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.

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?

It seems obvious that this is a figure of expression - unless when the author says "all", he is refering to those in the immediate vicinity who saw the Teacher. This is the problem with interpretation. Sometimes, it is not so clear what the author means.

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.

I don't see that in 1 John 2:1, which is why I "left it off". 1 John is written to Christians, certainly. But I don't see anywhere in 1 John 2:1 that makes your claim that non-believers do NOT have an advocate in Jesus. You are jumping to conclusions and twisting Scripture. In one sentence, you have Jesus advocating only for believers, then in the very next sentence, He has died for the sins of ALL men, the whole world.

Not all.... re: Rom5

Not all will use God's gifts. Isn't it clear that not everyone will be saved, due to their disregarding what is clear to ALL men (Rom 1:18-26)?

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.

My point is not the origin of my faith, but the perseverance. IF there is no perseverance, where does that logically leave me?

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

I don't have problems with that interpretation. I have told you time and again that we believe that God makes the first step and takes the initiative to justify us. YOU presume that because of this initial justification, a person cannnot lose their standing with God - thus, you tie your initial justification with being of the elect. Unfortunately, experience shows us that some fall away AFTER being "regenerated" - which forces you to twist Scritpure to make the claim that "one was never regenerated to begin with".

The question: What caused that person to do good deeds and praise the Lord, etc., during those ten years when they were Christian, before their falling away, returning to the vomit. Your theology will not let you admit that it was Christ and ONLY Christ that enabled that person to be in the Lord, to abide in Him during that period. You totally discount the idea that a person can do no good without Christ - to maintain your false belief that a person cannot fall away after regeneration.

Regards

Rather than answer all your questions and comments and continue this never-ending circle, consider this...

Pat the Protestant recites the Sinner's Prayer, very fervently, in December of 2000. She has no doubt in her mind that she is saved, that the "blood of Christ" has covered her sins and she is now of the elect. She walks strongly in the Lord's ways, growing in sanctification. She begins a transformation, slowly and gradually at first, but it is quite noticeable by all around her. She is not so angry anymore. She seems to be more patient and loving towards others, even when they are rude to her. The Pat of the past was never like this!

Well, this continues for several more years. She reads the Bible daily, is active at her community, attends Bible studies and is becoming more Christ-like. To all people, especially herself, Pat is DEFINITELY of the elect. She volunteers to be a missionary in a foreign country. She hears the Call of Christ (she believes) to go and convert the pagans. At any rate, to make a long story short, she falls away and reverts back to her old self. Sadly, she has come full circle and worse - since now she is frustrated that she has "wasted" so much of her life on following a God who seemed powerless to help innocent, desperate people.

My question to you addresses the failure of your theology. During those five years of Christianity, Pat was considered by ALL to be of the elect. She showed the fruit of being elect. She had a firm belief in the Lord, was knowledgeable about Scriptures, and gave of herself to others. It was clear that God HAD TO BE WORKING IN HER! And here is the crux of the matter : WHAT CAUSED PAT TO CHANGE SO MUCH DURING THOSE FIVE YEARS? See, people who know Pat will say "she was never saved to begin with". "She wasn't of the elect". This is BS. Scripture clearly tells us that no one can even say Jesus is Lord without the Holy Spirit. NO ONE can do no good without Jesus Christ. And so, if this person had shown so many signs of Christ's presence, how is it that now you will tell me that someone like this NEVER HAD CHRIST TO BEGIN WITH? What explains those five years?

And along with this, how do YOU know you will not fall to the same temptations? See, the major problem with your doctrine is that it ASSUMES you are of the elect. The elect can never fall away - as the Bible states. So, you CLAIM to be of the elect. But yet, when people fall away, you don't know what to say or do.

"She never was saved to begin with" is plain dishonest and shows the fallacy of claiming to BE of the elect forever. All of our conversation returns to this presumption. All Scripture you give me. It is meant for the elect - however, we cannot KNOW we will be elect until judgment day. Even Christians will be judged based on our deeds. Those found wanting will NOT enter the Kingdom of God. Since a Protestant cannot point to an event that irrefutably guarantees their salvation for heaven, there is no point in claiming one is of the elect - until that day when they face Jesus Christ, and He says "enter into the Kingdom, my faithful servant".

