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

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

[HarleyD]

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erasmus On the Freedom of the Will

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luther's Arguments Against Erasmus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Battle of the Biblical Texts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Main Issues and Implications of Each View

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Importance of This Controversy Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kolokotronis]

"Grace gives man his "natural" development. This basic presupposition explains why the terms "nature" and "grace", when used by Byzantine authors, have a meaning quite different from the Western usage; rather than being in direct opposition, the terms "nature" and "grace" express a dynamic, living, and necessary relation between God and man."

Very good, S! :) Put another way, grace allows us the opportunity to fulfill our created purpose. Eastern and Western Christianity are very, very different.

[kosta50]

Do Eastern Orthodox women wear head coverings to the Divine Liturgy?

No they don't. If they do, they are Russian; and they won't be doing it for too long for sure. The Russian Church is probably the only Orthodox Church that has not thrown out a part of the NT because it is not "suitable" or "fashionable" or "equitable" or some other nonsense that has come from the West and has infected the East.

[jo kus]

I do believe that faith includes all those things you listed.

I disagree. They are not the same thing. Faith can lead to doing good deeds, but it is quite obvious that faith does NOT necessarily lead to good deeds. James 2 makes this abundantly clear. Thus, they are two separate attributes. Do you think the Pharisees had faith in God - yet, how much did they love??? No, brother, they aren't the same thing.

How else does Eph. 2:8-9 make sense? Haven't you said yourself that everything comes from God?

Yes, it comes from God - but requires our cooperation for it to take place. God desires that we freely come to Him. Love is not forcing yourself unto another.

In James, it specifically notes a man who "SAYS" he has faith. Anyone can say that

Take note of that. Anyone can say they are of the elect, also.

What do you think is meant by "moving mountains"? Do you take it literally?

No, I take it as a metaphor. But what's the difference? Faith and love are two different things in this passage. It should be quite evident that a person can have LOTS of faith, but have no love. This makes that faith worthless. Can't you see there is an interaction between faith and love? Faith without love is dead. Thus, faith ALONE does not save. I don't see how the Scripture could have made it more clear.

Is faith the only gift God gives us, or does He also gives the ability to love, to repent, and so forth?

Regards

[kosta50]

It has been pointed out that St. Paul said "ought," not "must" in this regard

The word "ought" is ofeilw and indicates that which is owed. The first and foremost meaning of "ought" is an oblgation, not a choice.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Hmmm. I often wonder if I'm the only person to notice that Catholicism/Orthodoxy argues against Protestantism with Jewish arguments against chr*stianity . . . then turns right around and argues against Judaism with Protestant arguments against Catholicism/Orthodoxy.

[Forest Keeper]

Have you ever considered that it is God's Will to give us free will? Isn't it clear that God allows man to choose, sometimes AGAINST God's Will? God ALLOWS evil.

I've considered it, but I just don't see how this could be consistent with the idea that God loves everyone and wants everyone in heaven. If God gives us free will, then that guarantees that many/most will wind up in hell. If God really wanted to have everyone in heaven, then He would have had the choice of a thousand different systems to pick from to accomplish it. He didn't. Instead He left it to our free will, even with all His help, it is still us that makes it happen under this view. ... I agree that God allows evil and that we can choose to sin.

FK: "... you make God DEPENDENT upon us and our decisions. You just said it, and I must disagree. God is sovereign, not dependent upon man."

you can't seem to keep from placing God on a time line, can you? What more can I say? God does not exist on a time line, thus, His decisions are not made in the year 1 or 1900 when looking at you and whether to elect us. His decisions encompass both His Will and our response, which He sees from outside of the timeline.

My problem in understanding what you are saying is that you are not explaining anything, you are defining things. When you say that God's decisions encompass both our decisions and His will simultaneously you don't tell me how that is possible, you just tell me that is the way it is. That lets you off the hook on the election issue and free will. I have trouble buying a completely extra-Biblical idea with no explanation. I feel all I have gotten are declarations. :)

[Kolokotronis]

FK: "If 'Yes', and Eve contributed to our being lost, then that would mean that Mary contributed to our salvation, right?"

It is manifestly true that as the Most Holy Theotokos, she did contribute to our salvation. The Church has always taught this.

Joe: "IF our nature was evil, then Jesus Christ did NOT take up our nature during the incarnation. The POTENTIAL exists for man to be sinless, in Christ (as Mary has shown).'

FK: I would say 'Yes' to the first sentence. The human nature that Jesus took on did not include our sin nature. It never applied to Him. He never sinned because it was never in His nature to sin. Christ could not have inherited Adam's sin because Adam's sin was AGAINST Christ."

So Christ's human nature was not a "real" human nature? FK, the Creed says "True God and True Man". As for inheriting Adam's sin, although some Latin Rite Catholics in the past may have misstated the theology of The Church in this regard, it is my understanding that even the Latins now clearly teach, in conformity with the Fathers, that NONE of us, NO ONE inherits the Sin of Adam. Please clarify for me if you indeed believe that Christ did not share fully our human nature and that we inherit the Sin of Adam and if so, your basis for these beliefs.

[jo kus]

I believe I pointed out this was John Cassian's view. Surely you remember that the Council of Orange condemned Cassian. If my fast reading is correct, you never did address the issue.

I think you are going to have to show me where the Council of Orange taught something that the Church no longer teaches, or that the Council taught that man has no free will.

I believe the Catholic Church's position is that the OT is just as "perfect" as anything else. I would agree that it was not complete for God was evolving His word. However, all scripture is inspired by God and is profitable...

The OT Scripture is inspired by God - but its theology is not "perfected". Again, we can consider the question of evil and how Christ Himself corrects the misunderstanding of WHY God allows evil. Christ ALSO corrects and perfects the application and understanding of the Law in Matthew 5-7. These are just a few examples on how the OT Covenant, while irrevocable, is just one step along the way to Jesus Christ, God's final and perfect Revelation.

I'm not sure what you mean by "imperfect" revelation. Our Lord Jesus told the Jews:

Most Jews didn't realize that the Suffering Servant was referring to the Messiah, for example. Thus, it was imperfect in that it was hidden from most people.

And, sadly, that is where you, and many others, error. People set up a paradigm and wrap scripture around it. They hold a Greek perspective of our Lord Jesus and everything revolves around it-the God of Love. Sort of like the male version of Aphrodites (without the lust).

