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.

Still having a problem placing God within time, aren't you! God doesn't "guess"! Think about this. God sees the first day of creation and the last day of the earth's existence as it is as one NOW. So how can God guess anything?

I know God doesn't guess, but I'm trying to figure out how your theology gets around that very conclusion. You have to balance man's free will with God's omniscience. (I don't, but you do.) I would imagine this is very tricky. It's a chicken and egg argument, who made the first move? It appears that the Catholic solution is to magically declare a SIMULTANEOUS occurrence! God chose a particular man to be in His elect at the precise moment that He foresaw that the man would choose God.

If man really chooses first, then this technique absolves you from having to admit that man determines his own salvation, because it is hidden in "simultaneousness". However, if God chooses first, then you can still preserve free will, because it is hidden in "simultaneousness". It is very clever, but as of the post I am responding to now, no one has explained how any of this works. Obviously, it is no where in the Bible.

God gives everyone enough information to be saved or choose the good that they read in their hearts.

You must be kidding. According to your beliefs, God gave everyone reasonably enough information, of course tailored to the individual's capacities, etc., to make a decision between spending eternity, in God's presence, in perfect Heaven with all love abounding infinitely all around us, OR burning for all eternity in a fiery pit, with wailing and weeping and gnashing of teeth in eternal pain and torment? Part of me wants to agree with you that this is a very difficult choice, seeing as how God gave everyone enough information. :)

However, I just can't bring myself to think that people with the "enough" information that you say God gives everyone would actively choose Hell over Heaven. Since everyone has been graced with "enough" information, put yourself into the shoes of a person who chose against God. What would the plus-minus column look like, with "enough" information?

Some people do NOT want to love, to serve. Some people do NOT desire to love.

I agree with you. Why would you say that is? Chance? Does that lack of desire seem consistent to you with the basic human animal? I would assume you would say that this is them choosing against God, whereas I would say it is God not granting grace. Could God put love into these hearts if He wanted to? If you say 'yes', then it is a sign of His respect and love for them when He decides not to do so, because it would interfere with their free will?

[Re: Eph. 1:4-6] Is it your opinion that Paul is including ALL Christians, all who have spoken on a Sunday afternoon the "sinner's prayer"?

No, only His elect. Isn't the number of Americans who call themselves "Christian" over 80%? Clearly, not all of them are of the elect.

Absolute assurance means that there is absolutely no chance of you falling away. We just don't have that level of knowledge. That is why we have hope.

That's a very high standard, but I'll take it because God is good on His promises. I would need to know more on how you define "falling away". Surely it happens that saved Christians go through dark times and neglect their faiths, but God always pulls His elect through. Every single time. You say that your unassurance is why you have "hope". But, as I said long, long, ago, "hope" means much more than "wish for".

If you can ever potentially claim that a Christian's sinner's prayer was ineffective and didn't save, then there is NO ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE. How much clearer can I be? If you don't know your sinner's prayer took, where is the absolute assurance?

You have always looked for the guarantee in the wrong place. You have always looked to the mouth of "Johnny Sinner", as he says his prayer, for your guarantee. It's not there. The guarantee is in God's word. His word will show whether Johnny's prayer was any good or not. Since I can only speak for myself, I am confident in my assurance, and that my prayer "took". :)

Sorry, you'll have to do something other than assert that you are irrefutably part of the elect without any sort of evidence or proof. God's promises are for those who follow Him, not for those who make a one-time claim and then next month do something totally against God's ways.

Wow! You're strict. What would you accept as evidence or proof? How many God points do I need? :) You surprise me when you say that God's promises are only for those who follow Him, but do not make a mistake (presumably any time) later. What is the use of confession, if God's promises are of no value to any person who sins after being baptized? With due apologies to all other Protestants I do feel that I can speak for all of us on this point: we all do make mistakes and not follow God from time to time. According to you, therefore, God's promises are not to us. That's OK. I will give you that you are consistent.

Paul presumes that those Christians he write to will CONTINUE walking the walk.