I would also like to address another of your faulty religious beliefs that contradict itsef:

You wrote : I'm not sure what part of my paragraph you find contradictory.

we are saved by grace through faith alone.

no one on my side believes that we enter heaven without love.

Well, I don't understand how I can make this any clearer to you, but you contradict yourself... Either you are saved by faith alone, or you are saved by faith WITH love. If you have faith ALONE, then you don't have love. One can have faith WITHOUT love. Read James 2, for example, and see the charecter who has faith without love. The one who walks by his brother in need without a care in the world - BUT has faith!

Again, you are contradicting yourself, brother.

Regards

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.

I respectfully disagree. How does the child making a cookie intrude on her mother's "sovereignty"?

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 is in total control. There is no luck. You are again placing God into time when He "decides". His decisions are based on what He "sees" all at once. His "vision" includes EVERYTHING WE DO! With this in mind, that God SEES all that we will do in time, while He is outside of time, how can there be any luck or chance???? God CANNOT err, since He has seen to the end of the world!

What you need to understand is that your prayer today is seen the same "time" that God created water. Since God has such "vision", why is it a problem for God to act based on our responses that He foresees outside of time before they even take place?

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

It is a universal rule. ALL people KNOW when they have been "wronged"! Even the worse of crinimals have a sense of justice - that certain things should not be done to them or those they love. While they might not think it applies to them, they KNOW that certain things are wrong because their sense of justice is violated when an act (that they might perform on someone else) is done to them. Thus, Paul says "they have NO EXCUSE"

So God gives everyone SAVING grace?

God gives EVERYONE sufficient grace to be saved. He died for the sins of ALL men, not just those YOU choose or say. The problem is that men do not listen to that natural law placed in their hearts. Men refuse God's Graces. Scripture clearly tells us that we can refuse His gifts. It should appear obvious that men do. God will certainly judge us on what we know - and all are not given the same knowledge of God. But again, NO man is without excuse.

Your faith is more man-centered than I thought.

Meaning?

I have no comments on the discussion between Arminianism and Reformed Theology. I am Catholic, and I think we fall in between your two extremes.

Regards

FK: "I don't know that I understand your analogy. Once a debt is paid in full, the account is closed. The balance is zero. There is no account from which to draw. It is finished."

So all men are saved, then??? The Bible says that Christ died for the sin of ALL men. EVERYONE. Despite your ignoring these Scriptures, it is so. And yet, we know that some people will not be saved.

Of course we both know that not all men are saved. The work of Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to pay the debt of all men, but it was only efficacious to the elect. The Bible NEVER, EVER states that Christ died for the sin of all men. It NEVER says this. I can prove it. From our earlier discussions of Romans 3:23 you taught me that "All men" never means "All men". Instead, it means a particular subset of all men. So, with that freedom that you taught me, I'll choose to say that all the verses you have lined up to say that Christ died for the sins of all men really, actually only apply to "All" of the elect. That way we remain consistent, "All" doesn't mean "All". :)

"the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered" Romans 8:26

Present tense. Right now... Why would the Spirit be interceding for us NOW, after "it's all done"?

That is referring to intercession in prayer. We always need prayer throughout our lives. So, I agree with the tense. Here is my version:

Rom. 8:26 : In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.

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

It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us Romans 8:34

Now, Christ is INTERCEDING right NOW? In the present? AFTER He died for our sins and said "It is finished"?

I agree with you that He does. He answers our accusers and hears our pleas. At the time of judgment He will act as our personal lawyer and judge. (A very nice deal for the elect, BTW! :) When Christ died His work to pay for our sins was complete. No further payment, through good works, or receiving of sacraments, or anything else was required. But that doesn't mean that Jesus then exited our lives. He remains very active, IMO.

So when God commanded us to ask for forgiveness, it wasn't so that He'd forgive us our sins? What exactly are we asking for?

No, it was so that He would forgive our sins. Forgiveness of sins is necessary for salvation. After salvation, it is part of our sanctification, and is the will of God. The regenerated heart wants to obey, but we are not earning God points with each seeking of forgiveness.

Why does God give men the power to forgive sins AFTER His Resurrection?

He doesn't. :)

What is Paul talking about in 2 Cor 5 about the "ministry of reconciliation"?

Paul is saying that all believers should spread the good news of the Gospel to the unsaved. Notice that in 18 and 19 it is God who is doing all the reconciling, there is no "Co-".

