic period? If the Apostles were preaching the same things that Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, and Farel were preaching, then how is it that there is not one of the early Church fathers that Calvinists can point to and say: "There, now that man teaches exactly what we teach, worshipped exactly as we worship, and is one of us."

This is a fair question, in my opinion. Even if one were to claim that the Church became corrupt and only kept those writings that support its approach, this wouldn't explain why the "official Church" wouldn't have records of how it had stamped out the proto-Reformed "heresies." We have many writings that report in great detail various heresies. For many early heresies, the only record we have of their beliefs are the controversial literature written by the Church to combat them.

One would think that if the Apostles were all teaching Reformed doctrine, that we would find a trace of it somewhere.

On the other hand, your question of how key teachings about the Virgin Mary aren't in the Bible really isn't terribly on point. After all, we Orthodox have never claimed that everything we believe is explicitly spelled out in Scripture, so why would you expect to find it all there? What we do say is that there was surely a great deal more that happened that isn't recorded in Scripture (St. John explicitly says this at the end of his Gospel), and that all teachings and traditions were originally oral, only later being written down, if at all.

Finally, I will touch on one other point that you raise at the end of your post. The Orthodox Church does *not* teach "ideas of All-Time Church supremacy over the laity, and that the Spirit does not guide the laity with wisdom or spiritual understanding."

I think that you are mistaking us for some other Christian body. There is a very strong tradition within Orthodoxy for the role of the laity. The ultimate repository of Holy Tradition is in the living presence of the Holy Spirit in the entire body of the Church. This is why a bishop's election and consecration is not complete or legitimate unless the laity present cry out "Axios!" (he is worthy!)

Keep in mind also that unlike in Roman Catholicism, the vast majority of monastics in the Orthodox Church are laymen. Very few are ordained clergy -- a monastic community will generally only have enough ordained and tonsured clergy to carry out the cycle of services. Being a priest is considered by Orthodox monastics to be an impediment to the spiritual life because of its heavy demands.

In the Orthodox Church, being a member of the clergy is viewed as an act of sacrifice and service, and not one of authority. Even how we speak of our services gives one a clue. Generally, we don't say that a priest "performs" or "celebrates" a service. We say that he "serves Vespers," "serves Matins," or "serves the Divine Liturgy."

Even for the lower ranks of clergy (tonsured readers/chanters, subdeacons) we don't think in terms of who "gets to" read the Epistle or whatever. It is in terms of who has this responsibility before God and to the local community.

A monastic recently remarked, when asked about women's ordination, "why, when women have just achieved the liberty they have sought in the world, would they want to seek after servitude in the Church?"

One of the reasons why our clergy are so much more traditional as a group than are Catholic clergy is that there is a lot of pressure on them from the pious laity. There is and never has been the kind of unquestioning "pay, pray, and obey" attitudes that have traditionally been found in Catholicism.

Without that pious laity and the respect (and fear) that the clergy have of them, I fear that we would be just as susceptible in some cases to modernist silliness as are the leaders in other Christian bodies. As it is, the kinds of things that happened in the Ctholic Church after Vatican II are nigh on to unthinkable in the Orthodox Church. The laity just wouldn't stand for it. If anything, the Orthodox Church in the West has become more traditional as recent decaades has gone by.

[Forest Keeper]

Again, you are having a problem with time.

I've got....... a temporal fever....... and the only cure is........ MORE COWBELL! :)

--------------- :)

Christ's sacrifice on the cross forgives ALL men's sins potentially, the elect and the damned.

In John 19:30, what does Christ mean by "It is finished"? I read that the Greek word means "paid in full", as opposed to potentially.

Consider the Lord's Prayer. God's forgiveness is conditional.

Very debatable, but I don't buy it. If God's forgiveness is conditional, then you are setting up a two-way covenant. Many moons ago, you burned me fair and square with the Mosaic Covenant, but you never mentioned the New Covenant as being two-way. :) I know you believe that if your sins are not forgiven that you are not going to heaven, so this IS a salvational issue. How is this reconciled?

But another point to consider, my brother, is that sin is not only a legal status, but also an ontological stance. We actually suffer, our human dignity, suffers as a result of sin. We are held slaves to it. We are wounded by its effects.