Please indicate when you are quoting yourself. :) I know you usually do, so no problem. I just got confused for a minute. :)

As long as we pick up our cross and follow our Lord, we are of the elect (from our point of view). But if we drop the cross and go off and do OUR will and not God's will, are we STILL of the elect?

Your question "are we still of the elect?" says everything. When it comes to the elect, there is no "still". One is either a member from before time began and for all time, or one is not, and never will be. God is the only judge of what "falling away" means, how long and how much. That's another reason why we are so careful not to speculate on the salvation of others.

FK: "Saved" ALSO means to heal. You left out other, perhaps more prominent definitions. Here is something from a website called "Truth or Tradition?"

Nothing in there suggests permanency. The word 'saved' does not preclude the necessity of being saved again...

Nothing suggests permanency??? Here is a repeat post of a quote from the website:

"Therefore we define “salvation” as a state of being saved, rescued or delivered from something that threatens death or destruction, that is, being brought to a place of safety. The Hebrew word for “salvation” also means a place of safety (yasha). Logically, if we are still in jeopardy of somehow losing this salvation, we are not in a very “safe” place."

When you read this, you get no idea of permanency from the author? The last sentence doesn't seal it?

You have to invent the idea of being saved over and over again. (Not you personally, of course :) You also must throw into the trash the normal meaning of the word "saved", past tense. What do you think Jesus meant when He said "It is finished"? Does He have more work to do to pay for our sins?

Christ died for all men - but some CHOOSE not to accept this gift. See the tagline below. ["I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore CHOOSE life - Deut 30:19"]

I just wanted to point out that you are quoting Moses, even though it sounds like the quote might be from God. And, no, I'm not accusing you of anything. :) My point is only that the POV is human and not divine.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of those who follow "imputed righteousness".

Those who believe in "imputed righteousness" alone believe that God covers us with Christ's righteousness - that a man (even abiding in Christ) is insufficient to be considered "righteous". Thus, the legal status invented by some. God treats us as His children. Children are not required to be perfect to be loved and rewarded for their actions.

However, the mother was still always in complete control. Such is similar with God.

I still think we can use the cookie analogy here, as well. The Mother IS in "complete control". But she ALLOWS the cookies to be made with her daughter's input. In other words, some of the cookies will be mishapened. Some will be different sized, or funky-looking. Again, the mother ALLOWS this daughter to be a secondary cause of how the cookies turn out. And I believe God does the same with us. He allows us to struggle through life, not fulfilling the Commandments perfectly, but struggling to abide in Him, He accepts this imperfect sacrifice and effort. As a loving Father, He is happy that we are trying to use His gifts, even if they are not used perfectly. He is in control, but He doesn't use that control to overtake our efforts. God is not surprised by what we do, nor does He micromanage us where our efforts count for nothing.

God gives His elect an offer they can't refuse. An offer SO GOOD, that no man can say 'No'. I don't see this as the same thing as "forcing".

God stirs within us the desire for God that is innate in ALL people. Some will react to this differently. However, "an offer they can't refuse"? You are presuming that a person TRUSTS God completely and totally from the get-go. Trust is learned. Honestly, even those who make the Sinner's Prayer, how much do they REALLY trust this "God" who is unseen and virtually undetected in their lives? We learn to trust God in our lives - so this "offer" CAN be refused (but God knows who will and who will not refuse). Scripture says that God's graces can come to us in vain because of us.

Jesus, the man, showed us exactly what our attitude should be. It's OK to say what you think, but always pray that the will of God will be done.

True. But why is it necessary that we pray that the will of God be done, if God's will is ALWAYS done? Consider Jesus' prayer for unity in John's Gospel during the Last Supper. His desire was for unity among His followers, both present and future.

I've said many times that God promises that no one, not even the person himself, can snatch him out of God's hands.