EVERYONE does, including you. Regarding the "Greek" perspective, I don't have any idea of what you are talking about. Greeks were VERY offended by the idea that God, the transcendent creator of all, would become man. That was something they had a difficult time conceiving. Regarding the "God of Love" being Greek, the concept is entirely Biblical.

As Augustine and other church fathers point out; there is not one thing that you have that has not been given you by God.

They also talk about secondary causes - and as I have amply shown, they also believed in free will. There is not one thing that God has not given you. True. AND. God does not save man without man. St. Augustine said a lot of things that you don't seem to be aware of.

Regards

[jo kus]

Thanks for the info regarding St. Gregory. I myself would have to read more info on the distinction theologically between the two concepts - that grace is a created/uncreated energy. I do know that Catholic theology considers sanctifying grace a created energy separate from the essence of God Himself - BUT - God's Spirit is ALSO present within those who have grace present. I believe the Catholic position is based in part on Romans 5, but I am not sure if there are others in Scripture. I'd have to do some research to see the theological backing and understanding behind each point of view before I would detail this further.

Brother in Christ

[jo kus]

Did Eve contribute to the Fall or not? If 'No', then Adam gets all the blame. If 'Yes', and Eve contributed to our being lost, then that would mean that Mary contributed to our salvation, right?

The Fall effected mankind solely because of Adam's disobedience to God, since he was the first man, our representative and prototype. Eve, however, did play a part. She participated in a manner that God deemed to be allow - but did not take away from Adam's responsibility. In other words, man fell because of Adam - regardless of Eve's actions. But as Mary, Eve played a participatory role. Can any other human say that they suffered more than Mary at the foot of the cross? Two people were pierced with a sword at Calvary.

The human nature that Jesus took on did not include our sin nature. It never applied to Him. He never sinned because it was never in His nature to sin.

Then man is not saved. Christ did not sin, nor was He subject to concupiscience. But this was because He was made as man was originally made - WITH sanctifying grace. As a result of Adam's sin, WE are not born with it. Christ was subject to temptations - but He did not give in to them. Thus, if Christ is man, then man has the POTENTIAL to be sinless - just as Adam had the ability to choose NOT to sin. If Christ was born in a nature other than man's nature, then how is He our Mediator?

So, Mary was the only human ever to live up to her potential and never sin? She bested not only all the Church Fathers and every Pope who has ever lived, but ALL OF THE APOSTLES as well.

No. Her and Jesus.

It would seem to me that if she was so incredibly superior to all of the Apostles, that she would have gotten her own book in the Bible, or at least been treated as a major figure. She got neither.

That's because you do not understand that humility is a superior attribute, one required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Man gains eternal life by LOSING their life here, not receiving acolades and books dedicated to them in the Bible!

I also believe that God is in control of good things.

Sure. We cannot do good without God's gifts.

I can't think of anyone on my side who has ever argued here that God causes evil, and I don't think I have heard from anyone that God actively sends people to hell

Calvinists don't say it, but their theology inevitably leads on down that heretical idea. IF man has no free will, then GOD is the author of an evil action. Thus, GOD creates men for the express purpose to condemn to hell. It is not just to condemn someone for an action that is not their responsibility or ability to choose the correct action in the first place. Thus, no free will, then man is not responsible for his actions. This is where Calvinism leads a person - to claim that God is the author of evil.

He leaves them to their own natures and justice is done. There is no "duty" on God to save everyone. This is different from Him "sending" anyone to hell.

Fortunately, you still have retained some Christian sense from before your turn to Calvinism. This above is correct, but not in line with Calvinism's theology. Calvin would have God positively reprobating man to hell - for actions that were beyond man's ability to choose.

Regards

[kosta50]

Regading human nature of Christ. Orthodoxy considers man, only as he was created by God, as "fully human." It was his unaltered state. After the Fall, human nature became less than full in that context. Thus, when we say that Chirst took on Human nature, as we should be, not as we are.

The fallen man is not a standard of humanity in any shape or form, but only something less.

[jo kus]

grace allows us the opportunity to fulfill our created purpose.

I have no problems with that. That is what the Catechism teaches as well.

I would like to point out that the relationship between grace and nature has changed in the Western thought since just before the Vatican 2 Council.

Here is the concept BEFORE the 20th century. The distinction between nature and grace is rooted in the conviction that what we become in our relationship with God cannot derive solely from our own capabilities for self-growth. Hence, human nature must somehow be supplemented by grace - a communication of God Himself. In Catholicism, much thought was based on Aristotelean theory of knowledge that entailed a certain identity between the knower and the known...

Now since God can only be known mediately, indirectly, inferentially, it becomes easier to see how grace enables nature to exceed its limits. Grace supplements nature to "know" God. Thus, the concept of "extrinsic" powers given by grace. Grace, according to these earlier Catholics, is gratuitious not only because of our sin, but primarily because of the poverty of our being. However, especially since Vatican 2, Catholics are stressing the immanence (nearness) of God over the extrinsicism of past Catholicism.

To give you an idea of this past theology, the standard view was called the "duplex ordo" (two floor) theology of Cardinal Cajetan and Domingo Banez. Grace transcends nature's powers so much that it never enters the human mind or heart. That was one school of thought.

However, the other school of thought that has only recently been revived by Henri de Lubac, Joseph Marechal, and Maurice Blondel of the 20th century is this: the human person has a positive, unconditioned desire for the mode of existence offered by grace, but the desire remains inefficacious because human nature cannot bring the desire to fruitition. Grace COMPLEMENTS human capacities.

I have much to read on this complicated subject. Recently, theologians have been looking at the problems of nature and grace, so I have a bit to read to catch up on how theologians are viewing the relationship between grace and nature.

Brother in Christ

[jo kus]

Thanks for the clip from St. Andrew's Canon.

I find that much in it I agree with very much. I would like to read it again later and digest it. I especially agree with the reason why Christ came - to heal us from sin. I believe the Catholic Church is also leaning this way since Vatican 2. I have read the Catechism while preparing classes on Christian morality, etc., and have found the same concepts being taught - and moving away from the idea of following rules and regulations of the commandments out of obedience and avoidance of hell. It is a most agreeable direction to take and I am glad the Church is realizing this very old teaching and bringing it back as primary in the Christian walk, vs. obedience to rules.

Brother in Christ

[Forest Keeper]

My "version" of free will NEVER removes God from the picture!!! This is totally ridiculous and a terrible injustice to my position, as I have time and again said that God comes to us to aid us in ANY good deed to move our will.

