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.

It simply is that God's Son didn't die for everyone.

The next day John saw Jesus coming unto him and said, Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world John 1:29

he {Jesus} is the reconciliation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world 1 John 2:2

Christ died for the sin of all mankind, just as Adam's one sin effected all mankind (romans 5). We both agree that not everyone will utilize this incredible gift.

1 Cor 3:13

Not sure what you are getting at, brother.

God said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved

The word "Believe" implies an ongoing activity, not just a one-time declaration. Thus, if we continue WALKING IN FAITH, yes, we will be saved for eternal life.

God said He'll keep me safe. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;

Yes, in retrospect, the elect will have followed the Master's voice UNTIL THE END.

I believe God's word.

The "problem" is that we disagree what it says, don't we? Christ had plenty of foresight when He appointed an authoritative body to bind and loosen, didn't He?

Regards

Mar 2:13-14 And He went out again by the seashore; and all the people were coming to Him, and He was teaching them. As He passed by, He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting in the tax booth, and He *said to him, "Follow Me!" And he got up and followed Him.

Not ALL the people came out to Him. Matthew sat at his tax booth. Is the Bible in error or perhaps it is a figure of expression?

As for 1 John 2:2 you left off 1 John 2:1:

1Jo 2:1-2 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

Our Lord Jesus is NOT an Advocate with the Father for non-believers. The interpretation of "whole world" can only mean the "whole world" of Christians given the entire context of 1 John 2.

Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

Not all....

The word "Believe" implies an ongoing activity, not just a one-time declaration.

Of course belief is an ongoing activity. Where do you think your faith came from to believe in the first place? Who do you think gives you the faith to continue? It all comes from God.

The "problem" is that we disagree what it says, don't we? Christ had plenty of foresight when He appointed an authoritative body to bind and loosen, didn't He?

1Pe 1:3-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Even with an authoritative body they still can't get it right. The Pharisees found that out. ;O)

First, what you call a word of God is one of the versions that has become a word of God after tradition of men.

Second, you select isolated verses you want to believe.

Third, you make up your own interpretations.

But, let me ask you: if God were to reveal that there is no salvation for us...and He now decided to cause another great flood, except without Noah, would you still glorify Him?

It states in the scriptures that, in the end, EVERY KNEE will bow and everyone will be under subjection-including those in hell.

Would you still love Him?

1Jo 4:19 We love, because He first loved us.

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.

Yes, a man by himself is insufficient to be considered righteous. How can a man who abides in Christ do so if he is not of the elect? And, what does any of this have to do with being perfect in our actions while alive on earth? You've never heard that from me.

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 is in control, but He doesn't use that control to overtake our efforts.

I fully agree that God allows us to struggle, and that He allows many of the cookies we make to be misshapen. That's how we learn how to make cookies the right way, and this is a good thing in God's eyes. However, when it comes time to actually make the cookies, to turn the dough into cookies, the mother DOES overtake the daughter's efforts to help. The loving mother won't let the daughter anywhere near the hot oven. God keeps His elect out of the oven too! :)

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.

No, the trust I am talking about is a grace from God. If you believe that this trust comes from ourselves, apart from God, then what exactly do we need from God to come to Him? No one can have belief without trust, therefore, it appears you are saying that our belief also comes from ourselves, apart from God.

But why is it necessary that we pray that the will of God be done, if God's will is ALWAYS done?

LOL! Pretty good, Joe. I think we are commanded to pray for God's will for similar reasons that we are to praise God in prayer. (Does God really need our praise?) It is for our benefit because it reminds us of who God is and what He has done for us, both for our salvation and in our day to day lives.

We will always battle the serpent - and he will try to get us to refuse the Lord.

On this there can be no doubt. For the elect, under my system, the serpent always loses in the end. It appears that under your system, the serpent sometimes wins, such as with those unfortunate missionaries you told me about.

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

A wonderful circular argument!

Wow! When you take it completely out of context like that, you're right. It sure sounds like it.

My statement was in direct response to your challenge: "You are equating "being saved" with being of the elect ...". You were implying that is wrong, and I was saying that I disagree and that it is right. The sinner's prayer CANNOT be ineffective for the elect. I notice that you never bothered to tell me which of the elect are not saved, and which of the saved are not of the elect. Surely, this should be easy for you, since I'm using circular reasoning.

FK: "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?

The Bible. I hope that also gives you a good laugh. Ultimately, I don't judge the salvation of any particular person. I just answer hypotheticals based on scripture.

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?

Yes, if I am wrong, then my assurance is most assuredly delusional. If Christ really meant, as you suggest, that a person has to partake of the Eucharist, with the Catholic meanings attached, in order to be saved, then I am toast. I am perfectly comfortable with all of this, because if I am wrong, then the Bible is wrong, and I am worshiping a false God anyway.

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.