And again, Scripture never makes that claim. It tells us that we CAN fall away. WE. The Devil cannot take us from God. Other powers cannot. But God leaves open the decision of acceptance to us. I do not agree that it is an offer that I cannot refuse. I feel led to continue in the Lord, but I realize there is a voice within me battling and tempting me to "forget about all of this Lent stuff. Why sacrifice? For what?" We will always battle the serpent - and he will try to get us to refuse the Lord. The very idea of temptation makes our acceptance of the Lord valuable and meritorious - not automatic.

I rely on that to know that if I am of the elect today, that I will be 5 years from now.

Well, of course, IF IF IF you are of the elect...You don't know the mind of the Lord on this matter. All you or I can do is HOPE we are of the elect, continuing to work out our salvation in fear and trembling. Anything else is presumption, a sin against God's mercy and justice.

All those who are saved are of the elect and all those of the elect will be saved.

A wonderful circular argument!

"I am of the elect"

"How do you know"?, asks Jo

"Because I am saved".

"Meaning?" asks Jo.

"I am of the elect"

Oh boy... It's all beginning to give me a headache.

We humans can't be absolutely certain about that for other people, but God provides that we may be sure about ourselves

LOL!!! Which Protestant believes that that after saying the Sinner's Prayer, that they are not of the elect? The only one who believes it didn't work are those who judge other people after the fact when a person falls - "He was never saved to begin with" What device did God give that person to indicate that this person would falter?

Through my sanctification I have been able to appropriate God's truth on this matter, so I say that I can have assurance that I am of the elect.

That's only useful for the PRESENT - we don't know what may happen down the road, AND is based on our OWN ideas of salvation. We disagree on some matters of salvation. If you are wrong, your assurance is just delusional, correct? When IF Christ meant that a person must eat His flesh to be saved for eternal life? Have you received the Eucharist as HE implemented it at the Last Supper and practiced by Christians for 2000 years? The point of this is that your assurances are based on presumptions. Presumptions that you will remain faithful until the end, that you will persevere, AND presumptions that your interpretations of Scripture are entirely in line with God's intent.

This is no longer absolute assurance.

I am certain that we will all face a judgment based on our walk in faith. Interestingly, my Pastor preached on this point yesterday. That makes two weeks in a row that his sermon has been directly on point in this thread. Maybe he's lurking. :) Anyway, no one on my side believes that we enter heaven without love. God gives the elect love, which we use to love Him back. He loved us first.

So then we are not saved by faith alone, correct? Furthermore, if we are judged on our walk, what happens if our walk was insufficient, for example, as Jesus describes on several occasions in Matthew 25 with three parables? Are those who are judged unworthy entering heaven?

Regards

I have no problem with the first possibility because God did give Eve the right choice — not to eat the fruit... God did not make us purposefully imperfect.

It is interesting that the Catholics and Orthodox make such a deep comparison of Eve and Mary. Never in the Bible is this comparison made. On the contrary, Paul compares Adam and Christ-not Eve and Mary.

As long as we cleave to God, use God rather than man as a measure, we will function within our created capacity to make rational decisions of good moral character.

"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing." John 15:5

But your other quote is problematic. First, if God deceives, does that mean we can too?...And if God kills, then we can kill too.

God killed people all the time in scripture. He flooded the world, rained fire on Sodom, drowned the Egyptian army, ordered Joshua to slaughter the inhabitants of the Promise Land, and on and on and on. This is God's wrath on us miserable creatures who cannot even remotely understand God's glory unless, through His grace, He takes and sets us in the right direction.

while I trust that the faith of Jesus and the Apostles was that of Abraham, I simply do not see Christ-like anything in most of the OT quotes.

NEVER

The early church fathers sought to harmonize the scriptures, not ignore them. The question becomes how much are you dedicated to understanding God's word as the INSPIRED word of God and being true to understanding God as He has revealed Himself to us?

So according to your logic, someone who has "no clue on the responsibility of entering into a marriage as the New Testament understood it" has grounds for annulment?

The Marriage Tribunal makes that decision, not the spouse. Annulments are investigations that search for such impediments. Not having full knowledge of the Catholic teachings on marriage is insufficient by itself. The act of the spouse is what is examined.

if annulments are not Catholic divorces, and are granted only in those cases where no marriage ever took place because of it being illicit or invalid in some respect or another, then Catholic annulment rates should approach non-Catholic annulment rates rather than non-Catholic divorce rates (as is actually the case.)