There is a perfect example of why I can't make sense of your position. The second you say "aid" that immediately throws God out of the final decision because you have said repeatedly that a free will can resist advice if it is free. This does not match at all the idea that everything comes from God. If all God offers is aid, then the rest must come from us independently.

I am baffled on your inability to ascertain what "cooperation" means and how it somehow takes God out of the picture!!!

It is because you are using the terms "cooperate" and "free will" in ways I have never seen in the English language before. To me, "cooperate" means two or more parties operating together toward a common goal. You cannot agree with this if you think everything good comes from God. It is the same with free will. How can free will be exercised if everything comes from God? If you do not remove God from the final decision, there cannot be true freedom of will.

Then why do you read commentaries? Why do you listen to pastors and their interpretations? Are you being hypocritical now?

No, everything I read and everything I hear I always test against scripture. I don't change scripture to match an idea that I happen to like. I don't believe the Bible was written in an unknowable secret code, but for the explanation of men. I believe that Christianity is a revealed faith, and so I believe it is readable. So, when I read a commentary that is fully supported by the totality of scripture, I tend to find favor with it. Scripture is crippled when it is forced into the mold of the teachings of fallible men that do not match any idea of a common sense reading of the Bible.

The Bible tells us IF we persevere, IF we obey the commandments, we are IN Christ. Thus, the promise is for us, IF we continue to persevere in the Lord.

And yet none of these "Ifs" involve independent decisions apart from God, right? What determines all these "Ifs"? Our cooperation with God that doesn't come from us? Our free will decisions that don't come from us?

Now, substitute yourself into this scenario - "isn't it ironic that you are the one who presumes to know "who" spoke to you"?

No, I am free to presume about myself. I know my own experience, regardless if anyone else believes it. In addition, I have proof that satisfies me. (I doubt that satan would lead me to follow the Bible.)

Isn't that clear from loads of Scripture that WE are required to respond to God's graces of faith and repentance? Over and over, God's forgiveness is seen as conditional, based on our own turning to Him.

These are still more example of you implying that we make independent decisions for God. God gives us grace and then we are REQUIRED TO RESPOND ... Is God requiring something of Himself? God's forgiveness is CONDITIONAL on our turning to Him. Is God setting a condition on Himself? Both of these strongly imply independent action.

Christ has, in the same fashion, won salvation for men, but again, they must CHOOSE life, union with God (with the tools that God has given us, not by ourselves).

And still another example. If God only gives us tools then where does the rest come from? Tools don't make or accomplish anything, it is the user of the tools who does it. The user is independent from the tools. This goes against the idea that everything comes from God. For you, man is the user of the tools, the ultimate creator of his own salvation, even though he has tools from God.

[kosta50]

I can't think of anyone on my side [i.r. Protestant, Calvinist] who has ever argued here that God causes evil, and I don't think I have heard from anyone that God actively sends people to hell

To cause — the one, such as a person, event, or condition, that is responsible for an action or result

I think Isa 45:7 says it clearly enough: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

[jo kus]

If God gives us free will, then that guarantees that many/most will wind up in hell. If God really wanted to have everyone in heaven, then He would have had the choice of a thousand different systems to pick from to accomplish it. He didn't. Instead He left it to our free will, even with all His help, it is still us that makes it happen under this view.

Perhaps if you broaden your view of whom God will open heaven to will help you better. I don't think God expects us to be perfect to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but to love others in the way that God has enabled us to love.

When you say that God's decisions encompass both our decisions and His will simultaneously you don't tell me how that is possible, you just tell me that is the way it is.

On several occasions, I have tried to give you an analogy to help understand this concept. Perhaps you have forgotten it. Here goes again:

Imagine a very large mountain. Now picture many hundreds of people standing around this mountain. Now, each of these people represent a person doing something in one month of time. Each person is representative of a particular month and year. So you would have 12 people representative of "year 1", and so forth. Now, these people. They are facing another person of the "past" months and years. They cannot face into the "future" months and years. This is how we see time. We can look at ourselves (present) OR the past time that has gone by. Now God. Let's say God has a bird's eye view above this mountain. He looks down at all of these people. His "view" takes in ALL of the people. He is able to see "Jan, year 1", all the way to the last month and year, say "Mar 2079". Thus, God's view of time is all-encompassing. He sees all time as one present event. Also, He is not subject to it. He can "reach down" into the "people", the "times", and give them help or gifts. God is accessible to ALL times, since He can reach every person surrounding the mountain at any "time" He desires - while time is not moving forward for us.

With this analogy, it becomes a bit easier to see how God is able to reach into various points of time - while also viewing thousands of years later during the "same instant". With this in mind, there is no past or future. To God, all is one PRESENT. One NOW. As He does things "within time", time isn't changing, for Him. Those people still represent the same month and date - thus, no time changed. He is able to effect any point of time - while viewing how man or time will change - by looking at a "future" month and year.

Does that help?

Any other explanation I have heard is our view of God on a time line. For example, saying that one day to God is 1000 years to us. It is a human way of saying that God's "time" is not our "time". But it doesn't explain how God is unchanging. IF God's time WAS "one day" to our "one thousand years", literally, then God WOULD change! The above is the best way to try to explain how God is unchanging and is able to see ALL time simultaneously.

Regards

[Forest Keeper]

I think what FK is getting at is that anything that doesn't meet HIS "plain reading" of the Scripture is not plain reading of the Scriptures.

Of course, this is a two-way street.

Plain reading must take into account the Scriptures as a whole and the context in which they are read.

I agree. But I think we use completely different contexts. My context does not include a Tradition not specifically found in scripture. So I think from your point of view, when there is an apparent conflict, the plain meaning of scripture is transformed into being consistent with these outside teachings. It is "plain" to you because it must agree, definitionally. There can be no other options. Therefore, in some cases, a common sense approach, absent Tradition, must be erased.

I think he is still upset about Romans 3 and how Psalm 119 over and over disagree with each other (plainly speaking!)

Yes, I am still unhappy about Romans 3, because I think this concoction is just a required effort to give an "out" for Mary. It strains common sense. I have no problems with either verse you quoted from Psalms, and I do not think they contradict each other. I don't think I have ever said that any verses in Psalms 119 contradict one another. We just believe there are different causes for what is going on.

"The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good. " Psalm 14:1, and virtually repeated in Psalm 53:1

Is the Psalmster talking about the fool or ALL men???!!! Context, brother.

Why is it so difficult to see that it is the FOOL that Paul is talking about, the wicked - not mankind in general?

