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.

technically, what defines a monk.

A monk may be conveniently defined as a member of a community of men, leading a more or less contemplative life apart from the world, under the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, according to a rule characteristic of the particular order to which he belongs.
[...]
the word monachus in the fourth century was freely used of those consecrated to God, whether they lived as hermits or in communities. So again St. Benedict a little later (c. 535) states at the beginning of his rule that there are four kinds of monks (monachi):

cenobites who live together under a rule or an abbot,
anchorites or hermits, who after long training in the discipline of a community, go forth to lead a life of solitude (and of both of these classed he approves; but also
"sarabites" and
"girovagi" (wandering monks), whom he strongly condemns as men whose religious life is but a pretence, and who do their own without the restraint of obedience.
It is probably due to the fact that the Rule of St. Benedict so constantly describes the brethren as monachi and their residence as monaslerium, that a tradition has arisen according to which these terms in Latin and English (though not so uniformly in the case of the corresponding German and French works) are commonly applied only to those religious bodies which in some measure reproduce the conditions of life contemplated in the old Benedictine Rule. The mendicant friars, e.g. the Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites, etc., though they live in community and chant the Divine Office in choir, are not correctly described as monks. Their work of preaching, mixing with their fellow men in the world, soliciting alms, and moving from place to place, is inconsistent with the monastic ideal. The same is to be said of the "clerks regular", like the Jesuits, in whose rule the work of the apostolate is regarded as so important that it is considered incompatible with the obligation of singing office in choir. Again members of the religious congregations of men, which take simple but not solemn vows, are not usually designated as monks. On the other hand it should be noted that in former days a monk, even though he sang office in choir, was not necessarily a priest, the custom in this respect having changed a good deal since medieval times. Besides the Benedictines with their various modifications and offshoots, i.e. the Cluniacs, Cistercians, Trappists etc., the best known orders of monks are the Carthusians, the Premonstratensians, and the Camaldolese. The honorary prefix Dom, and abbreviation of Dominus is given to Benedictines and Carthusians.
Monk

That's pretty funny. "Shavenness is next to Godliness"? :) Plus, wouldn't Jesus, as a Jew, normally have worn a beard?

Actually, lack of shavenness is scriptural. Clean shavenness is not.

I watched on the Satanic TV (History/Discovery) not so long ago a "reconstruction" of what Jesus might have looked like! They dug up a skull of a man from that area and era, and showed how the Jewish skulls differed dimensionally from Gentile skulls (funny, that's what Hitler was trying to prove!), being more oblong or round than the skull of a non-Jew. After some computer engineering graphics trials, they came up with this olive-skinned Middle-Eastern looking character they said was "probably" what Jesus looked like.

Of course, they planted on him short, somewhat curly hair, and a short beard. The truth is, even +Paul says that man should have short hair, which seems to contradict the OT commandment, but the truth is that the Jews had styled hair and beards. Pious Jews didn't. Any kind of styling is seen in Jewish and Christian humility as being vain, drawing attention to one-self, and is to be avoided.

Thus, Orthodox icons always depict Christ with unstyled beard and long hair, which is what you will see in Orthodox clergy coming from Orthodox cultures -- Russia, Serbia, Greece, etc. In America, Orthodox priests are either clean shaven or have styled (clipped) decorative beards which is completely out of character with the Orthodox mindset and 2,000-year-old practice.

Which only shows that everyone picks and chooses to his liking and that egos play a much more prominent roles in our lives than the illusory image we have of ourselves would allows us to admit.

It is NOT clear that a person who disobeys God will suffer eternal fire.

"But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he has committed and keep all my statutes and live according to judgment and righteousness, he shall surely live, he shall not die" Ez 18:21

I think Paul is talking about unrepented sin. That leads to permanent spirtual death.

I am not sure I am following you. Are you saying that one has to believe in hell to be subject to going there?