What you call presumptions, I call scripture. As for my interpretations, if God really did write mostly in secret code, to confound the elect, then my interpretations will be wrong. If, however, Christianity is a revealed faith, then the scripture is understandable to the elect. It appears that the scripture is almost completely useless to the average Catholic without a translation manual separately written by the Church.

FK: "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?

To your first question, 'No', we are saved by grace through faith alone. I'm not sure what part of my paragraph you find contradictory. On my reference to judgment, I was only talking about rewards in Heaven, not salvation at all. As to the parables, the elect will be judged worthy and the non-elect will not. It is impossible for a member of the elect to have salvation, and then lose it for failing these parables.

I simply read what is written. I don't make something out of nothing

You believe in one of man's versions of the Scriptures. You form your beliefs based on what you read in the version and treat it as the truth.

"Isolated" verses that you cannot explain

Just about for every verse there is a verse that seems to counter it, HD. Our understanding of the faith is based on the totality of the oldest Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.

You ignore those verses that don't fit your agenda. But, more importantly, you form your beliefs on isolated verses.

all I get in answer to my verses are "Yes, but..." or "It's a mystery..." or "I don't believe it"

Well, God is a Mystery or else we would all understand Him the same way. We don't argue over gravity, HD. God, we don't know the same way: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." {1 Cor 13:12)

Because we only know "in part" we do not claim to have all the answers (unlike some Protestants); we humbly accept our imperfect knowledge of God because it is not the knowledge of the Bible verses that is at the core of our faith, but love for God. If we love God, we fulfill the law. "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Gal 5:14)

But that's the "lovey-dovey" (your own words) part of Christianity that bothers you...which is why you don't go there.

No, I simply tend to believe one church father over another; no different than you. You believe Cassian. I believe Augustine

Wrong, HD. I believe in consensus patrum; I believe that it reflects, to the best of human ability to comprehend, our collective understanding of the Scripture and the Faith revealed to us by our Lord Jesus Christ.

The ONLY reason I can love God is because..."He first loved us."

Given, but that applies to all people, not just the "elect." It is also easier said that done. You must think yourself better than Apostle Peter who disowned Christ three times in dire situation. Lip service is everyone's specialty. I tell you that if God were to decide to drown the world for the second time, the churches would empty and no one would glorify Him.

Take the salvation out of the faith and watch churches become empty buildings!

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 have never had any problem with God being omniscient. He doesn't just correctly guess everything we will ever do, He sees and He knows. He does see our response before we "choose", but the key is that He sees it before He creates us, physically. (You agreed that in real time God existed before man.)

[continuing ...] 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.

And there's the rub. How much of God's foreknowledge went into His decision on whom He would pick as the elect? I would say zero, and you can answer for yourself. If you say anything greater than zero, then that intrudes on God's sovereignty.

FK: "Obviously, it is no where in the Bible."

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

No, I was referring to my immediately prior sentences about your assertions that God chooses us and we choose Him simultaneously. I was saying I didn't think that was Biblically supported, and that I had not heard an explanation as to how that works. To what degree is God in control, how much luck is involved, how much credit do the elect deserve for making the right choice, etc.? That kind of thing.

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...

I think it is an over generalization to say that the difference between right and wrong is written into EVERYONE's heart. I would say likewise about everyone knowing the Golden Rule. That rule is quickly learned through experience, but what says a person is born knowing it? There are just too many obvious exceptions to this idea. This sounds too "man-centered" to me.

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.

So God gives everyone SAVING grace? Your faith is more man-centered than I thought. Assuming you are talking about prevenient grace, here is an excerpt from A Short Response to the Arminian Doctrine of Prevenient Grace ... by John Hendryx:

"Arminian Similarities with Reformed Theology:

(1) All men need to be saved from God's wrath through the atoning work of Christ.

(2) Both Reformed and Arminians believe, that, without the grace of God, man is totally incapable of responding to the Gospel. In this both positions are in total agreement.

Arminian Differences with Reformed Theology in its understanding of grace:

Lets observe at least three ways in which prevenient grace sharply differs from the biblical view of monergism:

(1) That the Arminian doctrine of "prevenient grace" is universal to all persons on earth whether or not they have heard the gospel. (But doesn't the Bible state, "how can one be believe if they have not heard?" and "...faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ." - Rom 10: 14-17. This view, then, embraces the idea that the gospel is not necessary for one to be saved. In spite of the overwhelming case made by Paul against the Gentiles in Romans 1-3, the Arminians believe that some who have never heard the gospel can actually live their whole life without violating their conscience in sinless perfection, and thus be saved.)

(2) Prevenient grace is not effectual but puts us in a "neutral" frame of reference (fallen man can either swing to receive or reject Christ) But this raises a question. If our desires are "neutral" what causes a man to choose one way or another? It is both biblical (A thorn tree does not produce grapes) and self-evident that we always choose something based on our greatest desires. If we do not desire God or the world, choice is either impossible or it is by chance. Lets be clear that this concept is no where taught in the Bible. Arminians awkwardly force this on the Scripture in order to hold their system together. This alone should lead us to reject it. Unaided reason should NEVER be the foundation of our theological insights.