The Psalmist is talking about fools, Paul is talking about all men. By your interpretation then, only people who say "there is no God" do no good? Everyone else does good? But wait a minute, you said Paul was referring to the Jews. The Jews never said there is no God. How can this be? I maintain that these passages do not directly relate to each other. If you stretch it this thin, then any verse can relate to any other verse if it has as few as a couple of words in common.

[Kolokotronis]

Here's the Great Canon itself, with appropriate scriptural refernces. Not the best translation, but hardly a bad one either. Ut explains more Orthodox theology on the Fall, the nature of mankind, repentence and theosis.

THE ORDER OF THE GREAT CANON OF SAINT ANDREW OF CRETE.

This service is on Wednesday evening. Matins begins as usual in Lent, till the 8th Kathisma (55-63) and the Sedalion with its Theotokion. The first half of the Life of Saint Mary of Egypt is now read. Then, after Psalm 50 we at once begin to sing the Canon anon, leisurely and with compunction. Before each Troparion, we make the sign of the cross and bow three times, saying: Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


Song 1.

Eirmos: He is my Helper and Protector, and has become my salvation.
This is my God and I will glorify Him. My father's God and I will
exalt Him. For gloriously has He been glorified. (Exodus 15:2, 1;
Psalm 117:14)

Refrain: Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.

Troparia:

1. Where shall I begin to lament the deeds of my wretched life? What
first-fruit shall I offer, O Christ, for my present lamentation? But
in Thy compassion grant me release from my falls.

2. Come, wretched soul, with your flesh, confess to the Creator of
all. In future refrain from your former brutishness, and offer to God
tears in repentance.

3. Having rivalled the first-created Adam by my transgression, I
realize that I am stripped naked of God and of the everlasting kingdom
and bliss through my sins. (Genesis 3)

4. Alas, wretched soul! Why are you like the first Eve? For you have
wickedly looked and been bitterly wounded, and you have touched the
tree and rashly tasted the forbidden food.

5. The place of bodily Eve has been taken for me by the Eve of my mind
in the shape of a passionate thought in the flesh, showing me sweet
things, yet ever making me taste and swallow bitter things.

6. Adam was rightly exiled from Eden for not keeping Thy one
commandment, O Saviour. But what shall I suffer who am always
rejecting Thy living words? (Hebrews 12:25; Genesis 3:23)

7. I have willfully incurred the guilt of Cain's murder, since by
invigorating my flesh I am the murderer of my soul's awareness, and
have warred against it by my evil deeds. (Genesis 4:8)

8. I have not resembled Abel's righteousness, O Jesus. I have never
offered Thee acceptable gifts, nor divine actions, nor a pure
sacrifice, nor an unblemished life. (Genesis 4:4)

9. Like Cain, we too, O wretched soul, have likewise offered to the
Creator of all foul deeds, defective sacrifice and a useless life.
Therefore we too are condemned. (Genesis 4:5; Hebrews 11:4)

10. In molding my clay into life, O Potter, Thou didst put in me flesh
and bones, breath and vitality. But, O my Creator, my Redeemer and
Judge, accept me who repent. (Genesis 2:7; Jeremiah 18:1-10; Romans
9:21)

11. I confess to Thee, O Saviour, the sins I have committed, and the
wounds of my body and soul which murderous thoughts like robbers within
have inflicted upon me. (Luke 10:30)

12. I have sinned, O Saviour, yet I know that Thou art the Lover of
men. Thou strikest compassionately and pitiest warmly. Thou seest me
weeping and runnest towards me as the Father recalling the Prodigal.
(Luke 15:20)

13. In old age even, O Saviour, do not cast me out empty to hell as I
lie prostrate before Thy gates. But before my end, in Thy love for
men, grant me release from my falls.

14. I am the one by my thoughts who fell among robbers; and now I am
all wounded by them, full of sores. But stand by me, O Christ my
Saviour, and heal me. (Luke 10:30)

15. The priest saw me first and passed by on the other side. Then the
Levite took a look at my sufferings and disdained my nakedness. But
stand by me, O Jesus Who didst dawn out of Mary, and have compassion on
me. (Luke 10:31-33)

16. O Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of all, take from me the
heavy yoke of sin, and in Thy compassion grant me tears of
compunction[1] (John 1:29)

17. It is time for repentance. I draw near to Thee, my Creator. Take
from me the heavy yoke of sin, and in Thy compassion grant me tears of
compunction.*

18. Abhor me not, O Saviour, cast me not away from Thy face. Take
from me the heavy yoke of sin, and in Thy compassion grant me release
from my falls.*

19. All my sins, voluntary and involuntary, obvious and secret, known
and unknown, forgive, O Saviour, for Thou art God; be merciful and save
me.

20. From my youth, O Christ, I have rejected Thy commandments. I have
passed my whole life without caring or thinking as a slave of my
passions. Therefore, O Saviour, I cry to Thee: At least in the end
save me.

21. I have squandered in profligacy my substance, O Saviour, and I am
barren of virtues and piety; but famished I cry: O Father of mercies,
forestall and have compassion on me. (Luke 15:13,17)

22. I fall prostrate before Thee, O Jesus. I have sinned against
Thee, be merciful to me. Take from me the heavy yoke of sin, and in
Thy compassion grant me tears of compunction.

23. Enter not into judgment with me, by recording my deeds, demanding
an account of my words, and examining my motives and desires. But in
Thy compassion disregard my terrible past and save me, O God
All-Powerful.


ANOTHER CANON, OF SAINT MARY OF EGYPT to the same Tone and Eirmos:

Refrain: Holy mother Mary, pray for us.

To St. Mary of Egypt: Grant me that illuminating grace from on high
given thee by Divine Providence that I may escape the darkening of the
passions and fervently sing of the thrilling achievements of thy life,
O Mary.

Refrain: Holy mother Mary, pray for us.

To St. Mary of Egypt: By submitting to Christ's divine laws Thou didst
draw near to Him, having left the unbridled craving for pleasure, and
with all discretion thou didst achieve every virtue as one.

Refrain: Holy father Andrew, pray for us.

To St. Andrew of Crete: By thy prayers, O Andrew, deliver us from
degrading passions, and make us who with faith and love sing of thee
partakers now of the Kingdom of Christ, O renowned father, we pray.

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit:

To The Trinity: Superessential Trinity, adored in Unity, take from me
the heavy yoke of sin, and in Thy compassion grant me tears of
compunction.