No, a person doesn't have to know of its existence, per sec, to be subject to the possibility of going there. However, a person of today does not necessarily believe it exists. It is a matter of faith. We trust that the Word we have received is from God and vouches for its existence - one that cannot be empirically proven until we witness its existence after our physical death

So according to you, Jesus DOES lose some of His sheep

Reciting the Sinner's prayer does not make someone Christ's sheep. A person can follow Christ's voice for a time - and then choose to ignore it later. That person did not persevere. If a person dies in this state, they have rejected God, no matter how much they followed God ten years ago.

"But if the righteous should leave his righteousness and commit iniquity, [and] do according to all the abominations that the wicked [man] does, shall he live? All his righteousness that he has done shall not be mentioned; by his rebellion in which he has trespassed and by his sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die." Ez 18:24

Seems pretty clear. But I imagine that you will tell me that I am somehow twisting Scripture's meaning.

Regards

Oh, really? I don't believe I caught from the Apostles the part of praying to dead people or purgatory. If memory serves me correctly many of these policies were made by the Church-not the Apostles.

They are dimly seen in Scriptures themselves - thus, it is perfectly correct to see that the Apostles taught these concepts in nascient form from the beginning. For example, how much of a stretch is it between these two verses:

I am certain that neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities nor powers nor things present nor things to come nor height nor depth nor any creature shall be able to separate us from the charity of God, which is in Christ, Jesus our Lord" Romans 8:38-39

And

"The effectual prayer of the righteous [is] very powerful." James 5:16

To come up with prayers of intercessions from the righteous who have died physically but are with Christ? It is certainly a Scriptural teaching that can be clearly inferred from the Scritpures. There are other verses that also speak to the belief that the prayers of the righteous were efficient, for example in the Book of Revelation. Christian practice of the very first century shows that it is a legitimate concept that was taught by the Church. It didn't just crop up somewhere and then it caught on gradually as the "heresy" spread. The people on the ground must have believed it came from the Apostles, or they wouldn't have done it.

Funny, James (the true first Pope) said if you want wisdom ask it of God. One would have thought he would have said, "Run to Peter."

James isn't the first "true Pope". Get over it. And wisdom comes from God, not man. I don't think the Church ever makes the claim to ignore God and seek wisdom in man. The Church's claim to infalliblity and correct teachings stem from God's own protection, not the "wisdom of man".

Regards

If I understand the discipline/dogma difference then, I gather that this would be one of those things that the Church "could" change, without it being some major contradiction in faith or something. If circumstances were that too few young men were entering the priesthood for this reason, then the Church could change the standard?

according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church -- but private revelations do not constitute dogmas, and some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of the Church.
Dogma

Another word, doctrine, is sometimes used to differentiate between "truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God and taught by the Church", and anything else the Church teaches, even if not strictly speaking a dogma. For example, the late John Paul II advanced a certain view on human sexuality, so-called Theology of the Body. It is something the Chruch considers true and helpful, but a good Catohlic may still disagree with it, or over time it may be reviewed and changed.

A discipline is something pertaining to ceremony and behavior; it does not teach anything in itself. It comes from the authority of the Church, but is not claimed to be a revealed truth. It can change, but perhaps not for simply practical reasons, -- there has to be a connection to the formation of the faith. This is why I hesitate to agree that priestly celibacy can change merely to get more priests; for one thing, celibacy not only forms an obstacle for some, but it also attracts those who seek a more complete transformation of self. Celibacy connects to the theological fact that a priest is married to the Church. It is not likely to change as a matter of convenience.

Here is a good overview of these three terms: Dogma, doctrine, and discipline

Is your idea of simultaneity found anywhere in scripture? I don't think that it is. But, this idea is very useful to you in explaining free will, isn't it? This un-biblical idea allows you to erase all the scriptures that speak of God choosing us, and that is the reason we are saved. It's not the concept I object to, it's the use of the concept.