On all of this, I have no doubt. What surprises me is that I thought you had an aversion to ideas of us being either "slaves to sin" or "slaves to righteousness". Or, am I taking you out of context?

FK: "Does this mean no one is in Christ Jesus until he confesses his last sin before he dies?"

Is someone in Christ when a Christian murders or commits adultery? You be the judge. There is more to being a Christian than a name. Only those who DO THE WILL OF THE FATHER IN HEAVEN shall enter the Kingdom.

You mean like David, on both counts? He certainly wasn't ACTING in Christ when he did those things, but by your own statement, where is David today? Yes, David asked forgiveness. Is your view that he was damned from the time he committed all those sins until he asked forgiveness of God? Could Jesus have been the "Son of" a damned person, had David not used his free will to confess and seek forgiveness? Here is where we go back to the "time" and "simultaneous" issue, so I'll hold until I read your response to my earlier post. :)

[HarleyD]

There are Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants on this thread who didn't know that most Protestants believe in free will, but not in predestination (at least in the classic Reformed sense.) But then most Catholics do believe in predestination, but not exactly in the Calvinist sense. St Augustine believed in it...

I would say most Catholics do not believe in predestination, certainly not in the "classic" sense of Augustine. And since the Catholic Church has not formally adopted any stance on Predestination, then it really doesn't matter what one Catholic may feel about predestination. It's not "official" doctrine of the Church. It makes all the Catholics into little Protestants.

I doubt any Catholic (even Augustinian Catholics) would agree with Augustine's Treatise on Predestination.

He calls us;' and thereupon added: 'It is plain, therefore, that it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, that we do good works,'—this is absolutely most true. But I discovered little concerning the calling itself, which is according to God's purpose; for not such is the calling of all that are called, but only of the elect.

In the solution of this question I laboured indeed on behalf of the free choice of the human will, but God's grace overcame, and I could only reach that point where the apostle is perceived to have said with the most evident truth, 'For who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou hast not received? Now, if thou hast received it, why dost thou glory as if thou receivedst it not?' [1 Cor. 4.7.] (A question I repeatly have asked on this thread)

Therefore, the former will to believe; the latter do not will." Who does not know this? Who can deny this? But since in some the will is prepared by the Lord, in others it is not prepared, we must assuredly be able to distinguish what comes from God's mercy, and what from His judgment. (My point in posts #3153 and #3163 which jokus argued against.)

There's plenty more. Calvin just expanded Augustine premise. I generally take my arguments from Augustine-not Calvin.

[Kolokotronis]

"In John 19:30, what does Christ mean by "It is finished"? I read that the Greek word means "paid in full", as opposed to potentially."

Nope, Tetelestai means "It has been finished". There is no interpretation of that word which can torture it into meaning "paid in full". Where did you get that idea?

[kosta50]

And since the Catholic Church has not formally adopted any stance on Predestination, then it really doesn't matter what one Catholic may feel about predestination. It's not "official" doctrine of the Church

You are making a sweeping generalization as a matter of fact, when in fact the Council of Trent (as well as other synods of the Church) defined Catholic understanding and position on predestination in quite an astounding detail.

If you want to read the whole (Roman) Catholic exposition on the predestination, consider the source before shooting from the hip.

But, if you don't want to read this lengthy work (which includes a section on, and answers to controversies), here is a Catholic dogma in a summarized form on the subject of predestination from the above referenced source:

"We may now briefly summarize the whole Catholic doctrine, which is in harmony with our reason as well as our moral sentiments. According to the doctrinal decisions of general and particular synods, God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future events (cf. Denzinger, n. 1784), all fatalistic necessity, however, being barred and human liberty remaining intact (Denz., n. 607).

Consequently man is free whether he accepts grace and does good or whether he rejects it and does evil (Denz., n. 797). Just as it is God's true and sincere will that all men, no one excepted, shall obtain eternal happiness, so, too, Christ has died for all (Denz., n. 794), not only for the predestined (Denz., n. 1096), or for the faithful (Denz., n. 1294), though it is true that in reality not all avail themselves of the benefits of redemption (Denz., n. 795).