(3) Arminians hold that while still unregenerate some can and will improve on grace ... that God's prevenient grace takes us part of the way to salvation but man's still unregenerate will does the rest. Therefore, if all human beings have this prevenient grace at some point in their life, it wasn't grace that makes men to differ but the persons who made use of what God gave them which makes them to differ.

In other words some men had the ability to create a right thought, generate a right affection, or originate a right volition that was autonomous, beyond and independent of grace that led to their salvation while other men could not come up with what was needed to be saved. Why do some men make use of grace and not others? So, to the Arminian, the grace of God is still penultimate while the sinners faith is ultimate, the sine qua non of his salvation. So whether or not God extends prevenient grace you still have the same result: one man from his unregenerate will generates belief, another man from his unregenerate will does not generate belief and rejects Christ. What makes these two persons to differ? If they both received prevenient grace, why does one believe and not the other? One is making a morally good choice and the other a morally bad choice. Any way to look at Arminian prevenient grace it is merit that ultimately makes men to differ and besides having no biblical support this makes the position untenable. They are making the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and do not agree that it is the effectual gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble. I guess Arminians believe that some beggars are more equal than others. ...

The Scriptures testify that the man without the Spirit cannot understand the things of God (1 Cor 2:14). Even with prevenient grace theoretically putting humanity in a neutral position, we would still lack the quickening Spirit to give us what we need. How is it then that the natural man can understand or desire God independent of grace? Can a blind man see prior to his eyes being opened? Can a man with a heart of stone love and desire God before His heart is made flesh? How can a ox desire flesh to eat or water rise above its source? We believe that salvation is of the Lord from beginning to end. He deserves all the glory. While we were still helpless Christ died for us and His death purchased everything we need to be saved, including our regeneration. For an unregenerate man would not ever desire the things of God on his own. If God's grace does not save us then man still ultimately decides based on some principle within, either good or evil."

I will continue in my next post.

Continuing from the last post:

FK: "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.

Therefore, all of the love for God that we have comes only from within ourselves, and not from God. Just as God created satan, who later became evil, so did God create us, and we later developed love for Him on our own? Is this a fair statement of your view?

FK: "You have always looked to the mouth of "Johnny Sinner", as he says his prayer, for your guarantee [of assurance]. It's not there. The guarantee is in God's word. ...

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?

I'm sorry. Whenever I refer to "God's word" I am talking about the Bible. I didn't know that Catholics don't see it that way. ... When I said the sinner's prayer as a teenager I was very confident of my salvation. That never changed, even when I fell away during college, because at that time I believed in OSAS. (Lucky for me :) Had I not been of the elect then that condition would have lasted until my death. But, praise Jesus, it didn't turn out like that. :)

FK: "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.

Well, at least you answered my question, so thank you. :) I believe that through scripture, God offers all of His elect the gift of assurance, and I have just chosen to accept it.

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.

Then if I am following your logic, since no one can say what his status will be with the Lord 5 years from now, then ALL of God's promises are USELESS to anyone TODAY. NO ONE can know if God's promises apply to him personally, so they are all useless. Is that what you mean?

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.

I certainly have admitted that saying the sinner's prayer does not change me from being of the non-elect into being of the elect. I believe that is true. I don't think at all that whatever my good deeds are, this is a basis for assurance. The assurance comes strictly from the Bible, and the good deeds are a simple evidence that I am on the right path. I actually believe that for some people it is possible to fall away without really ever realizing or intending it to happen. So, if I ever noticed, or it was pointed out to me, that my good deeds took a dramatic downturn, then it would be a bright red flag to me to take stock of my condition in Christ.

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...

I am very sorry about those people. You have said that I cannot prove it to you, but 'Yes', I know. I am by no means better or smarter than any of them, it is just something that speaks to me from scripture.

[From the article FK cited:] 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???

The author is obviously talking about salvational "safety", not physical safety. No one is ever guaranteed physical safety no matter who he is. Ask Jesus. :)

"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???

Do you equate a physical healing with the Biblical meaning of the word "saved"???

[continuing ...] 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.

The only thing I DO agree with is that He completed His father's will. What do you say that will was?

[continuing ...] 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?

Nice try, but I specifically said "Does He have more work to do to pay for our sins?" You don't address that at all here.

[On Dt. 30:19, and to FK noting that it was actually Moses speaking and not God directly :] Sorry, Moses is giving God's revelation - or do you doubt that Scripture is God's Word? ... Sure, the point of view is human. From our point of view, we CHOOSE God or not. ...

No, I have no doubt that scripture is God's word. And, as Harley said earlier, this is an example of an outward call. It was for the same reason that we are to spread the Gospel to the whole world, as opposed to only a select few. That's why I thought it was important that the POV was human. The "choosing" is a human perception, when unknown to probably most who do it at the time, it was actually God who chose us first.

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.