Apparently, it wasn't a concept that important to note in Scriptures. However, we can figure it out by theological thought. God is outside of time. He created it. Thus, He is not subject to it. Time = change. Thus, God is unchanging. THIS is in Scripture. God's ways do not change. Since God operates outside of time, He is currently in the PRESENT. There is no past or future - that indicates change. God is unchanging, thus, He lives in a PRESENT NOW. God views all time, past, present, and futute, as one moment. If this is so, there is a sense of simultaneity involved in God's decisions. Certainly, He foresees and chooses us. But since He ALSO is able to see our response at the same "time" as He chooses, it follows that our response effects His "choice" before we were even born in a particular year within time. Thus, when He created the heavens and the earth, He already seen our ultimate end: Our choosing and response to His graces that He would give to us within time - but to Him, an event that is unchanging.

Again, think about the "eternally begotten Son". He is ALWAYS being begotten from the Father in that unchangeless existence that is God's - outside of time. I admit, it can be difficult to wrap your mind around this concept, since we are not privy to God's ways outside of time. However, Scripture notes God's attributes of timelessness. Thus, theological reflection leads us to see that God acts in a different fashion than we do in time. The Church has recognized this in an undefined manner since the beginning. How? Because they have said from the beginning that we take part in that event of Calvary when we participate in the sacrifice of the Mass. Since Christ is God, that one event occured in our time of 33 AD AND HIS "time" of NOW. Thus, Christ, through His incarnation, makes Himself available to us today, just as He was available and will be available to ALL times.

Regards

Jonah sat inside a stinking fish for three days before he decided that perhaps it wasn't a very wise thing to run away from God

Jonah recognized the storm and its source - and why God called it up. Thus, Jonah, rather than continuing to run or denying the source of the storm, chose to accept God's will. People fail to see God's power in their daily lives all of the time. Just because there is a storm doesn't mean that God is reaching out to Jonah - so the doubter can say... When a person has such an experience, it is subject to interpretation - was it God? was it natural forces? Is there a 'who cares'?

It is God who brings us to repentence (Rom 2:4, 2 Cor 7:9, 2 Tim 2:25) yet you are saying Jonah brought himself to a point of repentence.

I agree, God brought Jonah to repentance - but as St. Augustine says - NOT without man! Again, you forget that Catholics believe that BOTH are operative in these actions. Jonah realized God's work and acquised to it - but it was God working in Jonah to move Jonah's will. It is not a case of either/or. It is NOT Pelagianism, as I have explained over and over. NOWHERE do I say that we come to God ALONE. You are twisting my words. When I say "Jonah did "x", it doesn't imply that Jonah did it WITHOUT God. I have quoted Phil 2:12-13 more times than I care to count. Is this really such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

While spiritually we are born again to a new hope, as Christians we are continuously rebellious children due to our sinful nature. God is constantly and lovingly reproving and chastening us to perfect us for His glory.

Of course.

St. Augustine didn't teach that man's will was destroyed. I have read enough to know that is flat out false. As to the Church's teachings, I have posted from the 4 greatest Fathers of the first 2 centuries of Christianity and they all talk about free will as existing, even after the fall. You are delusional if you think that Christianity taught that there is no free will - the ability to choose life or death. Your problem stems from your paradigm that man is evil and can do nothing, even WITH God. God is required to do EVERYTHING. Thus, you are blinded by what the Scripture says when it talks about being judged for our deeds, for being told to follow commandments, etc...We aren't commanded to do something that we are not able to fulfill - through the power of God's gifts!

It was condemned by the Council of Orange.

Prove that my point of view was condemned by the Council of Orange (2). Stop asserting it. As to my Orthodox brothers, the Council of Trent reaffirmed everything from Orange, so I will not be using that line of defense (which is a legitimate one for them. I bind myself to Rome's decisions on such matters - they do not. That is fine for this argument). Now, prove to me that Orange and today's Catholicism differs regarding grace and free will.