Though God preordained both eternal happiness and the good works of the elect (Denz., n. 322), yet, on the other hand, He predestined no one positively to hell, much less to sin (Denz., nn. 200, 816). Consequently, just as no one is saved against his will (Denz., n. 1363), so the reprobate perish solely on account of their wickedness (Denz., nn. 318, 321).

God foresaw the everlasting pains of the impious from all eternity, and preordained this punishment on account of their sins (Denz., n. 322), though He does not fail therefore to hold out the grace of conversion to sinners (Denz., n. 807), or pass over those who are not predestined (Denz., n. 827). As long as the reprobate live on earth, they may be accounted true Christians and members of the Church, just as on the other hand the predestined may be outside the pale of Christianity and of the Church (Denz., nn. 628, 631).

Without special revelation no one can know with certainty that he belongs to the number of the elect (Denz., nn. 805 sq., 825 sq.)."

All emphases are mine.

The Orthodox Church echoes the same belief, which is brilliantly presented by Bishop Elias Minatios.

[kosta50]

In John 19:30, what does Christ mean by "It is finished"? I read that the Greek word means "paid in full", as opposed to potentially

It means that God's redemptive work in time has been accomplished, completed, finished. That God, through Divine Economy, made our salvation possible.

I have already told you more than once, FK, that God's work is finished and that He does not wait for us to make decisions to fulfill His plan.

[Forest Keeper]

There is certainly no explicit reference anywhere else in the Bible to the woman in Genesis 3 being the Virgin Mary. But surely you do not mean to imply that a prophecy is only real prophecy if another Scriptural reference confirms it as such --

No, I don't mean to imply that, I don't know. It just appears to me that this Mary "insertion" into Gen. 3 seems forced. I can appreciate why it helps with doctrine and all, but I just see it as a special interpretation, the same type of which is not used elsewhere to my knowledge.

It seems to me that Scripture is so full of these double and triple meanings and references that they are commonplace. But then, that is how we Orthodox read the Scripture.

Well, I can't sit here and wag my finger at you and say that I never believe that a verse has more than one meaning. :) BUT, I'm not so sure how commonplace it is. My normal stance on any random verse is to take the so-called "plain meaning". That is, unless the context directs me not to, such as in the case of a parable, or almost any verse in Revelation. :)

There was a time not so long ago when in order to become a bishop, one of the qualifications in the Orthodox Church was precisely to be able to recite the entire Gospel and Psalter from memory. It is felt by many monastics that until the Scriptures are memorized in this way, one only scratches the surface of the meanings of the Scripture, and more importantly of the process of living it.

Boy do I hear that! :) My mentor in our church was our former music minister. We were friends and we would meet once a week or so for a one-on-one Bible study. This went on for several years. He was really big on memorization of verses, so every week I had my little homework assignment to memorize a set of verses. I was so appreciative that he would take the time to teach me that I felt I couldn't let him down, so I did the work, even though I may not have understood what the right reasons were at the time. Now I know. :)

Anyway, if it wasn't for God using him to touch my heart with friendship, and to teach me, I wouldn't even be able to begin to talk with you all on a thread like this. I am so thankful. :)

[Agrarian]

Scripture memorization in any form is invaluable. Having the words of Scripture on our lips and in our hearts changes us.

Having said that, I find that the type of memorization that I did growing up (many, many individual verses) is quite different from the type of memorization that tends to be emphasized in the Orthodox Church. There are, to be sure, countless individual verses from the Psalms and other Scripture that we know because of their appearance in the liturgical services (although we wouldn't be able to name chapter and verse).

But the serious memorization that takes place in monastic settings and by pious laymen following their example involves huge swaths of Scripture, so each verse is in a very large context. I do not mean to imply that this is unique to Orthodoxy -- I know of many Protestants who do the same. But memorization of individual verses seems more common, and more prone to selectivity.

[HarleyD]

If you want to read the whole (Roman) Catholic exposition on the predestination, consider the source before shooting from the hip.