If all my sins are forgiven before I even ask for forgiveness, then why aren't all men saved?

Good question. The answer is because only the sins of the elect are forgiven for all time. Christ didn't die to save the non-elect.

FK: "He already knew who would be saved and who would be lost. Yet, He spoke to many of the lost anyway. Why would He waste His time?"

Say what? It's not a "waste of time" to reach out to people, those you love, even when you know they are heading down a path of being "lost".

You take me completely out of context. Here was my full statement:

One thing Jesus was doing is teaching us that the whole world is a mission field from our POV. Of course, He already knew who would be saved and who would be lost. Yet, He spoke to many of the lost anyway. Why would He waste His time?

I was asking a rhetorical question. I was trying to show you that Jesus was teaching us how we should live by example. Jesus already knew that His words would fall on deaf ears among the lost, yet He spoke to them anyway. He was showing us what to do because we don't have His inside knowledge.

The God of Love loves unconditionally - even His "enemies".

I know that Jesus taught a principle to us that we should love our enemies, but do you believe it is absolute? Does God love satan?

Come on. How many times have I said WE don't know we are of the elect? Is this really such a difficult concept?

You've said it many times, and it is a difficult concept for me because I DO know. :)

[Re: Ez 18:21-24] Brother, isn't it clear that WE can come into righteousness, or come into wickedness, even after our Baptism/Sinner's Prayer?

Sort of, but I wouldn't use the word "can". I would say that after either a Baptism or a Sinner's Prayer (respectively), the elect "will" come into righteousness, and the non-elect "will" be in wickedness. I would say that's true for a Catholic or Protestant.

Saved to us means we are healed. We have taken the first step to eternal heaven. This does not mean we will MAKE IT to heaven. Thus, our "salvation" here on earth, our Baptism, is not salvation for eternity, like it means for you. Thus, what "ping-pong" are you talking about? We never said we are "saved for heaven infallibly" to begin with!

I got that idea from a conversation I had with another FR Catholic. It was probably on another thread, although I can't swear that I have ever been on another thread. :)

She told me, in essence, that once you confess your sins to a priest you are in a "saved" state, such that if you were hit by a bus walking home from the church you would be saved. However, upon the commission of the next mortal sin, you were then automatically transferred into a damned state until such time as you would have your next confession. There were standard "outs" that she and I discussed, such as what would happen if you got run over by a bus on your way to confession. :) Anyway, that's what made me think of this as a ping-pong effect. It appeared to me that salvation was won and lost, and won and lost all the time. So, that's where it comes from.

Therefore, all of the love for God that we have comes only from within ourselves

No. I have said this from practically 3000 posts ago, that we can do nothing without God. What other ways can I write this to make it more clear? It is not EITHER/OR! It is not either God does EVERYTHING or man does EVERYTHING. Have you learned anything on the Catholic perspective that God and man cooperate to bring that man to heaven?

Whenever I refer to "God's word" I am talking about the Bible.

Yes, a pity you so constrict God's sovereignty and ability to communicate through other means than a 2000 year old book.

Had I not been of the elect

There you go again, presuming. Presumption in God's eyes is sinful and takes away from His Divine Sovereignty. Rather than making such a self-claim, you should be more humbly submissive to God's Will, working out your salvation in fear and trembling.

God offers all of His elect the gift of assurance

That gift presumes you will PERSEVERE. Something that YOU cannot know. I have clearly given you enough examples of people who have fallen away and made the same self-claim to being of the elect. Now, a person like that - YOU will say she never WAS elect. How do you know those comments will not be addressed to you in five years?

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

I don't understand how my logic leads that way! I can know I am in the Lord today. He abides in me, and I know this by my obedience to His commandments. But what does that have to do with five years from now?

The assurance comes strictly from the Bible

You are misinterpreting the Bible. God's promises are for those who persevere until the end. How have you missed this theme in Scriptures? It is quite common.

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

IF! That is the problem. Some people are SO confident of their status, they DO NOT NOTICE!

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.

"It" spoke to them, as well...You keep ignoring this, don't you? This theology is misleading many Christians into a false sense of security, one that God is not offering. His salvation is conditional - one of perseverance in faith and love, not in a one-time declaration.