Now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

Theotokion: Mother of God, hope and intercessor of those who sing of
thee, take from me the heavy yoke of sin, and as thou art our pure
Lady, accept me who repent.


Song 2.

Eirmos: Attend, O heaven, and I will speak, and will sing of Christ who
came to dwell among us in flesh which He took from the Virgin.

Refrain: Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.

Troparia:

1. Attend, O heaven, and I will speak; O earth, give ear to a voice
repenting to God and singing praises to Him.

2. Attend to me, O God my Saviour, with Thy merciful eye, and accept
my fervent confession. (Proverbs 15:3; Psalm 33:15)

3. I have sinned above all men, I alone have sinned against Thee. But
as God have compassion, O Saviour, on Thy creature. (I Timothy 1:15)

4. A storm of passions besets me, O compassionate Lord. But stretch
out Thy hand to me too, as to Peter. (Matthew 14:31)

5. The tears of the harlot, O merciful Lord, I too offer to Thee. Be
merciful to me, O Saviour, in Thy compassion. (Luke 7:38; 18:13)

6. I have darkened the beauty of my soul with passionate pleasures,
and my whole mind I have reduced wholly to mud.

7. I have torn my first garment which the Creator wove for me in the
beginning, and therefore I am lying naked. (Genesis 3:21)

8. I have put on a torn coat, which the serpent wove for me by
argument, and I am ashamed. (Genesis 3:4-5)

9. I looked at the beauty of the tree, and my mind was seduced; and
now I lie naked, and I am ashamed. (Genesis 3:7)

10. All the demon-chiefs of the passions have plowed on my back, and
long has their tyranny over me lasted. (Psalm 128:3)

11. I have lost my first-created beauty and comeliness; and now I lie
naked, and I am ashamed.

12. Sin which stripped me of my former God-woven clothing has also
sewn on me coats of skin. (Genesis 3:21)

13. I am wrapped in a garment of shame as with fig leaves, in reproof
of my selfish passions.

14. I am clad in a coat that is spotted and shamefully bloodstained by
the flow of my passionate and pleasure-loving life.

15. I have stained the coat of my flesh, and soiled what is in Thy
image and likeness, O Saviour.

16. I fell under the burden of passions and corruption of matter, and
from then until now I am oppressed by the enemy.

17. Having preferred a possessive and pleasure-loving life to
spiritual poverty, O Saviour, I am now harnessed with a heavy yoke.
(Matthew 5:3)

18. I have adorned the idol of my flesh with the many-coloured
clothing of shameful thoughts, and I am condemned. (I John 5:21)

19. I have been anxiously concerned only about outward adornment, and
have neglected the inner temple made in the image of God. (I Peter
3:3-4)

20. Having formed by my pleasure-loving desires the deformity of my
passions, I have marred the beauty of my mind.

21. I have buried with passions the beauty of the original image, O
Saviour. But seek and find it, like the lost coin. (Luke 15:8)

22. Like the harlot I cry to Thee: I have sinned, I alone have sinned
against Thee. Accept my tears also, O Saviour, as perfume. (Luke
7:37-50)

23. I have slipped and fallen like David through lack of discipline,
and I am covered with filth; but wash me too, O Saviour, with my
tears. (II Kings 11:1-4)

24. Like the publican I cry to Thee: Be merciful, O Saviour, be
merciful to me; for no child of Adam has sinned as I against Thee.
(Luke 18:13)

25. No tears, no repentance have I, no compunction. But as God, O
Saviour, grant me these.

26. Close not Thy door to me then, Lord, Lord; but open it to me who
repent to Thee. (Matthew 25:11)

27. O Lover of men, Who wishest all to be saved, in Thy goodness
recall me and receive me who repent. (I Timothy 2:4)

28. Give ear to the sighs and groans of my soul, and accept the drops
of my eyes, O Saviour, and save me.

Refrain: Most holy Mother of God, save us.

Theotokion: Spotless Mother of God, only all-hymned Virgin, pray
intensely that we may be saved.

Another Eirmos: See, see that I am God, Who rained manna and made water
spout from the rock of old for my people in the wilderness, by My right
hand, and by My strength alone.

29. See, see that I am God: give ear, my soul, to the Lord Who is
appealing to you, and tear yourself from your former sin, and fear Him
as the Avenger, and as your Judge and God. (Deuteronomy 32:35; Hebrews
10:30)

30. Whom do you resemble, O most sinful soul? Surely the first Cain
and that wicked Lamech. For you have stoned your body with evil deeds,
and you have murdered your mind with irrational appetites. (Genesis 4;
4:23)

31. Running through all who lived before the Law, my soul, you have
not been like Seth, nor imitated Enos, nor Enoch by translation, nor
Noah. But you are seen to be bereft of the life of the righteous.
(Genesis 5)

32. You alone have opened the cataracts of the wrath of God, my soul,
and have flooded as the earth all your flesh and actions and life, and
have remained outside the Ark of Salvation. (Genesis 6-8)

33. "I have killed a man to the wounding of myself," said Lamech, "and
a young man to my own hurt," he cried out wailing. But you, my soul,
do not tremble, while polluting the flesh and defiling the mind.
(Genesis 4:23)

34. O how I have emulated that old murderer Lamech! By my
pleasure-loving cravings I have killed my soul as the man, my mind as
the young man, and my body as my brother, like Cain the murderer.
(Genesis 4:23)

35. You would have contrived to build a tower, my soul, and erect a
stronghold for your lusts, had not the Creator confounded your plans
and brought your schemes crashing to earth. (Genesis 11:3-4)

36. I am struck and wounded! See the arrows of the enemy with which
my soul and body are pierced all over! See the wounds, the sores and
the mutilations that cry out and betray the blows of my self-chosen
passions!

37. The Lord rained fire from the Lord of old, and burnt up the wanton
wickedness of Sodom. But you, my soul, have kindled the fire of hell,
in which you are about to be bitterly burnt. (Genesis 19:24)

38. Know and see that I am God, Who searches hearts, punishes
thoughts, reproves actions, and burns sins, and judges the orphan, the
humble and the poor. (Deuteronomy 10:18; Psalm 67:5)

Refrain: Holy mother Mary, pray for us.

To St. Mary of Egypt: Thou didst stretch out thy hands to the merciful
God, O Mary, when sunk in the lowest vices. And He Who by every means
was seeking thy conversion, lovingly stretched out a helping hand as to
Peter.

Refrain: Holy mother Mary, pray for us.