I already explained the reasons why there are more Catholic annulments in the last 50 years. Go back and read my previous post.

Part of the difference between Orthodox and Catholic approaches probably comes from our differing view of what happens at our respective marriage services. Catholic/Western marriage ceremonies center around an exchanging of vows, and have the characteristic of a contractual agreement. This is in keeping with generally legalistic Catholic views of Christianity.

That's a stereotype that is clearly not the case. The marriage sacrament is a COVENANT agreement, not a contract. It is thinking like yours that turns people so readily to separation. A covenant is binding, even when the other party falters.

Christ insisted on the original intention of the Father who willed that Marriage be indissoluble. He abrogates the accomodations that slipped into the Old Law. You concept merely adds them back in. This is not the intent of the New Law. Can old wine be poured into new skins???

The service then begins, and in neither the betrothal nor the wedding service are there anything resembling vows.

So is making a vow a bad thing in the thinking of Orthodoxy? Is binding oneself to another a sin?

Therefore, it wouldn't occur to us for the most part that any Orthodox wedding would be invalid. This would be tantamount to saying that the bread and wine at the Divine Liturgy didn't become the Body and Blood of Christ for a particular communicant because he didn't have any clue about what he was receiving.

You are now talking oranges and apples. Sacraments are visible signs of invisible graces. But in the Eucharist, Christ is ACTUALLY present, whether the communicant realizes it or not. In the other sacraments, the fruit of the grace bestowed on the recipient is dependent on the recipient. If one enters into Marriage without intending it to be indissoluble, then grace will not be efficacious.

Do you tell the couple and the priest that they aren't ready for a Catholic marriage, and if they want to get married, that they need to do so outside of the Church? And what exactly would that do for their souls? Would you argue that the many Catholics over the years who left the Catholic church and became Protestants so that they could remarry are spiritually better off from your perspective than had they been able to go through the penitential process of an ecclesiastical divorce prior to being allowed to remarry (in a more subdued ceremony) in the Catholic church?

We tell people what is expected of them as a result of the sacrament of Marriage. It is indissoluble. We suggest they NOT get married if they do not feel they would stay together through better or worse. But it takes some very obstinate thinking on the part of the couple for the priest to refuse the sacrament. Are many former Catholics who left the Church better off spiritually? I don't know. I can't determine another's soul in relationship to God. Maybe that person feels better or is at peace, but then, people who are wicked also feel good about what they do, as well. Feelings doesn't constitute our relationship with God.

But to deal with this problem through the use of the technique of annulment -- saying that a couple who had a Christian wedding, who have lived together and been physically joined together for years, and often borne children together -- that this man and woman were never actually married (sorry, you bastard children), boggles the mind when one realizes that this is supposedly New Testament Christianity in action.

Annulments are not automatically granted. In the above case, I would doubt that the Church would grant an annulment so readily. By the way, the children are not considered bastard children in such cases. The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided by Canon Law (CIC 1151-1155). If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. (CCC #2383).

The point, though, is that the SEPARATION is allowed - but one cannot re-enter into marriage with another person. This clearly is adultery, as defined by Jesus Christ. So while spouses may separate, one is not free to remarry or take up with another person.

For this is surely at the root of the ubiquitous easy annulments that take place throughout Catholicism. Most people are going to remarry, and the question is whether they are going to leave the Catholic church or not in order to be able to do so.

The Church is called to teach the Truth. Sometimes, the Truth hurts, doesn't it?

"Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ". Gal 1:10

The Church is called to be pastoral towards such concerns, but we don't turn a blind eye to the truth because "it might hurt someone's feelings" or "they might leave the Church otherwise" if they didn't get their way.

If a person feels the call to willingly disobey Christ so that that person can marry another in an adulterous relationship, what can I say? Change the Church's rules? So if someone came along and said "we are saved by faith alone", is the Church supposed to change its beliefs to accomodate that person so they won't leave the Church?