I have read this article at least twenty times. I would encourage others to as well since it is one of the most gobblygook articles I have ever laid my eyeballs on. Since you've summerized it so well as:

We may now briefly summarize the whole Catholic doctrine...God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future events

This is precisely what Arminian taught and is exactly what I stated in post #3086 (see point 2). It puts God in the spectator seat. He never really made an axe head float or oil continuously pour from a jar. If God only foresee events then did He foresee His loving nature raining fire down upon Sodom?

Predestination is defined as:

previous determination as if by destiny or fate 2: (theology) being determined in advance

There is nothing in the definition of predestination that even hints of foreseeing something and then saying, "Yup, that's OK by me." With all due respect, if this is the Catholic "definition" of predestination then I can predetermine the baseball scores from yesterday game.

[jo kus]

I've always thought that in normal usage, that "Co-" did imply something necessary.

"co-". with. together. jointly. One that is associated in an action with another: fellow. partner. helper

The God of thy father shall be thy helper, and the Almighty shall bless thee with the blessings of heaven above, with the blessings of the deep that lieth be- neath, with the blessings of the breasts and of the womb. Gen 49:25

And the other Eliezer: For the God of my father, said he, is my helper, and hath delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh. Ex 18:4

This is the blessing of Juda. Hear, O Lord, the voice of Juda, and bring him in unto his people : his hands shall fight for him, and he shall be his helper against his enemies Deut 33:7

And the Lord is become a refuge for the poor: a helper in due time in tribulation Ps 9:9

Thou seest it, for thou considerest labour and sorrow: that thou mayst deliver them into thy hands. To thee is the poor man left: thou wilt be a helper to the orphan Ps 10:14

So that we may confidently say: The Lord is my helper: I will not fear what man shall do to me. Heb 13:6

There are dozens of verses that speak of the Lord as our helper. I see Scripture clearly showing how we cooperate with God's graces.

But haven't you argued that my wife was necessary to actually have the baby?

Your wife wasn't absolutely necessary to have a child. Adam and Eve were created without mothers. God chooses to propagate His creation THROUGH the action of men and women. Is that wrong to believe that God has given us the grace to cooperate in His continuing of creation?

I believe that God is the exclusive creator, as I interpret from your favorite Psalm 139

He is the primary creator of all things. But it should appear quite obvious that your wife was involved in the birth of your child - and without her actions, your child wouldn't have been born. This conversation seems to be bordering on the ridiculous. Your effort to "protect" God's sovereignty by denying that we do anything is not necessary. It should be clear that God ALLOWS us to participate in His work - HIS OWN WILL is that we do.

What power or authority have I to co-redeem?

??? By closing your mouth, rather than spread the Gospel to co-workers who are not Christians, you DO have the power and authority to NOT be a co-redeemer. By acting as a Christian, you are a light to the world of Christ's work.

Is God just blessing Mary by letting her participate as co-mediatrix, even though she really doesn't add anything of real value? The set-up is for Mary's benefit, just as it was for the cookie daughter?

Mary is for our benefit and God's graces are for her benefit. Doesn't she say that in Luke 1:47-48 "My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed."?

St. Basil once said that if anyone said that Mary was merely like a pipe through which water ran in regards to our Savior, then that person is impious person. God was not a parasite...

Does God pick the elect because they picked Him first, or do the elect pick God because He chose them first?

How is there a "first" and "last" outside of time? Everything occurs at once. Think outside the box. God sees as if a bird's eye view looking down onto a mountain, seeing all of the representatives of time standing around the mountain. He sees them all in one view.

Simultaneously" is a time-related word!

If all time occurs in one moment, that means it is simultaneous. Time = change. When two events occur during the same point in time, these two events are not changing - at that moment. Now, imagine God sees everything during the same moment.

Clearly you would agree that there was a physical time when God existed and man did not, right?

For us, yes. Within time, that is true. But God is beyond time.

Who makes the first move?

All such questions are considered from the point of view of mankind. God makes the first move in respect to us. Our point of reference is within time. God acts upon time but is not bound by it.

To say that it happens simultaneously throws the whole issue beyond human comprehension. If you agree to that, then it appears that your real answer is that you don't know

More properly, we call it a mystery. We don't know EVERYTHING about God and how He works upon time. But we know something based upon revelation - that God created time and is thus transcendant above it. Thus, theologians explore the total revelation He has given us - Scripture and Tradition.