To St. Mary of Egypt: With all eagerness and love thou didst run to
Christ, abandoning thy former way of sin. And being nourished in the
untrodden wilderness, thou didst chastely fulfil His divine
commandments.

Refrain: Holy father Andrew, pray for us.

To St. Andrew of Crete: Let us see, let us see, O soul, our Lord and
God's love for men. So before the end let us fall down before Him with
tears and cry: By the prayers of Andrew, O Saviour, have mercy on us.

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit:

To The Trinity: Unoriginate, uncreated Trinity, indivisible Unity,
accept me who repent, save me who have sinned. I am Thy creation,
despise me not, but spare me and deliver me from the fire of
condemnation.

Now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

Theotokion: Spotless lady, Mother of God, hope of those who run to
thee, and haven of those in distress, obtain grace for me from the
merciful One, Thy Son and Creator, by thy prayers.


Song 3.

Eirmos: Establish Thy Church on the unshakable rock of Thy
commandments, O Christ,

Refrain: Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.

Troparia:

1. The Lord rained fire from the Lord, my soul, and burnt up the
former land of Sodom. (Genesis 19:24)

2. Escape to the mountain like Lot, my soul, and make Zoar your refuge
in time. (Genesis 19:22)

3. Run from the burning, my soul! Run from the heat of Sodom! Run
from the destruction of the divine flame. (Deuteronomy 4:24; Hebrews
12:29)

4. I confess to Thee, O Saviour, I have sinned, I have sinned against
Thee, but absolve and forgive me in Thy compassion.

5. I alone have sinned against Thee, sinned above all men. O Christ
my Saviour, spurn me not.

6. Thou art the good Shepherd; seek me, Thy lamb, and neglect not me
who have gone astray. (John 10:11-14)

7. Thou art my sweet Jesus, Thou art my Creator; in Thee, O Saviour, I
shall be justified.

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit:

To The Trinity: O Trinity, Unity, God, save us from delusion and
temptations and distressing circumstances.

Now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

Theotokion: Rejoice, God-receiving womb! Rejoice, throne of the Lord!
Rejoice, Mother of our Life!

Another Eirmos: Establish, O Lord, my unstable heart on the rock of Thy
commandments, for Thou only art Holy and Lord.

8. In Thee, the Conqueror of death, I have found the Source of Life,
and from my heart I cry to Thee before my end: I have sinned, be
merciful, save me.

9. I have imitated those who were licentious in Noah's time, and I
have earned a share in their condemnation of drowning in the flood.
(Genesis 6)

10. I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned against Thee. Be merciful to
me. For there is no one who has sinned among men whom I have not
surpassed by my sins.

11. You have imitated Ham, that spurner of his father, my soul. You
have not concealed your neighbour's shame by returning to him looking
backwards.[2] (Genesis 9:20-27)

12. You have not inherited Shem's blessing, wretched soul, nor have
you received that vast possession like Japheth in the land of
forgiveness. (Genesis 9:26-27)

13. Come out, my soul, from sin, from the land of Haran! Come into
the land of eternal life flowing with incorruption which Abraham
inherited. (Genesis 12:4)

14. You have heard, my soul, how Abraham of old left the land of his
fathers and became a nomad. Imitate his resolution. (Genesis 12:1)

15. At the Oak of Mamre the Patriarch entertained Angels, and
inherited in his old age the spoil of the promise. (Genesis 18:1)

16. Knowing, my wretched soul, how Isaac was mystically offered to the
Lord as a new sacrifice and holocaust, imitate his resolution. (Genesis
22:2)

17. You have heard of Ishmael (be watchful, my soul!) who was driven
out as the son of a slave-girl. Beware lest you suffer something
similar by your lusting. (Genesis 21:10)

18. You, my soul, have become like Hagar the Egyptian of old. You
have become enslaved by your own choice and have a new Ishmael -
stubborn self-will. (Genesis 16:15)

19. You know, my soul, of the Ladder shown to Jacob reaching from
earth to Heaven. Why have you not clung to the sure step of piety?
(Genesis 28:12)

20. Imitate that Priest of God and solitary King who was an image of
the life of Christ in the world among men. (cf. Melchizedek: Hebrews
7:1-4; Genesis 14:18)

21. Do not be a pillar of salt, my soul, by turning back; but let the
example of the Sodomites frighten you, and take refuge up in Zoar.
(Genesis 19:26)

22. Run, my soul, like Lot from the fire of sin; run from Sodom and
Gomorrah; run from the flame of every irrational desire. (Genesis 19)

23. Have mercy, O Lord, have mercy on me, I implore Thee, when Thou
comest with Thy Angels to requite us all as our actions deserve.

24. Reject not the prayer of those who praise Thee, O Lord; but have
compassion on us, O Lover of men, and to those who ask with faith grant
forgiveness.

Refrain: Holy mother Mary, pray for us.

To St. Mary of Egypt: I am hard pressed by the waves and billows of my
sins, mother. But now bring me safely through, and lead me to the
haven of divine repentance.

Refrain: Holy mother Mary, pray for us.

To St. Mary of Egypt: In offering a fervent prayer at this time to the
compassionate Mother of God, O Saint, by thy intercession open to me
the divine right of entry.

Refrain: Holy father Andrew, pray for us.

To St. Andrew of Crete: By thy prayers grant me release from my debts,
O Andrew, prelate of Crete, for thou art an unsurpassed guide to the
mysteries of repentance.

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit:

To The Trinity: Simple, uncreated Unity, unoriginate Nature praised in
a Trinity of Persons, save us who with faith worship Thy power.

Now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

Theotokion: O Mother of God, unwedded thou gavest birth in time to the
timeless Son of the Father, And - O strange wonder! - thou remainest a
Virgin while suckling Him.

And again the Eirmos:

Establish, O Lord, my unstable heart on The rock of Thy commandments,
for Thou only art Holy and Lord.


Little Litany: Again and again in peace ...

Exclamation: For Thou art our God ...


Sedalion, tone 8, the work of Joseph:

O divinely shining lights, Apostles and eyewitnesses of the Saviour,
enlighten us in the darkness of life, that we may walk honestly as in
the day, routing the passions of the night with the lamp of temperance
and continence, and may see the glorious Passion of Christ rejoicing.

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit:


Another, the work of Theodore:

O God-chosen band of the Twelve Apostles, offer now especially prayer
to Christ, that we may all finish the course of the Fast, completing
the prayers with compunction, and zealously practising the virtues,
that we may attain to see the glorious Resurrect ion of Christ our God,
offering Him glory and praise.