Regards

I only have time to respond to a couple of points. I did read your explanation for why there are so many annulments in the Catholic Church today. Here it is:

"The truth of the matter is that society has made divorce too easy. Couples don't truly try to work things out. Why should they? Everyone tells them about no-fault divorce. People are more interested in “getting out while the getting is good...” As a result, it is not surprising that the Church grants more annulments than it once did. There is NOT the full and free commitment to the indissolubility of the covenant as there once was."

So basically, you are saying that because of the effects of society, lots of Catholics are being married in the Catholic Church without a "full and free commitment to the indissolubility of the covenant", and "they don't try to work things out." Therefore, there will as a matter of course be a lot more annulments than in the past.

Yet later, you tell me that in the case of a married couple with children that the Church won't "readily" grant an annulment. You go on to say that separation is permitted under canon law, but not remarriage.

But remarriage is, in practice, the ultimate point to annulments, isn't it? Without it, a Catholic cannot get remarried and still be a communicating member of the Catholic Church. How often, really, are annulments sought in cases where neither member of the couple is wanting to remarry?

I'm not casting stones in a glass house, because in practice, that is when Orthodox ecclesiastical divorces are granted. The purpose to the process is to see if the original marriage is salvagable (which it basically isn't, at this point), to see about the spiritual welfare of the children of the previous marriage, and to give an opportunity for the Church to interject a strong sense of seriousness about the proposed remarriage -- that it is a falling short of the ideal and requires repentance, and that the reason the first marriage fell apart was because there was something spiritually wrong in the first situation that needs to be addressed.

Almost by definition, a couple that is getting divorced does not involve people who are deeply involved in the life of Christ through the Church. Broken marriages involve broken people. The question is how should the Church approach broken people? Christ's actions should make that clear. He always forgave sins, restored them to fellowship, and told them to "go and sin no more." This no more means that Christ was approving of those sins than does the fact that the Orthodox Church allows up to two remarriages mean that we approve of divorce, and it is basically what the Orthodox Church does in the process of granting an ecclesiastical divorce.

Believe me, we in the Orthodox Church take very seriously the ideal of the one-time marriage. In fact, remarriage after the death of a spouse is discouraged, and in the case of clergy, forbidden (to make clear what the ideal is.)

You have to balance man's free will with God's omniscience. (I don't, but you do.) I would imagine this is very tricky. It's a chicken and egg argument, who made the first move? It appears that the Catholic solution is to magically declare a SIMULTANEOUS occurrence! God chose a particular man to be in His elect at the precise moment that He foresaw that the man would choose God.

Hmm. How else can I explain this? You still place God within time. Perhaps this might help. Look at the Nicean Creed: "{Jesus} is eternally begotten from the Father". If we look at things from your point of view, HOW can we say Jesus IS being begotten??? That is because you are failing to see that God sees time as one now, one event. The Creation and the end of time are seen in one glance. Eternally begotten doesn't mean He was begotten during a particular time, but it ETERNALLY BEING begotten. There is no time for God, so there is no question about the "chicken or the egg"!

God sees our creation, birth, response to His Spirit, our death, and union with Him in heaven (if of the elect) as one event. How can God NOT see our response "before" we choose? It's all one event.

I never said man chooses God first. To us, He takes the initiative. But it is perfectly feasible to see that He would "see" our response as part of His initiative. There is not a time that is not accessible to God all at once. God doesn't think about us, then create us, then watch us being born, then ensure that we receive the graces proper to the elect in His point of view. That is from our vantage point, since we are in time. To God, all of the above is done simultaneously, since there He is beyond Time.

Obviously, it is no where in the Bible.

That God is not bound by creation? Do I need to prove that?