Then how do you have any confidence that the Bible is infallible? How do you know that none of the writers ever strayed even once from the guidance they received? Do you know because the Church tells you so? Did the writers of the Bible have free will, and just chose to act perfectly?

There is a convergence of evidence that points to the Church and the idea that she is trustworthy and guided by God's Spirit. The community recognized particular writings as inspired from God. Do we believe them? Yes. We can believe the message of the Church because we believe that it was led by a person who resurrected from the dead - clear evidence that His message was from God, who alone can raise the dead. Our belief hinges on the resurrection, as Paul says in 1 Cor 15. As to the inspired writers, it should seem apparent that the writers used different modes of writing, different styles. God did not overwhelm THEIR manner of writing - AND HIS message is found within these human words.

Is that now an infallible teaching? If so, then if I had said in 1949 that "Catholics believe that Mary was assumed", I would be on solid ground, even though it was not, in 1949, an infallible teaching?

It is now an infallible teaching officially defined by the Magesterium. You would be on solid ground saying that "Mary was assumed into heaven" in 1949, but it was not officially defined yet. The community was already celebrating liturgically this as fact. A person could have legitimately questioned that concept - WITH GOOD REASON after exploring the issue, privately. We do not publically dissent (we are not given authority) from the Church's teachings. A theologian who has properly considered all of the knowledge available would be in his right to disagree with the pre-defined belief of Mary's Assumption. We don't usually have such knowledge - most have not examined all of the evidence, so we couldn't legitimately privately dissent. But once it is solemnly declared as such, we assent and obey God's Will (since it is God speaking through the Magesterium).

I think it may have been because God also refers to her progeny. (why Adam was not included in Gen 3:15)

The Old Testament spoke of the MALE as being the bearer of the seed and it was HE whose progeny was considered, not the mother. Rarely does the Scripture speak of the mother's progeny. We are born "dead" to God because of ADAM'S sin, not Eve's.

The Jews of then or now? Why would the Jews care about Mary?

Not Mary, but the mother of the Messiah.

Want to hear something hilarious? The footnote in my Bible actually disagrees with you and says that the virgin referred to in 14 is actually another woman whom Isaiah would later take as his second wife! However, the Spirit does speak to me and leads me to agree with your interpretation that the virgin is actually Mary. :)

First, I don't know if your bible version says the word "virgin" or "young woman" in this verse. If the former, you are using the Septaugint version, the latter is the Hebrew version. As I said, ALL prophesy has multiple meanings. The prophet is speaking directly to someone present during HIS time. The footnote is correct. BUT, prophesy also applies to men of the future. Did the prophet realize he was prophesizing? Who knows. But the Community widely recognized this prophesy as pointing to Mary the ever-virgin.

In your Isaiah example, the only change is in AUDIENCE. The audience may switch from present believers to future believers and then back again. I'm sure lots of prophecy does this. But, that is a world of difference from what your position is in Gen. 3. There, you are saying the SUBJECT magically changes in mid-thought.

The AUDIENCE changed? So you think that Isaiah was talking about a virgin to Ahaz? Oh, no, the meaning changed, too! Do you think that Isaiah was telling Ahaz that a virgin would give birth - a literal woman who did not have sex would give birth?

Sure, if you desire, we can have God speaking to Eve and about Mary. He did it in Is 7:14, as well - speaking to Ahaz and about Mary.

Regards

[jo kus]

In John 19:30, what does Christ mean by "It is finished"? I read that the Greek word means "paid in full", as opposed to potentially.

Yes, it is paid in full. All we have to do now it to go to the bank and withdraw against this infinite account. We do it all the time when we ask for forgiveness. IF it was done in the sense that we no longer have to ask forgiveness or receive Christ's graces applied to us, then why would Jesus say :

"Receive ye the Holy Spirit; 23unto those whose sins ye release, they shall be released; [and] unto those whose [sins] ye retain, they shall be retained.