The only "action" we can do is what Christ does through us. Paul makes it very clear that Christians have a new nature and they will no longer want to go on sinning...

YES!!!! YES!!!! YES!!!!! AMEN! It's sinking in!

Oops...there's that "slaves or righteousness" again. How would you interpret being a "slave" to righteousness?

We are slaves to sin or to God. We are not "our own". When we turn away from God - even then, we are not truly free. When we follow God's ways, we become free - being slaves to righteousness. But Paul doesn't use "slave" in a negative fashion. A slave follows His master - whether it is satan or God. We were bought at an expensive price, correct?

I thought ALL scripture was inspired by God

It is. But Scripture makes it clear that the OT is not perfection of revelation to mankind!

"God, having spoken many times and in many ways in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, has in these last times spoken unto us by [his] Son" Hebrews 1:1-2

Isn't the OT covenant a shadow of the NT covenant? Why is it a shadow? Because it is not perfected. God's revelation to mankind is clearly not perfected in the OT. The question regarding evil is a big example of imperfect revelation found in the OT. Only through the Passion and Death of Christ does evil make sense.

Our Lord Jesus stated a prerequisite for believing in our Lord Jesus' words was believing in Moses' writings. Your statement indicates you have this entirely backwards. If we don't understand the fundamentals then we don't understand the message of Christ-that He came to seek and save which He lost.

Read Matthew 5-7 to see what Moses said - "but I {Jesus} say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother out of control shall be in danger of the judgment, and whosoever shall insult his brother shall be in danger of the council, but whosoever shall say, Thou art impious, shall be in danger of hell. (no provision for the 'saved')" Matthew 5:22

Imperfect revelation was given to the Jews. Christ fulfills the Law with these teachings and His life.

BTW-It was never the Old Testament that didn't make any sense to me. It was the New Testament especially John and Romans. Now it makes perfect sense.

That's interesting. As a Catholic Christian, we always concentrated on Jesus Christ and His revelation. We then read backwards into the OT to figure out what it means. Thus, our paradigm is with Christ in mind - and why we refuse the idea that man is evil or man has no free will.

Regards

I don't see you as believing in the "without me you can do nothing" part. It seems that you believe that man does a whole lot toward his salvation. He is a co-partner with God, and each have their own responsibilities.

I have told you that God and I don't work in shifts, or crews, or I do part A while He does part B. There is no way we can determine how God interacts upon my thoughts and my will. It is an unknown. But we realize that I am making a free will decision - this is evident by the very fact that I realize I can ALWAYS refuse to do the good.

A man must freely choose to persevere, right? That cannot be with God, or it isn't free. Man does it on his own with God's guidance, which he is free to accept or reject.

Every choice a man makes, God is either aiding us to make, or allowing us to make it (in the case of sin). We don't realize He is there in most of our daily decisions, thus, it is a free will decision.

Man does it on his own with God's guidance, which he is free to accept or reject.

Man doesn't "do it on his own". God ALWAYS is guiding us when we do the good. But God's guidance is not so strong as to force us to do either. This is clear when God says that WE will be judged on OUR actions in Christ. We aren't judged on God's workings through us! We are judged on how we use the gifts that God has given us - to choose the good.

Do you believe that a lost person can do good deeds and have them be "good" in God's eyes?

That is interesting how you judge people to be lost before they are dead...

What is the statistic, that over 80+% of Americans call themselves Christian? How many of them do you suppose are actually going to heaven? I think substantially less as well.

It is impossible to make a statistical guess on such matters. I don't know how I will act in 10 years, so HOW can I determine someone else's eternal destiny?

Regards

I wrote "Where is the reference point to what the writer INTENDED?

You responde "That depends on who you think the writer is, and how much of his/His own intent went into the writing.

How so? We both (I think) believe that God inspired the Scriptures through human Apostles. But what does that have to do with knowing the reference point?