According to your beliefs, God gave everyone reasonably enough information, of course tailored to the individual's capacities, etc., to make a decision between spending eternity, in God's presence, in perfect Heaven with all love abounding infinitely all around us, OR burning for all eternity in a fiery pit, with wailing and weeping and gnashing of teeth in eternal pain and torment? Part of me wants to agree with you that this is a very difficult choice, seeing as how God gave everyone enough information. :)

God doesn't give everyone that sort of information. God gives EVEN THE GENTILES (Romans 2) a Natural Law, a law written on EVERYONE'S heart that tells them what is right and what is wrong. Everyone "knows" the Golden rule - "do unto others as you would have them do to you". Everyone "knows" that stealing is wrong, because if someone steals from THEM, they get upset...Why get upset if someone doesn't perceive something wrong being done to them? A person can decide to follow this Golden Rule, to do for others what are written out in the Decalogue. When a person abides in Christ by the man's love, He is a son of God, in an unknown and mysterious manner. We cannot love without Christ. By loving others for their own sake, we KNOW Christ abides in that person. Thus, a person doesn't have to know about heaven or hell. A person is to choose between doing good to others or being selfish and concerned only about themselves. It is clear that EVERYONE can make these decisions - with God's guidance and help, they will choose the good.

I would assume you would say that this is them choosing against God, whereas I would say it is God not granting grace

God rains down His grace upon all, the good and the evil. God spreads His "seed" upon ALL ground. God even DIED for ALL men, not just the elect...Scripture clearly notes you are incorrect. God gives everyone sufficient grace, since He desires ALL men to be saved.

Could God put love into these hearts if He wanted to?

"PUT" love into one's heart? Is that love? A person can be disposed of to serve others, to be more open to God's graces and blessings, but in the end, love is not love if one does not choose.

God is good on His promises. I would need to know more on how you define "falling away". Surely it happens that saved Christians go through dark times and neglect their faiths, but God always pulls His elect through. Every single time. You say that your unassurance is why you have "hope". But, as I said long, long, ago, "hope" means much more than "wish for".

God didn't promise you personally that you were of the elect. You can judge that you are based on your love, your faith in God, your response to God. But this tells us little of our response in 2010. We HOPE we will remain in Christ. But those who do not abide in Christ will not be saved.

You have always looked to the mouth of "Johnny Sinner", as he says his prayer, for your guarantee. It's not there. The guarantee is in God's word. His word will show whether Johnny's prayer was any good or not. Since I can only speak for myself, I am confident in my assurance, and that my prayer "took". :)

God's word? You hear voices? What are you talking about? As to your confidence that your prayers took, how confident were you immediately following the first time you did it - then fell away, a proposition that could have lasted until your death? Yes, we can have confidence that we are in the Lord, but that doesn't assure that we are of the elect. It only helps us trust in the Lord today.

Wow! You're strict. What would you accept as evidence or proof? How many God points do I need? :)

There is NOTHING you can do that will prove you are of the elect 5 years from now. What sort of question is that? All we can do is look at our current stance with the Lord and our past - trusting in God's mercy that if we were to die today, He would have brought us into heaven.

You surprise me when you say that God's promises are only for those who follow Him, but do not make a mistake (presumably any time) later. What is the use of confession, if God's promises are of no value to any person who sins after being baptized?

That is from God's eternal point of view. Only His sheep will follow Him. But that doesn't mean every minute of the day. Confession is for those who desire to rectify their relationship with God and others. God doesn't make promises to those who turn away from Him without repentance.

According to you, therefore, God's promises are not to us. That's OK. I will give you that you are consistent.

I have never judged you this way. I am only saying that you are being presumptuous on your status with the Lord 5 years from now, or the day of your death. God's promises are not for those who turn away and don't repent. It has nothing to do with being Protestant or being Catholic.

When it comes to the elect, there is no "still". One is either a member from before time began and for all time, or one is not, and never will be. God is the only judge of what "falling away" means, how long and how much. That's another reason why we are so careful not to speculate on the salvation of others.

Looking from God's perspective, again... You just don't have that information about your future - God knows whether you are of the elect, but you don't know. Haven't you admitted that reciting the Sinner's Prayer does not make you of the Elect? Thus, you are saying that your good deeds are the basis for your understanding of your being of the elect. But how do you know you will continue in your good deeds - and thus, your foundation for determining your salvation in heaven is taken away? I know of people who were Christian for many years, and fell away from Christ. Who would have thought - 20 years of good deeds - now they are agnostic... but you know you won't be that way...