John 20:22-23

Or why would Paul write :

"I Paul am made a minister, who now rejoice in my sufferings for you and fulfill in my flesh that which [is] lacking of the tribulations of the Christ for his body's sake, which is the church" Col 1:23-24

We require Christ's objective redemption applied to our specific selves - called subjective redemption. Christ died for the sin of ALL men. Everyone. But not everyone is saved. Thus, the subjective redemption - that person - did not apply Christ's gifts to his own self through repentance and conversion.

Very debatable, but I don't buy it. (God's forgiveness is conditional)

"The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye and believe the Gospel" Mark 1:15 Doesn't this imply that we have the choice to do one or the other? I don't have the energy to post all the verses that talk about those who choose to reject God's graces and NOT repent and believe... but here is one: "He that believes on him is not condemned, but he that does not believe is condemned already because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" John 3:18

Thus, forgiveness of sins is based on REPENTING. It is conditional, brother.

If God's forgiveness is conditional, then you are setting up a two-way covenant. Many moons ago, you burned me fair and square with the Mosaic Covenant, but you never mentioned the New Covenant as being two-way. :) LOL! Christ consecrated the New Covenant at a PASSOVER FEAST commemorating the Exodus of Moses and the Israelites. He chose that context for many reasons. But one is that we must turn to God and ask for the forgiveness of our sins - which Jesus offers as part of this covenant. IF Forgivness was not conditional, then ALL men would be saved - no one is in hell - because Christ died FOR ALL MEN, not just the elect.

What surprises me is that I thought you had an aversion to ideas of us being either "slaves to sin" or "slaves to righteousness". Or, am I taking you out of context?

Things are not black and white. I think Paul is talking more about a general way of acting, not our each and every sin or good deed moves us in and out of being slaves to sin, or slaves to righteousness. Does the latter become the former EVERY TIME THEY SIN, and vice versus? This would be a DAILY back and forth! Thus, one venial sin doesn't kill the soul.

Is your view that he was damned from the time he committed all those sins until he asked forgiveness of God?

We have different views of "being saved", as I have painfully told you. How could David be damned if he hadn't died yet before his contrition. He was in an "unrighteous status" with God. He was not considered righteous in God's eyes as a result of his sin. But when he returned to God, David was restored (this is from David's point of view. God already knew David would be sorrowful. But the Scripture speaks from David's view sometimes. Being that David was of the elect, God knew David would return.)

Here is where we go back to the "time" and "simultaneous" issue, so I'll hold until I read your response to my earlier post.

God saw David in his mother's womb, In the shepherd's field, slaying Goliath, committing adultery, morning over his sick infant, weeping over Absalom, and dying all at once. What's the problem? God saw David's return to Him within time.

Regards

[jo kus]

I would say most Catholics do not believe in predestination, certainly not in the "classic" sense of Augustine. And since the Catholic Church has not formally adopted any stance on Predestination, then it really doesn't matter what one Catholic may feel about predestination

Harley, I have given you two "De Fide" statements regarding predestination only a few days ago. They are to be believed as from God - with the same infallibility in which we believe that the Son of God rose from the dead. ALL De Fide statements are revelations from God. Thus, Catholics believe in predestination. God ACTIVELY predestines His elect. AS I said, the major difference between Catholicism and Calvinism is that we don't believe that God predestines ACTIVELY the reprobate, though He knows that some will become reprobate. There are other things that we disagree on, such as the anthropology of man after the fall.

But regarding predestination, I think you are going to have to accept that Catholics DO believe in it. Regarding St. Augustine, perhaps you should read some of his stuff on the Eucharist, the Saints, Mary, and the Catholic Church...

Regards

[kosta50]

I would encourage others to as well since it is one of the most gobblygook articles I have ever laid my eyeballs on

Gobblygook is something you should be familiar with, HD, because in your world God does everything and we do nothing. We are just tools that lie dead until God picks them up. There is no life in us whatsoever. Your theology teaches that God simply made excess of tools that He won't use or need, so some are kept and others are rejected. Gobblygook indeed!

Look at Christ and tell me that He matches the Reformed idea of God! That's because our human idea of a god is an extension of ourselves. When God became man, He was nothing like the God of the OT or the pagans. Imagine that!