For example. How do you know if Jesus was married? Did He have kids? Well, some supposed Scripture from the Gnostics say that He did. The Da Vinci Code makes the same claim. With all of these writings spread out on a table, the NT and the Gnostic writings, how do YOU pick and choose which is FROM God and which is NOT from God? Without a reference point - the Church - you wouldn't know much ABOUT God. If He was a Trinity, or ONE God ONE person, or if Jesus was an archangel, or if the Spirit was a person, etc....

But you don't really interpret the scripture at all, do you, even inside the Church?

LOL!!! Sure I do! What makes you think that? The Church has a broad way of looking at the entirety of Scripture. But they don't analyze and define EVERY SINGLE VERSE! They don't relegate definitions to each verse - "it can ONLY MEAN THIS". Not at all! There are only about a dozen verses that the Church says "this means 'x' and that is it." Most regarding the Sacraments. The we look to the Scriptures and interpret them according to the Church's deposit of faith given to it by the Apostles. Thus, we have been taught that man has free will, as I have posted previously from some of the Church Fathers who appear unanimous on the subject. Thus, when some one comes along and claims that the Scripture means something else, we defend the totality of God's revelation and look to the context of the Bible given this paradigm that we have been given.

Sure I read Scripture and look at Commentaries. But when I see something that I know is not correct - that is a false teaching, I ignore it. Commentaries are very helpful. Also, I have my own private ideas on Scripture. However, if I later learn that they are not in line with Catholic teachings, then I submit my obedience to the Church - the pillar and foundation of the truth. I am not the center of the universe. God is. So when He reveals THROUGH HIS CHURCH a particular teaching, it is up to me to form my conscience to God's teachings, not my own that disagree with them. But you would be surprised on how flexible the Church is on specific verses.

Regards

My discussion of the relevant passages in St. Paul should show that I am not unaware of them. They also underlie the Orthodox clerical guidelines regarding marriage, which differ from those of Catholicism.

If you look at the context of my exchange with Forest Keeper, the question was asked, since clerical celibacy in the Roman church is a matter of discipline, not dogma, whether it could, in theory, be changed.

My reply was directly to that point -- namely that Orthodox celibacy guidelines for clergy are found in the canons of Councils that we consider to be Ecumenical, and thus only would only be able to be changed, if at all, by another Ecumenical Council.

Clearly, mandatory universal clerical celibacy is found neither in the epistles of St. Paul nor in the words of Christ. If it were that clear, we would find that clerical celibacy would be universal throughout every Christian body -- except those that chose to ignore Scripture.

Mandatory universal clerical celibacy is also not the universal Apostolic tradition -- if it were, we would find plenty of polemics early on in the East on the subject. As it is, there is no such record, and all the Eastern Churches -- including non-Chalcedonians -- have married priests. This goes back as far as we have records, and the decisions in Trullo codified customary Eastern practice. Married clergy were common in the West early on, and continued on here and there into at least the 11th century. Were this not the case, there would have been no need for the Roman church to go out of their spell it out. For that matter, there were clearly cases of married bishops in the East prior to Trullo -- otherwise why would this Council have felt a need to make very specific canons about this matter?

We know that clerical celibacy was mandated here and there in the West by local councils, and that it was mandatory and universal throughout the Western Church shortly after the Great Schism. The fact that Uniates were allowed to keep their married clergy, and that certain non-Catholic clergy who convert to Catholicism are ordained within the Roman rite in spite of being married (and are not required to become celibate within their marriage) indicates that Rome acknowledges that clerical celibacy is not a a tradition of the level of authority as, say, the all-male priesthood.

What I don't know the answer to, and thus my comment, is what level of authority decreed or confirmed mandatory universal clerical celibacy in the Roman rite, and thus, what level of authority would be required to reverse it. Of course, a Pope could change it by fiat, but current conditions make it unlikely that a pope would take such a step outside of some sort of council. Or that is my impression.

At any rate, annalex can certainly answer Forest Keeper's question regarding whether the local discipline of clerical celibacy in the West could be changed -- and if so, how.