The author is obviously talking about salvational "safety"

What does Paul say about that in 1 Cor 10:12?

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

Christ's mission on the cross is done. He has earned the remission of the sin of all men, just as Adam earned the lose of sanctifying grace of all men. But His mission to mankind is not done! He continues to intercede for us. He continues to call to men, to move them to accept the Father in heaven. I don't picture Christ in heaven with a Pina Colada in hand sitting next to the Father - "well, my job is done"...

Does He have more work to do to pay for our sins?"

Clearly, no. His death is sufficient for the remission of the sin of the ENTIRE WORLD!

But that is not Christ's only mission.

an example of an outward call

LOL!!! Of course Deut 30:19 is an outward call from God to men! One that we can CHOOSE - either life or death, as my tagline clearly states. Yes, God chose us, but He also is aware of our choosing - since He sees all time as one event. I think Calvinists have problems with this idea that God and man do not exist within the same mode of operation regarding time.

Regards

My point was in regard to my opinion of the propensity of Catholicism to take the literal, intended sense of scripture. :)

Sorry, I still don't get it. (re: HA! Listen to the pot ... )

If you believe that God selected His elect, and they cannot be changed, then from His POV, the decision on our part is automatic.

Yes, from HIS point of view, His decision will prevail BECAUSE HE foresees our response to His graces, graces that He gives to others, as well. Again, we don't have access to that information. Only when we stand in front of Jesus, and He judges that "OUR righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, will {we} enter the Kingdom of Heaven". While we can have a certain confidence regarding our present, and we can also look to the future - we our hopeful that we will continue and persevere in abiding in Christ.

Of course, we don't experience that, we believe that we used our free will, when in reality our destiny was settled long before we even existed.

Again, you place God in time! God doesn't operate by human calendar. His action is all one simultaneous work that encompasses all of time. Just as Christ is ETERNALLY Begotten, "we" (those who are elect) are ETERNALLY of the elect - because God foreseen our actions and He responded by reaching into time and gracing us, enabling us to continue coming to Him. To God, His initiative and our response is all part of one action.

To God, there is not a calendar that He checks off "Things to do today", and then proceeds to do them. All has been done. God is the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last. To HIM, it is complete. To us, it appears that God "operates" first, and then we respond. But to Him, it is all one event. Thus, our response is seen at the same moment as His election of "us".

Regards

Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

IF we indeed share in His sufferings, IN ORDER THAT we may also share in His glory.

IF.

If we are children, then we are heirs. I have to assume the Catholic translation would be "If we are children, we MAY BECOME heirs, at some point in the future, which no one except God can know. No child of God is an heir by any means until after death." I suppose this is the plain meaning and intent of the verse? How about this one? :

Simple. We are heirs of God, IF we persevere in Christ, we will receive our reward in heaven - our glory with Christ. As Paul says elsewhere, implied here as well, a person can disinherit HIMSELF from what God has offered. Consult 1 Cor 6:9-10, for example, verses written to "saved Christians, heirs of Christ". Seems quite clear by the literal interpretation.

We are always children of God, but we will not receive our inheritance if we do those things mentioned by Paul that separates us from Christ. (John calls deadly sins)

Babies cannot believe in His name. Yet, you say that they, and any other non-believer who has been Baptized, are still children of God.

And Jews, including Jesus, was circumcised at 8 days. Is God now going from a greater to a lesser Covenant by restricting the members of the Church? Also, YOUR faith??? IF faith is a gift (which it is), then why do YOU need to proclaim it to receive Baptism? It is already within you as a seed given by God when He predestined the elect!

Please remember that the first Christians were preaching to adults - bringing the Gospel to people required that they understood it, so that they would recognize that the Old Covenant was incomplete. Babies cannot make that identification. However, it is understood that parents, by proxy, make such identifications for them. Jesus told the Apostles to not prevent the little ones from coming to Him. But that is what you do by withholding Baptism to someone who makes a faith declaration (which isn't even from them!)

Forgiveness and reconciliation are very good reasons. While the son could not lose his inheritance, he still wanted to be forgiven and be reconciled to his father.

He had lost his inheritance already. Jesus is not speaking about "eternal reward" in this parable.

Those who are already saved (already have their inheritance sealed), but have fallen away, will always come back to the Father. He has ordained it.