I have said it before and I will say it again: Adam and Eve made a decision to disobey and fell from God's grace, and by the same token we must decide to obey God's will if we are to become redeemed. It was the disobedience of one that brought sin and death to the world as it was perfect obedience of the Son of Man that defeated death and sin. If we are to defeat death and sin we need to follow Christ in His steps. But that must be a conscious decision on a daily basis; it must be something we long for; something we do out of love and gratitude; not something we are "preordained" or compelled to do.

Without God's punishment and God's forgiveness, neither their obedience nor our repentance would be of any value. Thus, God is the ever-present key to our fall or our redemption. But it is clear that it requires our decision. Our intellect is free, HD, and it's will is likewise free to choose God or to reject God.

The Church recognizes that God knows what our (free) decisions will be, and knows that – based on decisions – we will either be damned or saved. The Church understands that God does not punish us, but rather our decisions make us subject to punishment, as was the case with Adam and Eve, just as our decision to follow Chirst make us subject to His, akways remembering that God is the final arbiter and that we are only receptients of His mercy one way or another.

Unlike your theology of complete depravity, most of the Christian world recognizes that we are more than just His tools. That much is obvious from the message of Christ.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

if it wasn't for God using him to touch my heart with friendship, and to teach me, I wouldn't even be able to begin to talk with you all on a thread like this.

"Man's steps are ordained by the Lord, How then can man understand his way?" Proverbs 20:24

Now where have I read that before? 8~)

And it sounds a lot like these...

"The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD." -- Proverbs 16:33

"And He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation" -- Acts 17:26

"Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, 'My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure'" -- Isaiah 46:10

"Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it?" -- Lamentations 3:37

"I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." -- Isaiah 45:5-7

"For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him." -- 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10

"Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple." -- Psalm 65:4

Here's a great book. Isn't the internet a wonder?

THE DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE PREDESTINATION - STATED AND ASSERTED - Translated from the Latin of JEROME ZANCHIUS by AUGUSTUS TOPLADY

[AlbionGirl]

"I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." -- Isaiah 45:5-7

Besides being exquisite (Isaiah is truly exquisite!), how could this be otherwise?

Excellent link, Dr. E. Though it will take me a while to get through it.

I did catch the part on evil, how it came into the world, etc, and that's something that has been on my mind on and off again for a while now. It put things in a perspective that I understand, and I think already understood to a lesser degree, but was influenced against my own sense of things by how aghast all seem to be at the notion that God could allow it, or be, as Isaiah notes, the maker of it.

Not so long ago, PBS aired a documentary on the Holocaust. This documentary was produced in the 60s or early 70s, and all of those who were interviewed and part of the documentary were Jews who had survived the Camps. One guy said that he remembered that sometimes a pile of bodies would quake a little as a lot of the people were not dead yet. He was so visibly shaken when he was talking about it, and it made me wonder how all the survivors reconciled such a horror with the Mercy of God? It must have been anguishing beyond imagination. The thing is though, that if you've experienced tragedy, the peace you're seeking can only commence when you let go of trying to make sense of what only God can make sense of.

Left strictly to my own understanding of things, I prefer to not second guess what God allows or forbids. It seems a conceit beyond bounds to pretend to know such things. But I can't seem to accept the idea that evil was unleashed without God's knowledge or permission. No, God created it all according to his Good and Perfect Will, and I don't have the mind to unravel that Mystery, and I don't want to pursue the pretense that I do.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Amen, AG. Here's a shorter article by Greg Bahnsen which really speaks to your excellent post.

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

[Forest Keeper]

[To annalex:] If you promise not to tell my other Calvinist brothers, I'll tell you the secret to Calvinists' "wisdom". If the truth be known, the only answer Calvinists really have is that God is sovereign, has ONE perfect plan and will do precisely what He pleases to see that perfect plan through.

You are SOOOOOOOO busted! :)

[kosta50]

I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." -- Isaiah 45:5-7

And I remember reading "And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil."

So, God creates evil according to KJV, and yet we ask Him to deliver us from it? I thought even the Reformed would say that everything that is from God is good. If He creates evil, then evil must be good too. Then why would God Himself teach us to pray to be delivered from it?