Logically, if we are still in jeopardy of somehow losing this salvation, we are not in a very “safe” place."

Please. That is not logical. Nothing there about permanent safety is suggested by your quote. After King David expanded Israel's territory, providing peace and safety to all Jews during his rule, did that prevent the Assyrians and Babylonians from conquering ALL of Israel??? A safe place today can be VERY unsafe tommorrow...

I am merely reading Scripture. "Being saved" refers to past, present, and future utilizations. Paul uses all three tenses. If you like, I will post them. When Jesus healed someone, did that mean they never got sick again??? When Jesus said "it was finished", it means His life was finished. He died. The suffering was over. He had completed His Father's will. That doesn't mean HIS WORK was done! Christ's work continues to this day! He continues to bring people into the Kingdom of God! For example, I recall that Christ ROSE FROM THE DEAD! Why would He do that if "His work was finished"? Why His continued teachings? Why breathe upon the Disciples, giving them the power to forgive sins? Why the Great Commission?

I just wanted to point out that you are quoting Moses (Dt 30:19), even though it sounds like the quote might be from God. And, no, I'm not accusing you of anything. :) My point is only that the POV is human and not divine.

Sorry, Moses is giving God's revelation - or do you doubt that Scripture is God's Word?

"These [are] the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb." Dt 29:1.

Moses continues for several chapters revealing what God's commands were...What can I say?

Sure, the point of view is human. From our point of view, we CHOOSE God or not. From our point of view, we have free will to make this decision. God allows us to choose - since love demands it.

Regards

Eve chose wrongly because she was deceived and Mary chose correctly because she was not deceived. Is that your position?

No it is not. The "because" part needs elaboration. Eve was told by the Serpent that she will not die eating the fruit and in fact be like God. That was a lie. What is the next thing Eve does? She tests the lie by examining the fruit. At this point, and based on her own senses, she forms her own free-will decision. Eve was not made eat the fruit by the Serpent, as is demonstrated by verses 3 6 in Genesis 3.

Symmetrically, when Mary is told that she will have the Messiah born of her, she tests the news by questioning the angel for consistency of his prediction. After the angel explains, apparently based on her own knowledge and intellect, she agrees to do as God wills under her own free will. The angel did not make her consort with the Holy Ghost as is demonstrated by verses 34 and 38 in Luke 1.

I believe I commented on Mary and Eve earlier in this thread, sorry if it sounds repetitive.

Indeed St. Paul saw Christ as second Adam. The insight that Mary was second Eve belongs to Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, chapter 100), written early in the 2 century. This is a natural extension of Adam-Christ symmetry.

He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to thy word.' And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him
(DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO)

*** I agree with Kosta that there is certain heararchy between the books of the Old Testament. Some, like the Pentateuch and the Great Prophets, are at the core of the Divine Revelation of the relationship between God and Man. Others, like the Judges, the Kings, and the Maccabees, while related to the economy of salvation, do so through the prism of historical narrative of the Jewish nation. Yet others, like the Psalms and the Proverbs, are poetry engineered to inspire the soul rather than inform the intellect for theological discourse. It is proper to look for the historical books for the understanding of the Old Covenant as it reflects in the works of men. It is also proper to look in Proverbs in order to meditate on each subject it brings up. But if one wants to understand the Fall, read Genesis 3, and if one wants to understand Mary, read Luke 1 or John 2. The verses from elsewhere, not revealed in connection to these subjects, cannot be ignored, of course, but they should be given secondary weight. Likewise a verse from the historical narrative of the scripture that refers to God leading a military leader to victory should not be given the same weight as a verse from Genesis or the Gospels, that is there for the express purpose to describe God. And surely, no verse form the Old Testament can be used to controvert the New Testament, because Christ taught us to look at the Old Covenant through the prism of His revelation in the New.

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.