Saved in who's point of view? The person or God? Since we don't know God's mind, this doesn't help much in "KNOWING" that a 'saved' person will return to God. "Saved" people are falling away all the time - so much for the self-proclamation of being saved.

For the elect, God will CAUSE something that He knows will turn the man's FREE WILL? How free is that?

If a person makes a choice where he is not compelled by necessity, it is a free will choice. A person can ALWAYS look at famine or any other suffering as something from God meant to call him back, OR as something random or NOT from God - and reject this call. Free will.

By what you said, it appears that God is treating all of His children the same in that He gives them all "famines".

God chastizes His sons to bring them back. Hebrews 11 or 12 I am sure makes that statement (don't have a bible with me). It is our free will attitude towards these chastizements that determines whether we will return to God or not. God doesn't force us, but He certainly guides us and sends graces to us.

The only conclusion, from what you have said, is that God does not love His children equally.

AHH! NOW we're getting somewhere. Yes, that is part of the mystery of God's Providence and election of the predestined. It is apparent that some of God's children will disinherit Him. God loves all humans, but applies His gifts differently to different people. We don't know why.

Regards

There may have been no rule at all in actual practice and someone decided to invent one

Do you have any evidence for that, or is that a desperate to uphold your belief that is not clearly stated in Scriptures? With the primitive communication network in use at the time, couldn't any teaching have spread from village to village as long as it was popular?

So why would the Spirit protect ONLY the writings of the future New Testament, while ignoring what they were taught orally? The Spirit protects ALL of the Apostles' teachings, whether oral or written. One way or another, they will continue as a part of the deposit of faith.

And then, if a Catholic writer happened to like it and pick up upon it, it is then presumed to have been taught by the Apostles. To me, that is a lot of presumption

The Church, infallibly protected by the Spirit, makes it clear to everyone that a belief is part of the Apostolic Tradition and was held as such. Do you realize we can apply the same strictness to the Scriptures themselves and thus discount them (if the Church was not infallible protector of the Apostolic Tradition)?

The point is that no one can be sure what the truth is, even though it was "officially" solved. If translated to Catholicism, the Warren Report would have been declared infallible, and anyone disagreeing with it would have been a heretic. No room for disagreement or further study.

The Church is like its head, divine AND human. It is protected from error by God. IT is the pillar and foundation of the truth. The Warren Report never makes the claim to be infallibly protected by God. Either the Church is correct or it is wildly arrogant. One needs to make that determination. HOWEVER, if one holds the latter, then the New Testament is nothing more than another set of writings written by men whose testimony cannot be trusted.

It is possible that was a reason that infant baptism didn't have widely published opponents. It was popular, so the only ones who got the ink were on message.

Those who explored this human question did not find evidence to support that the Church considered that only adults were to be baptized. Even the Bible never makes that claim.

The only difference is that the SCOTUS is specifically ordained in the Constitution. I don't know where Councils are to be found in the Bible.

I also use that analogy - that the SCOTUS is to the Constitution as the Church is to the Bible. Councils are found in Scripture. Consult Acts 15.

Regards

But I don't see anywhere in 1 John 2:1 that makes your claim that non-believers do NOT have an advocate in Jesus. You are jumping to conclusions and twisting Scripture.

In one sentence, you have Jesus advocating only for believers, then in the very next sentence, He has died for the sins of ALL men, the whole world.

My point is not the origin of my faith, but the perseverance.

YOU presume that because of this initial justification, a person cannnot lose their standing with God - thus, you tie your initial justification with being of the elect. Unfortunately, experience shows us that...

God will see me home not based upon me running to church to take communion or participating in the local food drive. God will see me home because He has graciously and mercifully opened my eyes so that I may see to the praise of His glory.

1) Your theology will not let you admit that it was Christ and ONLY Christ that enabled that person to be in the Lord, to abide in Him during that period.

2) You totally discount the idea that a person can do no good without Christ

ONLY Christ rebirths us and enables us to abide in Him and brings forth good works. Any good that I may possibly do for God's glory is not me but Christ working in me. There is NOTHING that I have that I can offer God. It is all filthy rags. Christ must work through me and I must abide with Him.

A person outside of Christ can do "good" things but they are evil. (Matt 7:11) They cannot do anything pleasing to God just as I can't do anything pleasing to God. It must be Christ working through us and they just have not been reborn for that to happen.

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.