Now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

Theotokion: Pray with the Apostles, O Mother of God, to the
incomprehensible Son and Word of God, Who beyond understanding was
ineffably born of thee, that He may bestow true peace on the world, and
before our end grant us forgiveness of sins, and in thy extreme
goodness make thy servants fit for the Kingdom of Heaven.


Second half of the Life of Saint Mary of Egypt is read here.


TRIODION or THREE SONGS (without bows) The work of Joseph.


Song 4. Tone 8.

Eirmos: I have heard, O Lord, the mystery of Thy plan, I contemplate
Thy works and glorify Thy divine nature.

Refrain: Holy Apostles, pray for us.

Troparia:

1. Having lived in continence,[3] the enlightened Apostles of Christ
make easy for us the time of continence by their divine intercessions.

2. Like a twelve-stringed instrument, the divine choir of the
Disciples sings the song of salvation, and confounds the racket of the
evil one.

3. With showers of the Spirit, O all-blessed Apostles, you have
watered everything under the sun and banished the drought of
polytheism.

Refrain: Most holy Mother of God, save us.

Theotokion: Humble and save me who have lived high-mindedly, O all-pure
Virgin, who gavest birth to Him Who exalted our humbled nature.


ANOTHER TRIODION, the work of Theodore.

Eirmos: I have heard, O Lord, the report of Thee, and am afraid. I
contemplate Thy works and glorify Thy power, O Lord.

Refrain: Holy Apostles, pray for us.

Troparia:

4. Most holy choir of Apostles, pray to the Creator of all and ask Him
to have mercy on us who sing your praises.

5. As workers who cultivated the whole world with the word of God, O
Apostles of Christ, you always offered Him your fruits.

6. You were a vineyard for the truly beloved Christ, for from you the
wine of the Spirit gushed into the world, O Apostles.

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit:

To The Trinity: Eternal, co-equal, all-powerful Holy Trinity; Father,
Word and Holy Spirit; God, Light and Life, guard Thy flock.

Now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

Theotokion: Rejoice, fiery throne! Rejoice, luminous lamp! Rejoice,
mountain of sanctification, ark of life, tabernacle, holy of holies.


CONTINUATION OF THE GREAT CANON.


Song 4.

Eirmos: The Prophet heard of Thy coming, O Lord, and was afraid that
Thou wast to be born of a Virgin and appear to men, and he said "I have
heard the report of Thee and am afraid." Glory to Thy power, O Lord.
(Habbakuk 3:2)

Refrain: Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.

Troparia:

1. Despise not Thy works and forsake not Thy creation, O just Judge
and Lover of men, though I alone have sinned as a man more than any
man. But being Lord of all, Thou hast power to pardon sins. (Mark
2:10)

2. The end is drawing near, my soul, is drawing near! But you neither
care nor prepare. The time is growing short. Rise! The Judge is near
at the very doors. Like a dream, like a flower, the time of this life
passes. Why do we bustle about in vain? (Matthew 24:33; Psalm 38:7)

3. Come to your senses, my soul! Consider the deeds you have done,
and bring them before your eyes, and pour out the drops of your tears.
Boldly tell your thoughts and deeds to Christ, and be acquitted.

4. There has never been a sin or act or vice in life that I have not
committed, O Saviour. I have sinned in mind, word and choice, in
purpose, will and action, as no one else has ever done.

5. Therefore I am condemned, wretch that I am, therefore I am doomed
by my own conscience, than which there is nothing in the world more
rigorous. O my Judge and Redeemer Who knowest my heart, spare and
deliver and save me, Thy servant.

6. The ladder of old which the great Patriarch saw, my soul, is a
model of mounting by action and ascent by knowledge. So, if you wish
to live in activity, knowledge and contemplation, be renewed. (Genesis
28:12; Romans 12:2; Titus 3:5)

7. Because of his crying need the Patriarch endured the scorching heat
of the day, and he bore the frost of the night, daily making gains,
shepherding, struggling, slaving, in order to win two wives. (Genesis
29:16-30; 31-40)

8. By the two wives understand action and direct knowledge in
contemplation: Leah as action, for she had many children, and Rachel as
knowledge, which is obtained by much labour. For without labours, my
soul, neither action nor contemplation will achieve success.

9. Watch, my soul! Be courageous like the great Patriarchs, that you
may acquire activity and awareness, and be a mind that sees God, and
may reach in contemplation the innermost darkness, and be a great
trader. (Genesis 32:28; Luke 19:13-15)

10. The great Patriarch, by begetting the twelve Patriarchs,
mystically set up for you, my soul, a ladder of active ascent, having
wisely offered his children as rungs, and his steps as ascents.

11. You have emulated the hated Esau, my soul, and have given up your
birthright of pristine beauty to your supplanter, and you have lost
your father's blessing, and have been tripped up twice in action and
knowledge. Therefore, O wretch, repent now. ( Genesis 25:31; 27:37)

12. Esau was called Edom for his extreme passion of madness for
women. For ever burning with incontinence and stained with pleasures,
he was named Edom, which means a red-hot sin-loving soul. (Genesis
25:30)

13. Have you heard of Job who was made holy on a dunghill, O my soul?
You have not emulated his courage, nor had his firmness of purpose in
all you have learned or known, or in your temptations, but you have
proved unpersevering. (Job 1)

14. He who was formerly on a throne is now naked on a dunghill and
covered with sores. He who had many children and was much admired is
suddenly childless and homeless. Yet he regarded the dunghill as a
palace and his sores as pearls. (Job 2:7-8)

15. The opulent and righteous man, arrayed in royal dignity, crown and
purple, abounding in wealth and cattle, was suddenly shorn of his
riches, glory and kingdom and became a beggar.

16. If he who was righteous and blameless beyond all did not escape
the snares and nets of the deceiver, what will you do, my soul, who are
sin-loving and wretched, if something unexpected happens to you?

17. My body is defiled, my spirit is sullied, and I am all covered
with sores. But as the Physician, O Christ, heal, wash and cleanse
both body and spirit with repentance, and make me, my Saviour, purer
than snow.

18. Thou didst lay down Thy body and blood for ail, O crucified Word:
Thy body in order to renew me, Thy blood in order to wash me, and Thou
didst surrender Thy spirit, O Christ, in order to bring me to the
Father.