Intelligent creatures (angels, demons, humans) all know God, and it is through this knowledge that sin becomes possible: when we act, by virtue of our reason, against God.

Are we born with sufficient knowledge of God to make an informed decision, and is there scripture to support it? If we all know God, how is it that most of us make an informed and reasoned choice in favor of (spiritual) suicide? Don't we have any instinct for survival?

For instance, there are few women in Churches whose heads are covered, and that is decreed in the New Testament.

I agree with what you said about bishops. I know that women are supposed to dress modestly, but head covering, as in a veil? That is really in the NT?

FK: "We are born with a sin nature, through Adam."

I hear this over and over and wonder what that means. We are born spiritually separated from God. God gave us body and soul. Bodies have needs. Our needs are not in themselves sinful but how we go about satisfying them that is -- our intent and direction.

Here is an excerpt from GRACE ALONE: An Evangelical Problem? by Kim Riddlebarger (if you click on the link, just go directly to question "2"):

"The Scriptures are also clear that our sinful nature is something with which we are born. According to the Psalmist in Psalm 51:5, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." Thus we are born sinful, sinful from the very moment of conception. The Psalmist goes on to say in Psalm 58(3), "Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies." We go astray from birth and we are born liars. We do not need to learn how to sin, it comes quite naturally to us."

"The sinful nature (i.e., "the flesh") with which we are born produces a host of sinful actions. The author of 1 Kings (8:46) contends "there is no one who does not sin" and the author of Proverbs (20:9) laments, "Who can say, `I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin'? Indeed Moses writes in Genesis 6:5, "the LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." Thus because we are born in sin, every thought, every inclination is purely evil. This is not something that we enjoy hearing, but it is what the Scripture clearly teaches about human nature."

"And this doctrine of human sinfulness is not only clearly taught in the OT, it is found with equal force in the New Testament, even on the lips of our Lord. For our Lord says much the same thing in Matthew 15:19, when he declares "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander." Thus the specific sins which we commit come from the sinful condition of our hearts. For as it is used in Scripture, the heart is the seat of our very personality - the heart is the true self, what we really are."

"Jesus went on to point out in Matthew 7:16-20, that "By their fruit you will recognize [wolves who come in sheep's clothes]. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." Can any one of us here pretend for even a single moment that unlike everyone else, we are born good trees, and that we somehow escape the effects of sin which befall the entire human race? For out of each of our hearts inevitably spring the evil deeds and sins that all of us commit on a regular basis."

In addition, this passage specifically calls out Adam as the reason we are born doomed (without God):

Rom. 5:12-18 : 12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

I can't remember who it was, but I think someone has made the argument that this only refers to physical death. But if that's true, then the corresponding references to life would have to be for physical life, and that wouldn't make sense. No one has immortal physical life.

FK: "You imply that we think God forces us to sin. None of this is correct."

Yet God is in full control and ordains our steps? Did God not 'set up' the whole scenario in the Garden of Eden so that Adam would fall, as Harley D implies? What do you call that, FK?

I call that exactly correct! :) God sure did set up the whole scenario in the Garden, didn't He? Who put the tree where Adam and Eve could get to it? Who allowed satan access? Could God have prevented it, or was it an accident? You agree that God already knew what would happen, and yet He set the conditions. Why would God do this if He loves us? Because He is sovereign and it was His will. I can't begin to explain all the "whys" behind His will, but I can see the facts before me and conclude that it was His will.

However, I do not see how this would translate into God forcing us to sin. I am still thinking about the Pharaoh example that Harley brought up a couple of days ago. The Bible does say that God proactively hardened his heart. I am not sure if the idea is that God "zapped" him into doing evil, or if the idea is that God simply removed all grace from him and left him to his natural sinful nature, which would be a hardened heart. I think I have been arguing the latter, but I would like to hear more about it, if that puts me off the reservation. :)

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.