19. Thou hast wrought salvation in the midst of the earth, O merciful
Creator, that we may be saved. Thou wast voluntarily crucified on the
Tree: Eden that was closed is open; things on high and below, creation
and all peoples are saved and worship Thee. (Psalm 73:12)

20. May the blood and water that wells from Thy side be a font for me
and a draught of forgiveness, that I may be cleansed, anointed and
refreshed by both as with drink and unction by Thy living words, O
Word. (John 19:34; Acts 7:38)

21. I am bereft of the bridal hall, I am bereft of the marriage and
supper. My lamp has gone out for want of oil, the door has been locked
while I was asleep; the supper is eaten; and I, bound hand and foot, am
cast outside. (Matthew 25; Luke 14:7-35; Matthew 22:1-14)

22. The Church has acquired Thy life-giving side as a chalice, from
which gushes forth for us a twofold torrent of forgiveness and
knowledge as a type of the two covenants, Old and New, O our Saviour.

23. Brief is my lifetime and full of pain and wickedness, but accept
me in penitence and recall me to awareness of Thee. May I never be the
possession or food of the enemy. O Saviour, have compassion on me.
(Genesis 47:9)

24. Boastful I am, and hard-hearted, all in vain and for nothing.
Condemn me not with the Pharisee, but rather grant me the humility of
the Publican, O only merciful and just Judge, and number me with him.
(Luke 18:9-14)

25. I have sinned, I know, O merciful Lord, and outraged the vessel of
my flesh, but accept me in penitence and recall me to awareness of
Thee. May I never be the possession or food of the enemy. O Saviour,
have compassion on me.

26. I am become my own idol, and have injured my soul with passions, O
merciful Lord, but accept me in penitence and recall me to awareness of
Thee. May I never be the possession or food of the enemy. O Saviour,
have compassion on me.

27. I have not listened to Thy voice, I have disobeyed Thy Scripture,
O Lawgiver, but accept me in penitence and recall me to awareness of
Thee. May I never be the possession or food of the enemy. O Saviour,
have compassion on me.

Refrain: Holy mother Mary, pray for us.

To St. Mary of Egypt: By living a bodiless life in a body, O Saint,
thou hast truly received great grace from God to intercede for those
who faithfully honour thee. Therefore we implore thee: deliver us by
thy prayers from trials of all kinds.

Refrain: Holy mother Mary, pray for us.

To St. Mary of Egypt: Though dragged down to the depth of great
offences, thou wast not held there. But with better thought thou didst
return by action to consummate virtue beyond all expectation, to the
amazement of angel kind, O Mary.

Refrain: Holy father Andrew, pray for us.

To St. Andrew of Crete: O Andrew, glory of the Fathers, standing before
the transcendingly divine Trinity, by thy prayers cease not to
intercede that we who invoke thee with love may be delivered from
torment, O divine intercessor, adornment of Crete.

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit:

To The Trinity: I confess Thee to be undivided in essence, unconfused
in persons, One Triune Divinity, co-enthroned and co-reigning. I sing
Thee the great song thrice sung on high.

Now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

Theotokion: Thou givest birth and livest a virgin life, and in both
remainest a virgin by nature. He Who is born of thee renews the laws
of nature, and a womb gives birth without travail. Where God wills,
the order of nature is overruled; for He does whatever He wishes.


Song 5.

Eirmos: Out of the night watching early for Thee, enlighten me, I pray,
O Lover of men, and guide even me in Thy commandments, and teach me, O
Saviour, to do Thy will.

Refrain: Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.

Troparia:

1. I have passed my life ever in night, for the night of sin has been
to me thick fog and darkness; but make me, O Saviour, a Son of the
day. (Ephesians 5:8)

2. Like Reuben, wretch that I am, I have planned an unprincipled and
lawless act against God Most High, having defiled my bed as he defiled
that of his father. (Genesis 35:21; 49:3-4)

3. I confess to Thee, O Christ my King: I have sinned, I have sinned,
like Joseph's brothers of old, who sold the fruit of purity and
chastity. (Genesis 37)

4. Righteous Joseph was given up by his brothers, that sweet soul was
sold into slavery, as a type of the Lord; and you, my soul, have sold
yourself completely to your vices. (Genesis 37:27-28)

5. Imitate, wretched and worthless soul, righteous Joseph and his pure
mind, and do not be wanton with irrational desires, ever
transgressing. (Genesis 39:7-23)

6. If Joseph of old also occupied a pit, O Sovereign Lord, yet it was
as a type of Thy Burial and Rising. But will I ever offer Thee
anything like it? (Genesis 37)

7. You have heard, my soul, of Moses' ark of old, borne on the waters
and waves of the river as in a shrine, which escaped the bitter tragedy
of Pharaoh's edict. (Exodus 1:22 - 2:3)

8. If you have heard of the midwives, wretched soul, who of old killed
in infancy the manly issue and practice of chastity, then like the
great Moses, suck wisdom. (Exodus 1:16; 2-9; Acts 7:22)

9. You, wretched soul, have not struck and killed your Egyptian mind,
like great Moses. Say, then, how will you dwell in that desert
solitude where the passions desert you through repentance? (Exodus
2:12)

10. Great Moses dwelt in the wilds, my soul. So go and imitate his
life, that you too may attain by contemplation to the vision of God in
the bush. (Exodus 3:1)

11. Imagine Moses' staff striking the sea and fixing the deep as a
type of the divine Cross, by which you too, my soul, can accomplish
great things. (Exodus 14:16)

12. Aaron offered to God the fire pure and undefiled; but Hophni and
Phinehas, like you, my soul, offered to God a foul and rebellious
life. (Leviticus 9:21-24; I Kings 2:12-34)

13. How heavy in character I have become, in soul and body, like
Jannes and Jambres in Pharaoh's bitter service, and my mind has sunk
low. But help me, O Lord. (Exodus 7:11; II Timothy 3:8)

14. I, wretch that I am, have rolled my mind in mud. But wash me, O
Lord, in the bath of my tears, I pray Thee, and make the robe of my
flesh as white as snow.

15. When I examine my actions, O Saviour, I see that I have gone
beyond all men in sins; for I have sinned with knowledge consciously,
and not in ignorance.

16. Spare, spare, O Lord, Thy works. I have sinned; forgive me, for
Thou alone art pure by nature, and apart from Thee there is none
without defilement. (I Peter 3:21)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Is it possible for you to delete your post to me, please? It's waaay too long. I often post on FR using WEB-TV and your post prevents me from accessing anything else.

I assume it wasn't your intention to be rude, but many might construe this kind of spamming as just that. Linking to long articles is preferable for all.

Thanks in advance for your help.